One of the biggest questions regarding the existence of a large bipedal ape in North America is where are the fossils? Skeptics like the point out the fact that there are no corpses found and suggest that there are no such things as Sasquatch. In a recent CharlotteObserver.com article by Brian Switek, author of the critically acclaimed "Written in Stone: Evolution, the Fossil Record, and Our Place in Nature," he writes that if Bigfoot were real, there would be ample evidence to support the existence of the creatures-- instead, all we have are questionable tracks and hair samples from amateur researchers:
If Bigfoot – also called Sasquatch – were real, there would be ways to detect the creature’s existence. For one thing, there would be a fossil record of large apes moving into North America, probably from Pleistocene Asia. But fossil nonhuman apes have never been found in North America.Since skeptics like to bring up the topic of the lack of evidence supporting the existence of Bigfoot, we figure this would be a good time to bring up the great debate between a skeptic name Lord Bearclaw of Gryphon Woods and Lord Matt Moneymaker of the BFRO. If you have never read it, it's an exciting read filled with smack talking and juggling of positions.
Field biologists study elusive living species by using camera traps, analyzing genetic data from scat, and following footprints. There should be a wealth of compelling evidence from such sources – but all we have is an abundance of purported sightings.
Given the number that Sasquatch clubs busy themselves with, I should be able to look out my window each morning and see Sasquatch families raiding my trash cans for leftovers. Bigfoot aficionados protest that they have found tracks, hair and other evidence. But photos show nothing more than a lack of rational skepticism.
The repost from December 27, 2011 is below:
In August, we posted an article about an answer from the Yahoo Answers community debating the existence of Bigfoot. Yahoo Answers Top Contributor Lord Bearclaw of Gryphon Woods racked up a ton up-votes in the category, so we decided to re-post his answers along with the following rebuttal from president of the BFRO, Matt Moneymaker.
When Lord Bearclaw of Gryphon Woods stumbled onto our article with his answers, he was a bit upset and wished we had warned him in advance before the ambush.
The next time you feel like posting something I have written on a site like this, I would like to know in advance so this can be an actual debate instead of an immature rant.
For Mr. Moneymaker's information, I am a 40 year old Licensed Nurse, with over twenty years experience in the woods and wilds. Anyone wishing to debate this matter intelligently can contact me via Lord_Bearclaw@yahoo.com.
Lord Brion Bearclaw
We're going to send Lord Brion Bearclaw an email along with this post and see if he will add anything else to the following debate from August 21, 2011:
Here's the question posted on Yahoo Answers:
Did we descend from the sasquatch? its been disproved that we descend directly from apes as we still live along side them, and people often discount the possibility of the sasquatch. is it possible we descend from them, hence missing link, if they existed. this is all theory here with a lot of people, even though i do believe bigfoot existed and still COULD exist today even though science "disproves" it. so main question is, is it possible we descended from the sasquatch?
And here is skeptic Lord Bearclaw of Gryphon Woods’ answer, along with Matt Moneymaker’s comments:
Skeptic: Bigfoot is not real. For any species of that size to actually exist requires shelter, food, and warmth.
A community of primates has to breed to continue their existence, and the numbers necessary for species viability preclude any single small community of Sasquatch. Such a species would need to breed in order to maintain population levels and to offset the death rate from age, sickness, accidental death, and even homicide.
MM: Correct, but if you believe that bigfoot researchers claim there is only one single small community of them, then you are engaging in your own fantasy, because no one makes that claim.
Skeptic: Such a large community would require massive amounts of food to sustain, and even if they were strictly vegetarian they would strain the resources of any given area within weeks and would be constantly on the move, foraging and gathering.
MM: This statement is copied from other ignorant skeptic claims, all of which all false. There are other large omnivores in North America too. None of them manage to strain the resources of a given area. They are all on the move, but most remain in the same 2 mile radius most of their lives.
Skeptic: Yet there is no forensic evidence of any kind of a nomadic primate tribe anywhere.
MM: On the contrary, there is loads of forensic evidence. Meldrum's lab is not full of annecdotal evidence.
Skeptic: Instead of finding one or two isolated “footprints” we would have come across whole trails of Sasquatch prints, and such trails would be stripped completely bare of any edibles, and would also contain piles of droppings and fur samples caught on the trees and bushes.
MM: It's extraordinary how ignorant most skeptics are. These statements exemplify that typically smug ignorance of most skeptics. Lines of tracks have found several times. Bushes and trees with berries or fruits are found systematically picked. Hair samples have been found and collected.
Skeptic: No such evidence has ever been found.
MM: Wrong. Those sorts of things have been found many times.
Skeptic: Supposed hair samples of “unknown origin” have been long held up as “evidence”, yet I cannot find one actual report from any scientific lab about such hair samples.
MM: That's right. You can't those reports, even though they do exist and have been mentioned in newspapers over the years. An analysis of a hair sample doesn't necessarily lead to a full blown "report" and notes about those analyses aren't necessarily published online. This skeptic makes loads of assumptions.
Skeptic: As for warmth, even a Sasquatch would find it difficult to stay warm in the Pacific Northwest during the rainy seasons. Even a core temperature drop of just three to four degrees can result in hypothermia and death.
MM: So by this same logic ... bear, deer, elk and humans could not have survived in North America without living in caves during the rainy seasons.
Skeptic: This would mean that any sizeable community would invariably seek shelter of some type during inclement weather, and any member of the community that died would have one of two things happen to their corpse: one, they would be left behind where they died, or two, if the community was carnivorous the corpse would simply be eaten. However, all stories indicate that such creatures would be vegetarian or omnivorous at best, and not aggressively carnivorous.
MM: These skeptical statements reveal a curious phenomena among skeptics. Some make authoritative-sounding statements that reveal a total lack of familiarity with the topic about which they pontificate. This one goes beyond that. It's totally deceptive. "All stories indicate that such creatures would be vegetarian" clearly demonstrates that this person is not familiar with any observations by witnesses, because many of them suggest a connection with deer and predation on deer.
Skeptic: The reason for this is because there are no attacks. A carnivorous community would doubtless find it much easier to raid a human dwelling and carry off the inhabitants for food, especially during winter.
MM: Again, the anonymous skeptic reveals an embarrassing lack of knowledge about North American ecology. There are mountain lions throughout the western mountains, yet attacks on humans are exceedingly rare, but by the logic of this ignorant skeptic, humans would be routinely killed by mountain lions, especially in Winter. The fact is ... those places where mountain lions reside have abundant natural food supplies. The same applies to bigfoots.
Skeptic: Such behavior would be on par with bear learning that it is easier to raid villages and garbage cans than to hunt for themselves. After all, it would be much easier to attack an isolated home than to run down deer through snow.
MM: That sure sounds logical, but it proves that this skeptic has no clue about wildlife populations, and especially predator populations, in North America.
Skeptic: The fact that there are absolutely no corpses found means only one thing: there are no such things as Sasquatch.
MM: Corpses don't remain corpses for very long, as any ecologist will tell you. A rare population would not leave behind many remains. There are no fossils of chimps or gorillas either.
Skeptic: We have already ruled out carnivorous disposal of deceased members, and such creatures would likely not “bury” their dead, as they could only dig with their hands and any such “grave” would be shallow at best.
MM: This "skeptic" is probably no more than 13 years old, judging by the laughable stupidity of his statements. To him it's a foregone conclusion that you need a shovel to dig a deep hole, and that shovels are the only tools that would allow someone to dig.
Skeptic: Such creatures would not be intelligent by any stretch of the imagination, at least not by human definitions, because even Cro-Magnon man made and used tools. Yet not one sample of a Stone Age tool has been found in the woods that isn’t an actual relic from the Stone Age, certainly nothing made in the last two hundred years that wasn’t easily identifiable as having Native American origins. No shovels, no hammers, no axes, no spears. So if they are not intelligent enough to use tools, then they are certainly not intelligent enough to completely conceal their existence or to dispose of their dead in such a manner as to preclude discovery of the corpse.
MM: These skeptical statements are so speculative and presumptive that they don't even deserve a response. Even well-read skeptics would find these statements absurd and amateurish.
Skeptic: With the numbers needed to maintain genetic viability of such a community, nutritional requirements, and the need for shelter as well as forensic evidence, it is flat-out impossible that we would not have found or captured a living Sasquatch by this time, especially with the sheer number of hikers, campers, hunters, ATV enthusiasts, forest rangers, Bigfoot “hunters”, people who live in homes deep in the woods, scientists, etc. etc. etc.
MM: Again, this skeptic is pretty clearly a child who is very unfamiliar with the topic, and unfamiliar with any of the related scientific disciplines, such as ecology and zoology.
Skeptic: There is only the flimsiest “evidence”, consisting mainly of easily faked photos and video footage, usually blurry and at a distance, and isolated “prints” again easily faked, that are never part of an actual trail. Any outdoorsman worth his salt would find it easy to track such a large creature, especially considering that in order to have survived all these millennia it would require a large community to maintain species viability.
MM: More ignorant spoutings by a frustrated child. The only thing it demonstrates is the lack of moderation on "Yahoo Answers". Anyone can post anonymously. That opens the door for amateurish claims such as those made by this pubescent poster.
Update: Lord Bearclaw responded in the comments section and we've moved his response here.