Source
r/bigfoot•
pressmore

Suppressed Archaeology

I'm not sure if people on here know this but there have been multiple instances of archaeologists ignoring and even destroying evidence that doesn't match their theories.

It should be obvious this is nothing new given the history of universities, but just letting you know when someone says "There is no evidence" of bigfoot.

http://www.germanicmythology.com/original/RanheimSite.html

Just an example of Norwegians destroying their own culture because someone said so. Lucky that it even got in the news. I bet a majority of these type of events are not even reported.

Posted Feb 9, 2016, 10:33 PM UTC

932
Pangs•

Where is the evidence of archeologists destroying anything because it didn't match their theories?

How does this have anything to do with the fact that nobody is covering up bigfoot evidence?

6
pressmoreOP•

There is no evidence of them destroying anything but it is strongly suggested. There are old newspaper articles of old caves and other archaeological things that seem to have mysteriously disappeared or never have existed.

They are rare and few in-between, but they are out there. It's your choice if you want to believe it or not.

When you have scientists say things like the DNA on this hair is 99% human, what do you think they mean? Chimps have 98% the same DNA as human. If they wanted you to piss off because they are hiding something they can just say the truth but in a very misleading way. I would like to see the actual results on the hair and how they determined it being "99%" human, but they don't show these things. They just expect you to believe them. When they claim all the evidence is faked, what do you think they would do when they come across what looks like evidence? If they see a bigfoot track or some suspicious hair do you think they would take photos and document it or purposely destroy it? They would just assume it faked and destroy it.

7
Pangs•

You don't understand how DNA testing works.

14
barryspencer•

You can't conjure Bigfoot into existence by invoking a scientific coverup conspiracy.

5
pressmoreOP•

No. I'm just stating that don't be dissuaded from believing or questioning ideas just because someone tells you there is no evidence.

5
barryspencer•

Well, if someone tells you there is no evidence for x, and you can't cite any evidence for x, then you shouldn't believe x.

1
technicalityNDBO•

You seem to be confusing the lack of belief in X with the belief that X does not exist. It seems like you're saying that the latter is the only alternative to believing bigfoot exists. Most of us skeptics on here are more along the lines of the former.

1
aazav•

Honestly, I've looked at cro magnon and neanderthal faces as these are among the closest extinct members of our lineage and am concerned that all current facial reconstructions are largely inaccurate.

If we look at the brow ridges, eye socket size and the large nasal cavities, we have indicators of a facial structure maybe about 1/3 of the way to looking apelike.

Now, I do have a degree in biology, but I don't put flesh on bones for a living.

What I've seen in facial reconstruction appears to be decidedly human looking, while the facial bone morphology indicates to me that these reconstructions are too human looking.

I think that some of the evidence we are looking for is already in front of us when comparing human, chimpanzee, cro magnon and neanderthal skulls.

I'm suspecting that the neanderthal and cro magnon looked significantly less human than we expect. That's my hypothesis.

6
clrlmiller•

While the Neanderthal were a distinct species from us, Cro-Magnon was us as a Hunter Gatherers and not a separate species. The fact that most of humanity also carries bits of Neanderthal DNA would also point that we're likely not very different facially or bodily. It's even been said a Neanderthal in a crowd of modern humans would be difficult to identify. Hell, the fact that they were a different kind of human wasn't even certain until DNA and Genomic testing could be done to verify. Before that, most of science wasn't really sure.

1
pblood40•

Institutional orthodoxy is sometimes harder to break through than religion.

No one wants to be wrong.

4
skwagner•

How is this an example of "Norwegians destroying their own culture because someone said so"? Could you explain what you meant by that?

2
aether_drift•

There is no scientifically valid evidence for bigfoot. There is anecdotal evidence out the ass, but this is used to support the following statement: "There IS a large bipedal ape-like creature roaming the forests of North America."

People use everything from eyewitness testimony, to grainy film and photograph images, to tufts of indeterminate hair, and footprints to support this statement. And they are making a conceptual error.

Because it's not science, it's backwards thinking. The statement "There is NOT a hairy bipedal ape-like creature roaming the forests of North America" has 100% support so far. This statement of the question has been tested over and over and has never once been rejected.

Each time we do a DNA test and it comes back as an animal/human/indeterminate, each blobsquatch image, and every game camera photograph that doesn't unambiguously show a bigfoot supports the null hypothesis.

So if you think about this mystery scientifically, the null hypothesis has withstood some 50 years of near constant testing and not once failed. Another few decades and it will be up there with relativity or quantum mechanics in terms of sturdy hypotheses.

But has it been "proven"? Wrong question. Science does not prove, it only gathers evidence in favor of support or rejection. So far, the evidence gathered is insufficient to reject the null hypothesis and it therefore stands (by far) the more supported of the two statements.

Using the notion of destruction of evidence as support of the "there IS a sasquatch" will lead nowhere at all scientifically. It's a dead end and waste of time frankly.

Sorry if I come off curmudgeonly today, I'm just frustrated by how the interwebs discuss evidence. I am massively rooting for sasquatch to exist and think we should look. But in my opinion, this entire inquiry is a mess when it comes to the scientific method...

1
pressmoreOP•

Each time we do a DNA test and it comes back as an animal/human/indeterminate

And what if the difference between Big Foot and us is practically not visible in these tests? We define "human" DNA by taking the common DNA from all different population on the planet. That is giving the human genome a pretty damn wide range.

Considering we have hobbits that count as human. I seriously doubt that big foot has some genes that don't already exist somewhere in humans.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2303479/The-Ecuadorian-dwarf-community-immune-cancer-diabetes-hold-cure-diseases.html

0
Pangs•

Those people are not hobbits. Damn.

You have no idea how DNA works.

2
pressmoreOP•

Wanna enlighten me then?

0
Pangs•

Not really. It's pretty clear you aren't interested.

2
aether_drift•

Well, Denisova, Neanderthal, and very likely the Red Deer Cave people would be (a) totally distinguishable from modern homo sapiens somatic DNA (b) surely belong to an uncatalogued mtDNA line and (c) not be related to any known Y-DNA haplogroup. Any find in sasquatchery that revealed a human DNA line different from those globally established thus far would be major headline news in the biology journals... So far, all DNA claimed to be squatch is from known human cell lines.

Meaning it's not just like us - it is us.

The physical and behavioral traits attributed to sasquatch are clearly much greater than even those we can attribute to Neanderthal or Denisova from the fossil record. And Neanderthal and Denisova are definitively distinguished from modern human DNA, to the point of a test being purchasable at 12andMe. I am 2.8% Neanderthal for example, almost exactly the European average.

Also, earthworms have some genes that humans have. So sharing genes is not sufficient to establish a species relationship...

The human genome in fact has very low variation, much lower than dogs. Europeans and Asians are even closer (by far) than Sub Sahara Africans because the founder effect AND near extinction bottleneck events have reduced genomic diversity. So the idea that sasquatch would not be clearly distinguished from h. sapiens is surely wrong. If true - then then we are no longer claiming Sasquatch as a separate species but a tribe of humans.

This is clearly is not the scientific hypothesis being claimed or even tested.

1
tigertts•

Thanks Pressmore for this topic and Aether_Drift (among others) for your thoughtful responses. I think “evidence” can be ignored (or destroyed) accidentally via ignorance or negligence or possibly even intentional malice. It does not imply the existence of anything; it just deprives us of information. (e.g. a blood or tissue sample from a crime scene from the 1960’s might be disposed of because DNA tests did not exist at the time) Also like Aether, I am “frustrated by how the interwebs discuss evidence” but I am also frustrated by the discussion of science and “proof” as well. This is a large topic that I won’t even pretend to try and cover it here, but will add a couple of thoughts (with a broad brush).

I agree with Aether that science has a specific role, to examine and test evidence that either supports or does not support a concept. By nature of this role, science is a naturally a skeptic that only agrees with the truth of a subject when almost all doubt is swept away. When it comes to new ideas and discoveries, science is the last one to the party. That is, science is wrong until it gets it right (unless it was right all along of course.) Unfortunately, “institutional orthodoxy” is a problem and scientists that report unexpected findings and early adopters of those findings are often ridiculed to a high degree. (See Fleischmann–Pons, Barry Marshall). But in the end, science will get things right.

I am glad that you brought up the Denisovans – you make good points about its DNA. Additionally, it is an example Pressmore’s premise. In 2000, archeologists in the Denisova cave discovered a large molar that was thought to be from a cave bear. In 2010, scientists announced the discovery of a finger bone fragment of a juvenile female (dug up in 2008), which proved to be a new Hominid species. Only after this discovery did they go back and test the tooth which also turned out to be Denisovan. In other words, archaeologists ignored evidence of an entirely unknown species that did not fit their preconceptions, until they discovered and tested the finger bone.

The Denisovan molar that was originally thought to be from a cave bear had approximately 2x the bite area and 4x the volume of a Homo sapiens molar. Yet I have not heard anyone discuss how large this individual must have been. For comparison, cave bears were 8-10 feet tall and up to 1000 pounds. I am no expert in this but it seems to be at odds with your statement that “The physical and behavioral traits attributed to Sasquatch are clearly much greater than even those we can attribute to Neanderthal or Denisova from the fossil record.” Neanderthal yes, but the three Denisovan bones (its entire fossil record) point to a very large bipedal human. This does not mean there is any link between Sasquatch and Denisovans, but it does indicate large humans are not unknown in this world.

One last thought is that “claiming Sasquatch (is not) as a separate species but a tribe of humans” does not seem to be out of the question. For example “lion killer” apes were stuff of “legend” before being “discovered” in the 1990’s. Instead of hiding in trees to escape predation, they slept openly on the ground and hunted lions and leopards. They are Bad Ass Mo Fo’s and much bigger and stronger than chimps. Now known as Bili Apes they were thought to be a cross between gorillas and chimps, but DNA testing has shown them to be East African Chimps that look and act very differently.

Is Sasquatch the Bili Ape to the Homo sapiens? It is certainly worth entertaining the idea. When it comes to Bigfoot, there is plenty of time to continue to examine evidence as it comes in and even to go search for evidence in a meaningful way. And I think science will get it right in the end.

1
aether_drift•

But there is no scientific evidence or basis to assert anything about Sasquatches at this point. Before claiming squatch is part of homo, part of pan, part of an entirely new branch of primate, we need SOME kind of evidence - and it simply does not exist.

So to bring in "Forbidden Archaeology" is just conspiracy speculation on top of biological speculation. Because have that Denisova tooth, Neanderthal DNA, and we have Billi Ape specimens. All the "evidence as it comes in" has not in fact risen to the level of evidence. I'm as sorry to say it as anybody. Sasquatch has no place in scientific discourse until it can be demonstrated to exist. Which frankly, is not a very high bar.

This kind of discussion belongs on AM radio along with Chupacabra and people claiming to be from the future. It's part of the "Paranormal Entertainment Complex" at this point. All the idiotic television shows, most of the podcasts, web sites, and "reports" are utter hogwash and a mockery of the scientific method. They actually hurt, rather than help, establish the species.

The basic claim of Sasquatch is incredible. A large undiscovered mammal in North America is already HIGHLY unlikely. But a bipedal intelligent one - be it relict homo or pan troglodytes on steroids - is up there with alien contact: fucking spectacular, unprecedented, historic.

When I think of all the people running around in the forest looking for this thing and posting blurry photos, footprints, and hair that so far always tests out to be a known animal - I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry at this point.

1