284 replies to this topic

[Insanity]

Clobhair-cean, on 08 November 2012 - 07:47 AM, said:

Bigfoot is nonsense. Firstly, there is no contemporary evidence for it. A few pieces of shaky footage, some footprints and hair samples that don't have DNA in them or are contaminated are not evidence. Secondly, we have no evidence from the fossil record that any ape-like creatures existed in North America. We have a pretty good idea, for instance, about the pleistocene fauna, but there is no bigfoot in the La Brea tar pits, not even a monkey.

If this were a criminal investigation being discussed, everything you just mentioned would be submittable as evidence, however, it is only after the examination by qualified individuals, who have the proper knowledge, training and experience to examine the type of evidence at hand, can it be determined if the evidence is of sufficient quality to be usable, and if so, what that evidence reveals.

Dentists have a high degree of scientific training and education for their line of work, but no one would give them shell casings to examine and then ask for their expert analysis.

In the case of this 'anthropology' investigation, the experts who should be examining the evidence are those who have experience and knowledge in certain fields, including but not limited to; anthropology, primatology, ecology, evolutionary biology, and biomechanics.  There are people with such experience who have examined, and continue to examine, the evidence; Jeffrey Meldrum, Grover Krantz, Geoffrey Bourne, John Napier and Jimmy Chilcutt to name a few.  They tend to agree that there is an undocumented large primate in North America, but of course a specimen is needed to document it.

Individuals who wish to discount their analyses are free to do so, but it does not refute their analyses in anyway.  Those interested in refuting them, should review the same evidence, and be someone with at least the same experience and knowledge, and then detail their own analysis.  If not, any statement made is really a personal opinion, and does not lend much.

Quote

Thirdly things about it just don't make sense. Thousands of people have been looking for it in the last fifty or so years, without any success. Let's compare this with another large ape, the Bili Ape. One researcher went to the Congo in the mid-1990s to investigate native stories about a large ape that's not a chimpanzee or a gorilla. On his first trip, he found a skull and managed to buy perfect quality trail camera photos (This one: http://img180.images...oapenormqi5.jpg compare it with the blobsquatches), take casts of footprints and collect fecal samples. He gathered more evidence in one trip that exists about bigfoot altogether. In 2000, he went back and found ground nests belonging to the animals. After the end of the civil war, yet another trip saw the animals, confirmed them to be an anomalous, isolated population of huge chimpanzees that have been studied ever since. Why was Karl Ammann successful? Because the animals he was looking for were real.

Ironically, this is an example of a large non-human primate, previously undocumented by science, being recently discovered, is it not?

Quote

But there are other things that make no sense about bigfoot, all of which have been discussed ad nauseam on these boards. Every anima (including humans)l in the US is hit by cars from time to time, but not bigfoot.

There are reports of Sasquatch passing in front of vehicles, nearly being hit, and at least two reports of vehicles hitting them.

From the North American Bigfoot Search records.

• 1996-08-00; FL, Gadsden; road crossing bigfoot hit by state trooper's car and tourists on a bus watch it go into the woods.
  
• 1977-08-00; FL, Collier; police car hits a bigfoot, blood, hair found.

While unfortunately no bodies or samples were recovered it seems, these type of accidents have been reported.

Quote

There is no sign that bigfoot eats anything, because our understanding of the ecosystem doesn't seem to have an ape-shaped gap.

I am not certain what you are trying to say here.

Quote

Most bigfoot sightings are near large population centres, which suggests that someone would have taken at least a clear photo of it. Everyone has cameras now.

While sightings may occur near large population centres, most of them, if any, do not occur within them.  Most sightings take place in heavily wooded, or rugged areas, the type of environment most people do not routinely go to.  It is not too surprising that many sightings are reported by hunters, campers, or hikers.  They are in the right environment.

Contrary to what may be widely believed that everyone owns either a digital camera or some type of mobile device with a built in camera, the fact is, not everyone does.

InfoTrends reported that in 2009, 95% of the cameras purchased were purchased by households that already had one.

Experian reported that in 2011, 227 million people owned a cell phone, but doesn't state if these are devices with cameras or not.  If you want to assume they are, then given that the population of the USA was around 311 million in the middle of 2011, that gives about 73% of people owning a cell phone with a camera at the time.

In 2003 only 30% of USA households owned a digital camera.

I do agree that a majority of the population does have either a phone or device capable of imaging, but saying everyone has one is not accurate.

Even when someone has a sighting, not everyone walks around with the device already filming or ready to snap a photo that instant.  Sightings that do get captured on film or other imagery, the viewers often had their device out for other reasons.

Quote

And I don't really buy that cultures all over the world have such stories. There is a "hairy wild man" archetype in folklore, but its existence doesn't have to refere to anything real (animals are hairy and are wild, so a wild man would also be hairy, to distinguish it from just "man"). I also believe that bigfoot proponents consciously and unconsciously interpret all such stories as bigfoot-like, while in reality there aren't many similarities between the stories, they just project their biases onto these tales.

Have you made a study of these cultural stories and done comparative research, or at least read any comparative research done by other individuals?

[Slave2Fate]

Insanity, on 08 November 2012 - 07:59 PM, said:

In the case of this 'anthropology' investigation, the experts who should be examining the evidence are those who have experience and knowledge in certain fields, including but not limited to; anthropology, primatology, ecology, evolutionary biology, and biomechanics.  There are people with such experience who have examined, and continue to examine, the evidence; Jeffrey Meldrum, Grover Krantz, Geoffrey Bourne, John Napier and Jimmy Chilcutt to name a few.  They tend to agree that there is an undocumented large primate in North America, but of course a specimen is needed to document it.

Individuals who wish to discount their analyses are free to do so, but it does not refute their analyses in anyway.  Those interested in refuting them, should review the same evidence, and be someone with at least the same experience and knowledge, and then detail their own analysis.  If not, any statement made is really a personal opinion, and does not lend much.

And what of their peers who say that Bigfoot doesn't exist? Are we to ignore their professional opinion in favor of these few? An appeal to authority can go both ways.

[Insanity]

Slave2Fate, on 08 November 2012 - 08:33 PM, said:

And what of their peers who say that Bigfoot doesn't exist? Are we to ignore their professional opinion in favor of these few? An appeal to authority can go both ways.

Have they reviewed the same evidence?  By review, of course, do their own analysis, vs. reading others and discounting it at first glance.

Edited by Insanity, 08 November 2012 - 08:40 PM.

[pokingjoker]

i must confess when i started this thread i wasn't sure what type of responses i would get. I would like to thank everyone for the time and thought they have thrown into this. One would think that yes with so many people in america someone would have taken a great photo, or video or proof of some such. I would like to point out one fact. Bigfoot is an wild animal if it exists. Humans are not. We could not compete with a creature in the wild, With that being said there are a few humans who could hunt track survive out there, but our senses are diluted to living in safe communities with many others for safety, while a bigfoot would be solitary, or some believe small family type groups,  survival means not being seen heard etc.... I myself use to be an avid outdoorsman, personal injury limited my time outdoors the last few years. you can have a deer or bear or any animal literally 5 feet in front of you and never know it, not always but by the time you bring up the gun the animal is gone, so what difference is a camera vs gun? obviously not always or id be a piss poor hunter huh., but a successful hunt is done why? knowledge passed throughout the years, observing the animals, outthinking them. now WHAT IF the animal is just as smart as us? or smarter?

[Slave2Fate]

Insanity, on 08 November 2012 - 08:38 PM, said:

Have they reviewed the same evidence?  By review, of course, do their own analysis, vs. reading others and discounting it at first glance.

The inconclusive DNA evidence and the like? What evaluation is there to be made from inconclusive DNA? The hair samples that haven't yielded anything substantial? The depressions in the soil that might be from an actual creature? I'm not even going to bother mentioning the photographic evidence.

Let's not forget the closely guarded evidence that proponents say is definitely conclusive yet those who hold it won't release any of it for independent verification or study. I'm really not seeing anything substantial as far as evidence goes. I do however see people looking to cash in on the myth around every corner. That's not to say that there aren't legitimate researchers out there but one has to wonder how much of the evidence has been flat out fabricated.

[Rafterman]

pokingjoker, on 08 November 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

i must confess when i started this thread i wasn't sure what type of responses i would get. I would like to thank everyone for the time and thought they have thrown into this. One would think that yes with so many people in america someone would have taken a great photo, or video or proof of some such. I would like to point out one fact. Bigfoot is an wild animal if it exists. Humans are not. We could not compete with a creature in the wild, With that being said there are a few humans who could hunt track survive out there, but our senses are diluted to living in safe communities with many others for safety, while a bigfoot would be solitary, or some believe small family type groups,  survival means not being seen heard etc.... I myself use to be an avid outdoorsman, personal injury limited my time outdoors the last few years. you can have a deer or bear or any animal literally 5 feet in front of you and never know it, not always but by the time you bring up the gun the animal is gone, so what difference is a camera vs gun? obviously not always or id be a piss poor hunter huh., but a successful hunt is done why? knowledge passed throughout the years, observing the animals, outthinking them. now WHAT IF the animal is just as smart as us? or smarter?

Perhaps, but let me point out that there are an awful lot of wild animals that get strapped across truck hoods, hung on living room walls, and carved up at the dinner table each and every year.

If Bigfoot is just as smart or smarter than us, he would still be found.  There just aren't enough places left to hide in North America anymore - particularly given (and I'm beginning to sound like a broken record here) this thing is reportedly SEEN EVERYWHERE.

[Gaden]

pokingjoker, on 08 November 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

i must confess when i started this thread i wasn't sure what type of responses i would get. I would like to thank everyone for the time and thought they have thrown into this. One would think that yes with so many people in america someone would have taken a great photo, or video or proof of some such. I would like to point out one fact. Bigfoot is an wild animal if it exists. Humans are not. We could not compete with a creature in the wild, With that being said there are a few humans who could hunt track survive out there, but our senses are diluted to living in safe communities with many others for safety, while a bigfoot would be solitary, or some believe small family type groups,  survival means not being seen heard etc.... I myself use to be an avid outdoorsman, personal injury limited my time outdoors the last few years. you can have a deer or bear or any animal literally 5 feet in front of you and never know it, not always but by the time you bring up the gun the animal is gone, so what difference is a camera vs gun? obviously not always or id be a piss poor hunter huh., but a successful hunt is done why? knowledge passed throughout the years, observing the animals, outthinking them. now WHAT IF the animal is just as smart as us? or smarter?

None of this is evidence supporting the existence of bigfoot.
I can not imagine an animal as smart or smarter than me that does not use tools or build dwellings. It's the natural progression of things.
We can find millions of year old fossils, we can find 1000's of year old bones, middens, scat, foundations for buildings, arrow heads, stone, bone, wooden and antler tools of all kinds. But we can't find one single bone from a bigfoot?

[Bling]

I think there's something there, a creature we've not yet totally discovered. There's been so many sightings that I personally feel the need to keep an open mind about.

[R4z3rsPar4d0x]

Sweetpumper, on 08 November 2012 - 05:56 PM, said:

They're real, it's just hard to pin them down when they use dimensional portals to come and go as they please.

I agree

[psyche101]

pokingjoker, on 08 November 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

i must confess when i started this thread i wasn't sure what type of responses i would get. I would like to thank everyone for the time and thought they have thrown into this. One would think that yes with so many people in america someone would have taken a great photo, or video or proof of some such. I would like to point out one fact. Bigfoot is an wild animal if it exists. Humans are not. We could not compete with a creature in the wild, With that being said there are a few humans who could hunt track survive out there, but our senses are diluted to living in safe communities with many others for safety, while a bigfoot would be solitary, or some believe small family type groups,  survival means not being seen heard etc.... I myself use to be an avid outdoorsman, personal injury limited my time outdoors the last few years. you can have a deer or bear or any animal literally 5 feet in front of you and never know it, not always but by the time you bring up the gun the animal is gone, so what difference is a camera vs gun? obviously not always or id be a piss poor hunter huh., but a successful hunt is done why? knowledge passed throughout the years, observing the animals, outthinking them. now WHAT IF the animal is just as smart as us? or smarter?

If the animal was smarter than us, why would a smarter larger and stronger animal allow us to take the lead? To my understanding, that is not how an apex predator behaves. Would Bigfoot not want a nice house with a fridge, a warm winter fire and a plasma telly?

And if not smarter, why not scavenge our waste like every other animal on the planet?




I think if humans found themselves in the wild that they would band together as they always have done to overcome obstacles.

Edited by psyche101, 08 November 2012 - 11:06 PM.

[Insanity]

Slave2Fate, on 08 November 2012 - 08:55 PM, said:

The inconclusive DNA evidence and the like? What evaluation is there to be made from inconclusive DNA? The hair samples that haven't yielded anything substantial? The depressions in the soil that might be from an actual creature? I'm not even going to bother mentioning the photographic evidence.

Let's not forget the closely guarded evidence that proponents say is definitely conclusive yet those who hold it won't release any of it for independent verification or study. I'm really not seeing anything substantial as far as evidence goes. I do however see people looking to cash in on the myth around every corner. That's not to say that there aren't legitimate researchers out there but one has to wonder how much of the evidence has been flat out fabricated.

Inconclusive is just that, inconclusive, and does not support or deny anything.

Hair analysis does require samples to compare to, and without a sample to compare another to, it is extremely difficult to come to any conclusion based on hairs.
DNA analysis is not much different, while it is possible to analysis samples and determine if the sample is similar to existing known species, determining the species is difficult, if not impossible, without a sample to compare to.

Hair, DNA, and other sample types might be interesting, but are likely never to be sufficient.  A specimen, live or dead, perhaps even individual pieces of a skeleton, such as a skull, are needed to prove the existence.

Unfortunately, in recent times, many people have portrayed hoaxes for no other reason to gain either money, some fame, or both.
Among the scientific community, there are likely many individuals who could lend more assistance into the investigation, but even in science there are 'acceptable subjects' and boxes, and steeping outside of those can quickly lead to a lost of position in their field.

[Sakari]

pokingjoker, on 08 November 2012 - 06:51 AM, said:

While I  do see where your coming from. many cultures did indeed perceive a dragon type animal alive and out there why...the obvious answer is there were many skeletons and bones found of dino and newer but unexplained to them. a society that has no real notion of time....stories passed from great great great grandfathers versus thousands to millions of years, so bones must come from a creature of now. Science believes dragons are an instinctual fear of giant snakes and birds of prey combined. Stories of bigfoot date back centuries and persist into to todays modern society and cultures.

Links please ( and historical ones, not bigfoot/crypto links as sources )

I believe you have been caught hook, line, and sinker by the BFRO and such sites on this loose translation of " stories dating back "......

coolguy, on 08 November 2012 - 05:48 PM, said:

i know a cop in PA and he saw  one of these things years ago they are very real.
if something dies in the woods it will be eaten with in a week.
  i saw this on a tv show they put a dead deer in the woods with a camera and it was goone in 4 days

Strange, I bow hunted for over 20 years, and bird hunted.....I found skeletal remains of all sorts, all the time. As a matter of fact, I live on the Pacific Northwest, and have nothing but forest around me, and Highway 101 about 1/4 mile down our easement. Highway 101 is a death trap for deer.( and other animals )....We had ( one example ) one hit by our easement last year, was a favorite little fawn we had visit. Body was off the road, in the trees....I believe one of the legs are still there.,,,,Over a year ago actually.

[keninsc]

Unfortunately, there is no hard evidence to prove the existence of such a creature. Yeah, I know there are fuzzy videos and blobby pictures which can either be faked very easily or simply misidentified. Footprints? Footprints you say? There have been many cases of people who have admitted they have faked them. We have one guy here who openly boasts about having his own Bigfoot suit that he uses. Whether or not that is true or him just being obtuse I can't answer. Eyewitness'? Look at how many people claim to be eye witness to crimes and when they tell their stories then they're not completely correct. Fear, surprise and some just lying like rugs for their fifteen minutes of fame. Who's lying and who isn't? Beats me, some you can almost see the lie on their face and others you can't. Who's lying and who's mistaken? You can't always tell.

At best, there is only enough to make you wonder if it could all be fakes or mis-identification or if maybe some of it is the real deal, and that's at best.

If you listen to the latest, so called experts, the BFRO, then according to them there are Bigfoot everywhere.......except where they actually point a camera. Keep in mind the only one of these guys who is actually some what qualified to speak on the subject is the female Renae, not sure if I spelled her name right or not, at least she has a biology degree........but her background is in fish.......yes, fish.

Bobo, graduated high school, Cliff did go to college but his degree is in something else, and Old Mat the Moneymaker (sorry but he really should consider using a stage name) was/is an attorney. Which means he doesn't know anything about anything except the law. Most lawyers I know are good people, but they are pretty limited outside the realm of legal practice.

Edited by keninsc, 09 November 2012 - 01:51 AM.

[WatchingTheStars]

Here is my input on the discussion.

I admit, I do not believe in Bigfoot. Here are the breakdown of the reasons why:

There's just been no conclusive evidence of Bigfoot. Yes, I know that absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. However, I just find it hard to believe in a creature that is not proven and has not been proven for years.
Also, the argument of "it's really good at hiding from us" is a little blurry to me. There are thousands of reports each year, probably even more than that. There are hundreds if not thousands of videos and pictures of Bigfoot. So...does that mean its bad at hiding from us? And yet it can hide conclusive evidence to prove its existence from us. So, does it measure the efficiency of how it hides from us so it can get away with reports, videos, and photos, but not actual absolute data? That makes pretty much no sense to me. We've been combing the forests for decades looking for Bigfoot and nothing.

And the idea that a hairy man-ape walking through the forest doesn't make sense to me. Where would it fit in the ecosystem? Why hasn't it evolved like us? How would it be suited to its environment? How about intelligence? Compared to us? I'm not a biologist or anything so I'm ignorant on these things.

The culture thing doesn't really do much for me. For my creations of drawing or writing, I usually just take something that has inspired me and change it and change it until it becomes something new. I don't see why ancient people/cultures can't do the same thing. A storyteller could see a bird and make a new art piece of an ancient colorful fiery flying spirit from it or tell a story of an giant talking bird with the head of a monkey that takes young girls. It could weave itself over time into a often told story of the people.

However, I respect peoples' belief in Bigfoot. That's why I don't argue with someone who believes in Bigfoot and try to get them to not believe in it. I understand their belief and I have no right to change it.

So that's my opinion.

[psyche101]

Insanity, on 08 November 2012 - 07:59 PM, said:

If this were a criminal investigation being discussed, everything you just mentioned would be submittable as evidence, however, it is only after the examination by qualified individuals, who have the proper knowledge, training and experience to examine the type of evidence at hand, can it be determined if the evidence is of sufficient quality to be usable, and if so, what that evidence reveals.

Whilst it may be submittable as evidence, the quality described would be unlikely to be a convincing factor in the end decision. All such evidence has been submitted, examined, and offered no more than additional questions. That is those that do not outright dismiss it based upon their level of expertise.

Incidentally, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, it is responsible for 75% of wrongful convictions that have been overturned by DNA evidence.  

Insanity, on 08 November 2012 - 07:59 PM, said:

Dentists have a high degree of scientific training and education for their line of work, but no one would give them shell casings to examine and then ask for their expert analysis.

They would not be the first port of call, however this is not the case. Professional anthropologists largely deny that the submitted evidence is in support of an unknown hominid. A few fringe elements does not validate the pursuit just as overwhelming disagreement on the validity of the proposal has not hampered investigations.

Insanity, on 08 November 2012 - 07:59 PM, said:

In the case of this 'anthropology' investigation, the experts who should be examining the evidence are those who have experience and knowledge in certain fields, including but not limited to; anthropology, primatology, ecology, evolutionary biology, and biomechanics.  There are people with such experience who have examined, and continue to examine, the evidence; Jeffrey Meldrum, Grover Krantz, Geoffrey Bourne, John Napier and Jimmy Chilcutt to name a few.  They tend to agree that there is an undocumented large primate in North America, but of course a specimen is needed to document it.

Whilst they agree, decades of research has not at all produced one irrefutable piece of evidence to support their positions. And some are downright whacky, thinking of Farhenbach.

This is a very small number of professionals in the big picture. For every Meldrum and Napier, there is ten David Daegling and Daniel Schmitt's.
We hear much more from the small contingent chasing the dream than we do form the entire community, simply because an overwhelming number of professionals saying "no way" is not newsworthy.

Insanity, on 08 November 2012 - 07:59 PM, said:

Individuals who wish to discount their analyses are free to do so, but it does not refute their analyses in anyway.  Those interested in refuting them, should review the same evidence, and be someone with at least the same experience and knowledge, and then detail their own analysis.  If not, any statement made is really a personal opinion, and does not lend much.

I beg to differ, if the analysis is done properly, and is in depth, it should be easy enough for any person to completely understand it, such is the point of the analysis to begin with. If one understands it, then one can refute it.

But, every single analysis is "inconclusive" so it's a mute point really. Nobody even knows what they are looking at, but some have steered their logic to be supportive of the ambiguous items and have convinced themselves that "inconclusive" = "Bigfoot".

If there was viable information out there, the question would not remain. It is impossible to prove a negative, so Bigfoot remains in the hearts and minds of those who have affiliated themselves with the ideal.

Insanity, on 08 November 2012 - 07:59 PM, said:

Ironically, this is an example of a large non-human primate, previously undocumented by science, being recently discovered, is it not?

Indeed, pont being that the conditions under which it was found are much harsher than the places Bigfoot is claimed to have been seen. Rather than the principal of the argument, the environment is the deciding factor here.

Insanity, on 08 November 2012 - 07:59 PM, said:

There are reports of Sasquatch passing in front of vehicles, nearly being hit, and at least two reports of vehicles hitting them.

From the North American Bigfoot Search records.

• 1996-08-00; FL, Gadsden; road crossing bigfoot hit by state trooper's car and tourists on a bus watch it go into the woods.
  
• 1977-08-00; FL, Collier; police car hits a bigfoot, blood, hair found.

While unfortunately no bodies or samples were recovered it seems, these type of accidents have been reported.

Unconfirmed reports that amount to no more than hearsay.

Insanity, on 08 November 2012 - 07:59 PM, said:

I am not certain what you are trying to say here.

I believe the point there was that there is no evidence that Bigfoot eats anything. The ecosystems is perfectly balanced. There is no gap of missing food to feed a group of unknown primates. No drop on any species numbers, no impact on vegetation  Unless Bigfoot survives on pine needles and Ice, there is not evidence that he has ever eaten anything.

Insanity, on 08 November 2012 - 07:59 PM, said:

While sightings may occur near large population centres, most of them, if any, do not occur within them.  Most sightings take place in heavily wooded, or rugged areas, the type of environment most people do not routinely go to.  It is not too surprising that many sightings are reported by hunters, campers, or hikers.  They are in the right environment.

That is not what the maps say.



Why would Bigfoot not move closer to cities to take advantage of garbage dumps?

How can the sightings maintain such a high number, if Bigfoot is seen in remote out of the way places? If remote, then people are scarse. So who is seeing and making all these reports?




Facts N’ Fun Stuff

• There are over 400 reports a year of Bigfoot sightings

LINK

Insanity, on 08 November 2012 - 07:59 PM, said:

Contrary to what may be widely believed that everyone owns either a digital camera or some type of mobile device with a built in camera, the fact is, not everyone does.

InfoTrends reported that in 2009, 95% of the cameras purchased were purchased by households that already had one.

Experian reported that in 2011, 227 million people owned a cell phone, but doesn't state if these are devices with cameras or not.  If you want to assume they are, then given that the population of the USA was around 311 million in the middle of 2011, that gives about 73% of people owning a cell phone with a camera at the time.

In 2003 only 30% of USA households owned a digital camera.

I do agree that a majority of the population does have either a phone or device capable of imaging, but saying everyone has one is not accurate.

Even when someone has a sighting, not everyone walks around with the device already filming or ready to snap a photo that instant.  Sightings that do get captured on film or other imagery, the viewers often had their device out for other reasons.

Not everyone needs a camera, people in NYC would be included in that number, but not likely to see Bigfoot. It is hard to imagine people going to these places for the scenery, but not capturing it. I would like to see a figure on how many hikers and camper carry a camera as opposed to the general population. The general population does not see Bigfoot so the statistic does not apply.

Or, monitoring an alleged "hotspot" specifically as opposed to saying "The PNW is vast!" Again, the entire PNW does not hold Bigfoot, so the comparison is invalid.

Insanity, on 08 November 2012 - 07:59 PM, said:

Have you made a study of these cultural stories and done comparative research, or at least read any comparative research done by other individuals?

Yes, and the large spectre figure features heavily in human history and myth. It's a scary connotation. This seems to be a personified extension of that myth. More evidence leans toward that conclusion than does for Bigfoot being a real creature.