Bigfoot: real or myth? -- Why? -- Why not?

[ChewiesArmy]

I just have a hard time disregarding so many eyewitness accounts, especially from rangers and hunters. I have run into black bear in the woods, a few times, and I have never had a doubt about what I saw. A bear is a very unmistakable animal.

[Myles]

I just have a hard time disregarding so many eyewitness accounts, especially from rangers and hunters. I have run into black bear in the woods, a few times, and I have never had a doubt about what I saw. A bear is a very unmistakable animal.

The problem is that these eyewitnesses are in every state in the country. Every country in the world for that matter. The mind can play tricks on you.

[scowl]

Only a small portion of the Earth has been geologically explored, and none to sufficient detail.

"Sufficient detail"? To find a lumbering 8-9 foot primate stomping around populated areas? Nearly all the forests here in the Pacific Northwest have been either burned down or harvested in the past 120 years. Every square mile has been investigated for the possibility of mineral resources. I'm willing to say that this area has been very well explored.

This is not proof for the existence of Sasquatch, but even if it does exist or had existed, having the expectation that fossils or bones should have been discovered is perhaps an over-expectation.

Remember, we're talking about a very large primate who is eating a lot of food every day and is competing with other wild life. Even if we never saw it, it would either have ecological impact or it would be extinct.

[scowl]

What specifically do you mean? Many primate species exhibit bipedalism to varying degrees.

The degree that Bigfoot exhibits is pure bipedalism which makes it unlike other primates.

[Insanity]

"Sufficient detail"? To find a lumbering 8-9 foot primate stomping around populated areas? Nearly all the forests here in the Pacific Northwest have been either burned down or harvested in the past 120 years. Every square mile has been investigated for the possibility of mineral resources. I'm willing to say that this area has been very well explored.

Remember, we're talking about a very large primate who is eating a lot of food every day and is competing with other wild life. Even if we never saw it, it would either have ecological impact or it would be extinct.

Geologically explored, in the sense of excavating, uncovering fossils and remains, whether purposefully or not. Only a small fraction of the fossils and remains that may exist have been uncovered.

How would you propose we could be aware of any ecological impact of such a species if it did exist?

[Night Walker]

What specifically do you mean? Many primate species exhibit bipedalism to varying degrees. Any species within the order Primates, or only within Hominoids?

Surprise me - any predominantly bipedal, tail-less, human-sized or greater, non-modern-human primate fossil or remains within the Americas will do.

Of course, petrified giants have been found in the past but that only goes to show how much folk enjoy messing with other folk throughout history. Has anything really changed?

[Stardrive]

Can you point to any fossil evidence of bipedal primates (not modern Homo sapiens) within the Americas? Or is that just a crazy and unfounded minor detail?

{insert obvious answers here}

So almost everyone else is mistaken or faking it except you and your "class A" sighting buddies - is that right?

That is correct, we just want to be on TVnot.

[Night Walker]

Fascinating...

[keninsc]

I just have a hard time disregarding so many eyewitness accounts, especially from rangers and hunters. I have run into black bear in the woods, a few times, and I have never had a doubt about what I saw. A bear is a very unmistakable animal.

Ordinarily, I would agree with you. You sound like you can keep your wits about you and see with your rational eyes. What happens to a lot of people is they get pumped, adrenaline begins to flow and suddenly they've lost a little of their ability to see what's really there. I never will forget being out on a hike with a couple buddies and we had a very close encounter with a group of dogs who were chasing some Ferrel hogs. Needless to say it was an intense encounter and we all had to climb trees to get out of the danger zone. I will say it's incredible to watch a pack of dogs pounce on, kill and eat a medium size hog. Any way after it was over and we were able to climb down and head back to our camp we talked about what we'd seen. We'd seen basically the same thing, but our accounts varied wildly. Now if you'd had us all write down what we saw, you'd figure out that we'd seen pretty much the same encounter, but the Devil was in the details. Number of dogs, color of the hog, size, and the kill act.

A little fear, mix in some adrenaline, and you have the beginnings of a good story. I recall hearing an account of a friend of mine who'd gotten lost and encountered a bear. While remembering can completely true and accurate, accounts can chane with time.

[conspiracy buff]

As with most mythological creatures, bigfoot may very well be a real creature that exists. There have been tons of eyewitness accounts of similar bigfoot-like animals all over the world. However, there is very little evidence for such a creature. I don't believe all the eyewitnesses are making it up, we just haven't found the solid proof needed to verify such a claim. The big piece of evidence needed is an actual body or the remains of a bigfoot that science can say, yep, it's a real creature that has remained unfound until now. Proof is the key here and until there is solid proof, it's just a good mythological story.

[Q-C]

As with most mythological creatures, bigfoot may very well be a real creature that exists. There have been tons of eyewitness accounts of similar bigfoot-like animals all over the world. However, there is very little evidence for such a creature. I don't believe all the eyewitnesses are making it up, we just haven't found the solid proof needed to verify such a claim. The big piece of evidence needed is an actual body or the remains of a bigfoot that science can say, yep, it's a real creature that has remained unfound until now. Proof is the key here and until there is solid proof, it's just a good mythological story.

Give Rick a minute.

[scowl]

As with most mythological creatures, bigfoot may very well be a real creature that exists.

So "most mythological creatures" actually exist?

Wouldn't that disqualify them for being mythological?

[Night Walker]

[Q-C]

Foots bake, toooo!?

[DKO]

Are there gay bigfoots that are better groomed and smell nicer than the usual stinky ones?.... is summat I've been wondering. Bigfoot with a quiff, that sort of thing.

Apparently there are.

[ChewiesArmy]

Ordinarily, I would agree with you. You sound like you can keep your wits about you and see with your rational eyes. What happens to a lot of people is they get pumped, adrenaline begins to flow and suddenly they've lost a little of their ability to see what's really there. I never will forget being out on a hike with a couple buddies and we had a very close encounter with a group of dogs who were chasing some Ferrel hogs. Needless to say it was an intense encounter and we all had to climb trees to get out of the danger zone. I will say it's incredible to watch a pack of dogs pounce on, kill and eat a medium size hog. Any way after it was over and we were able to climb down and head back to our camp we talked about what we'd seen. We'd seen basically the same thing, but our accounts varied wildly. Now if you'd had us all write down what we saw, you'd figure out that we'd seen pretty much the same encounter, but the Devil was in the details. Number of dogs, color of the hog, size, and the kill act.

A little fear, mix in some adrenaline, and you have the beginnings of a good story. I recall hearing an account of a friend of mine who'd gotten lost and encountered a bear. While remembering can completely true and accurate, accounts can chane with time.

Very good point. I understand that eyewitness accounts, especially under stress are very unreliable, but not every hunter, ranger, or even police offcer were under these conditions. Some were under very relaxed conditions in very open areas, and in daylight. They could all be lying, but doubtful. Not to mention, I would assume that the mannerisms of a Bigfoot are very different than a bears. Bears are quite clumsy and slow when walking on two feet and many acoounts describe how the animal stayed on two feet and were quite fast. Also, you all might have differed on color, number of dogs, and the size of the pig, but none of you wrote that an elephant was attacked by a pack of lions. You all recgonized the animals...just not the fine details.

I am skeptical about bigfoot, especially when somebody claims to have seen one outside of the plausible area, like outside the upper NW. But, I just think about all of the sightings, and how not everybody is looking for fame, and not every sighting was simply mistaken identity. Not to mention that there have supposedly been hair samples that have been tested for DNA with nothing matching.

[keninsc]

Both my friends who told me of their encounters with a Bigfoot, were both very calm about the actual encounter, at least in their cases fear, or possibly down right terror didn't settle in on them until after the fact, causing them both to give up hunting, hiking and trapping. In a way I can see it but also in a way I just don't get it. I do get fear very well, I can tell you some war stories that would curl your hair and I also understand about delayed reactions to a fearful situation. However, they just saw a creature, granted a rather elusive creature, but they weren't attacked by it, threatened by it, or even hit on by the gay Bigfoot, all they did was see it. I never was able to talk to either one of them in depth about the experience. I have often wondered why they were so effected by just seeing such a thing.

However, after having seen the way they reacted to their sighting, it's given me pause to wonder if this isn't the basis of the myth about Bigfoots having telepathy or super natural powers as in some of the legends of the NA peoples.

[Myles]

Very good point. I understand that eyewitness accounts, especially under stress are very unreliable, but not every hunter, ranger, or even police offcer were under these conditions. Some were under very relaxed conditions in very open areas, and in daylight. They could all be lying, but doubtful. - Not really. If it were real, we may have 20X the sightings. Not to mention, I would assume that the mannerisms of a Bigfoot are very different than a bears. Bears are quite clumsy and slow when walking on two feet and many acoounts describe how the animal stayed on two feet and were quite fast. Also, you all might have differed on color, number of dogs, and the size of the pig, but none of you wrote that an elephant was attacked by a pack of lions. You all recgonized the animals...just not the fine details.

I am skeptical about bigfoot, especially when somebody claims to have seen one outside of the plausible area, like outside the upper NW. - There are more sightings outside the upper NW than in the upper NW. Also all through the world.But, I just think about all of the sightings, and how not everybody is looking for fame, and not every sighting was simply mistaken identity. Not to mention that there have supposedly been hair samples that have been tested for DNA with nothing matching. - You are confused. That is the common Bigfoot enthusiast excuse. In reality, it is that they could not identify the hair sample.

[conspiracy buff]

So "most mythological creatures" actually exist?

Wouldn't that disqualify them for being mythological?

No, I didn't say that. What I did say is like most mythological creatures of lore and legend, there is a POSSIBILITY of their actual existence. Please, if you are going to quote me, take the time to fully digest what it is that I actually said and not what you thought I did. Go back and read my original post. I never said all mythological creatures are real. In fact, I said the opposite. While there is a possibility for these creatures to be real, the burden is finding proof of them. Which so far, has not been provided. Hence, they are still classified as myths and legends until there is direct evidence for their existence.

Edited April 6, 2013 by conspiracy buff

[Stardrive]

Fascinating...

Not even half as fascinating as his encounter.... there are several aspects of it I'm intrigued with.

Edited April 7, 2013 by Stardrive

[Insanity]

Surprise me - any predominantly bipedal, tail-less, human-sized or greater, non-modern-human primate fossil or remains within the Americas will do.

Of course, petrified giants have been found in the past but that only goes to show how much folk enjoy messing with other folk throughout history. Has anything really changed?

True that no ape fossils have been found in the Americas, though recently in 2011 a lemur or lemur-like fossil was found in Texas, which is of some interest as lemurs are now only found on Madagascar. Mescalerolemur horneri, which according to those who found it, appears to be more closely related to Eurasia and African primates than the known North American primates, which there are a few other fossils. While lemurs today are fairly small, at least one species achieved a large size, Archaeoindris fontoynontii, which lived up to about 350 BCE. Its extinction is thought to be due to the arrival of humans on Madagascar. A. fontoynontii was about the size of a male gorilla, possibly ranging from 150 to 190 kg, and having a short tail unlike many other lemurs. The only known fossil primate possibly larger than A. fontoynontii was Gigantopithecus blacki. Certainly not definitive by any means, but of interest that a family of primates in which the capacity of a large size does exist has had a presence in North America.

In any regards, using the lack of fossil evidence to conclude that a particular species can't or doesn't exist is not convincing. Looking at South America, the land of monkeys, which has about 140 primate species, categorized into 10 genera and 5 families. South America's primate fossil record is very short, and currently has only 2 or 3 families (there is one uncertain with no placement), 8 genera and 10 species. None of the living species or genera appear in the fossil record, and only 2 of the living families appear in the fossil record. By the logic, 'if it is not in the fossil record, it does not or can not exist', is obviously incorrect. The fossil record is by no means a complete record, and whether or not it is adequate depends on who you ask and is not completely agreed upon.

[Swede]

True that no ape fossils have been found in the Americas, though recently in 2011 a lemur or lemur-like fossil was found in Texas, which is of some interest as lemurs are now only found on Madagascar. Mescalerolemur horneri, which according to those who found it, appears to be more closely related to Eurasia and African primates than the known North American primates, which there are a few other fossils. While lemurs today are fairly small, at least one species achieved a large size, Archaeoindris fontoynontii, which lived up to about 350 BCE. Its extinction is thought to be due to the arrival of humans on Madagascar. A. fontoynontii was about the size of a male gorilla, possibly ranging from 150 to 190 kg, and having a short tail unlike many other lemurs. The only known fossil primate possibly larger than A. fontoynontii was Gigantopithecus blacki. Certainly not definitive by any means, but of interest that a family of primates in which the capacity of a large size does exist has had a presence in North America.

In any regards, using the lack of fossil evidence to conclude that a particular species can't or doesn't exist is not convincing. Looking at South America, the land of monkeys, which has about 140 primate species, categorized into 10 genera and 5 families. South America's primate fossil record is very short, and currently has only 2 or 3 families (there is one uncertain with no placement), 8 genera and 10 species. None of the living species or genera appear in the fossil record, and only 2 of the living families appear in the fossil record. By the logic, 'if it is not in the fossil record, it does not or can not exist', is obviously incorrect. The fossil record is by no means a complete record, and whether or not it is adequate depends on who you ask and is not completely agreed upon.

Some notes:

Some of the earliest primates (such as adaptids and omomyids) are known from North America. Bear in mind however, the landform matter during the relevant time period.

M. horneri has been classed as an adaptid and dated to circa 44-41mya (Williams and Kirk 2008 in Kirk and Williams 2011:157).

M. horneri, like the omomyids, was quite small (chipmunk/squirrel size) and likely primarily arboreal. The proximal/distal lengths of the P4/M1 fall into the 2-3mm range.

There has been debate as to the place of the adaptids in the primate line. Recent research presented by Seiffert et al has indicated that the adaptids represent a case of convergent evolution and, as such, are an extinct clade (Seiffert et al 2009) and thus not ancestral to lemurs.

.

[Insanity]

Some notes:

Some of the earliest primates (such as adaptids and omomyids) are known from North America. Bear in mind however, the landform matter during the relevant time period.

M. horneri has been classed as an adaptid and dated to circa 44-41mya (Williams and Kirk 2008 in Kirk and Williams 2011:157).

M. horneri, like the omomyids, was quite small (chipmunk/squirrel size) and likely primarily arboreal. The proximal/distal lengths of the P4/M1 fall into the 2-3mm range.

There has been debate as to the place of the adaptids in the primate line. Recent research presented by Seiffert et al has indicated that the adaptids represent a case of convergent evolution and, as such, are an extinct clade (Seiffert et al 2009) and thus not ancestral to lemurs.

Correct, it has been classified as an adaptid, and I believe in the same article (Journal of Human Evolution, 2011, 156-158) the phylogenetic shows it is more closely related to Eurasian and African adapiforms than the North American notharctines. It does provide evidence of faunal exchange between North America and East Asia during the middle Eocene.

I was not suggesting that M. horneri was of a large size, and I did say family when I believe I meant suborder, as M. horneri and A. fontoynontii are both classified in the Strepsirrhini suborder.

[Night Walker]

Insanity - Thanks for your reply but I think the answer you are looking for is "No - there are no fossils or remains of any predominantly bipedal, tail-less, human-sized or greater, non-modern-human primate fossil or remains within the Americas"...

Not even half as fascinating as his encounter.... there are several aspects of it I'm intrigued with.

That really depends on which part of the "mystery" one finds most fascinating...

intrigue

n.

a. A secret or underhand scheme; a plot.

b. The practice of or involvement in such schemes.

v.intr

To engage in secret or underhand schemes; plot.

http://www.thefreedi...ry.com/intrigue

[Insanity]

Insanity - Thanks for your reply but I think the answer you are looking for is "No - there are no fossils or remains of any predominantly bipedal, tail-less, human-sized or greater, non-modern-human primate fossil or remains within the Americas"...

I believe I said that when I said no ape fossils have been found, if you want to add in human-sized or larger, I can.

Still, as many living species do not have fossil evidence, to make any conclusion simply based on the record is not convincing.