185 replies to this topic

[DieChecker]

orangepeaceful79, on 26 January 2012 - 07:17 PM, said:

There is no actual evidence that anyone has ever seen a bigfoot.  Not a single shred that has ever stood up to peer review.

Even if it is delusion, or the Homeless, or guys in ape suits... people still see bigfoot year after year.

Neognosis, on 26 January 2012 - 07:31 PM, said:

It would be naive to believe that we have evidence for all those other creatures, yet not a single solitary piece of evidence showing any homninids came to North America same except for us.

I don't know if your above statements are even correct though.

So are you pleading ignorance?

I'll use the same arguement I have before. How much of the total fossil record do you believe we have dug up? With more then 99.9999% of North America never examined/dug up for fossils? Isn't it possible that that 99% still hides exotic animals we've not classified yet? If you say no, isn't that really just Arrogance?

Quote

No they don't.

There is usually some sort of evidence for things that can be observed. except for bigfoot. the only thing in this world that is observed, yet not in evidence.

Again with the broad idiotic statements... Aren't you the guy that find the tiny errors in peoples statements and trys to flay them for it? Then why do you continue to post statemenst like, "The ONLY thing in this WORLD that is observed yet not in Evidence." There are lots of this that are observed by unevidenced. You post wild generalization, when you should be posting specifics.

Aside from that rant... yeah, there is no good evidence for an ape creature. But, there is evidence that people see things. Are you going to denigh that these people aren't even seeing hallucinations, or the homeless, or just bears???
  

Quote

Point me at one mammal with the stomach acids required to eat rancid meat, one of the silly hypothesis put forth to explain how bigfoot eats all the dead bigfeets. The people who suggest this would tell you, quite aggressively, that just because no other mammal reproduces by budding, does not mean that an as yet undiscovered mammal couldn't do so, and you are closed minded if you don't agree.

There is totally making stuff up... and then there is stuff within zoological possibilities. Stomach acid is not growing wings. A mammal that reproduces by budding is not on the same idiot level as an ape living in a temperate zone.

I'm not one of those, "Eat their dead", guys by the way. I'd say it was idiotic, or naive. How would they possibly find each other. Finding another bigfoot for breeding purposes using communicion vocalizations or scents or at some breeding ground is hard enough to support, but that another bigfoot Beams Down and eats each and every dead bigfoot is really beyond what even I would defend as minutely possible.

[DieChecker]

grendals_bane, on 25 January 2012 - 10:47 PM, said:

Habitat

The Problem with this: Species that live in forested areas are usually smaller than those that live in open terrain. For example the African Forest Elephant is smaller than its open country counterpart. This is because size hampers movement through woodland. Also a tall biped would have a higher centre of gravity reducing an animals stability whilst traveling through potentially uneven terrain.

It popped into my head today that both Elk and Moose are large deer-forms that live in wooded areas. If living in northern temperate areas was limited by the forested environment, then Moose and Elk would have shown signs of shrinking over the last hundreds of thousands of years, which AFAIK is not the case. Thus the arguement that bigfoot would have shrunk due to having a hard time in the northern and temperate forests can be regarded as not necessarily true.

[grendals_bane]

DieChecker, on 28 January 2012 - 06:41 AM, said:

It popped into my head today that both Elk and Moose are large deer-forms that live in wooded areas. If living in northern temperate areas was limited by the forested environment, then Moose and Elk would have shown signs of shrinking over the last hundreds of thousands of years, which AFAIK is not the case. Thus the arguement that bigfoot would have shrunk due to having a hard time in the northern and temperate forests can be regarded as not necessarily true.

True, but as herbivores they are able to consume large amounts of food without significant waste of energy,the energy gained from what they have consumed can then be used for growth. The larger a herbivore is the harder it is for a predator to bring it down.

You also have to look at it relatively. So for my example with the Elephants, the African Forest Elephant is still a large animal, but is smaller relative to it's more open country counterpart.

Another example would be the Black Bear which is smaller than the Brown Bear, as it doesn't live in such dense forest.

A further example, would be with Humans. Many tribes who live in dense jungle or rainforests of the world are in general smaller in stature than those who live in more open terrain.

So, as Bigfoot is alleged to live in forests it would be expected that they would be smaller in stature than an open terrain counterpart, if one was available.

[orangepeaceful79]

DieChecker, on 28 January 2012 - 06:20 AM, said:

Even if it is delusion, or the Homeless, or guys in ape suits... people still see bigfoot year after year.


So are you pleading ignorance?

I'll use the same arguement I have before. How much of the total fossil record do you believe we have dug up? With more then 99.9999% of North America never examined/dug up for fossils? Isn't it possible that that 99% still hides exotic animals we've not classified yet? If you say no, isn't that really just Arrogance?


Again with the broad idiotic statements... Aren't you the guy that find the tiny errors in peoples statements and trys to flay them for it? Then why do you continue to post statemenst like, "The ONLY thing in this WORLD that is observed yet not in Evidence." There are lots of this that are observed by unevidenced. You post wild generalization, when you should be posting specifics.

Aside from that rant... yeah, there is no good evidence for an ape creature. But, there is evidence that people see things. Are you going to denigh that these people aren't even seeing hallucinations, or the homeless, or just bears???
  

There is totally making stuff up... and then there is stuff within zoological possibilities. Stomach acid is not growing wings. A mammal that reproduces by budding is not on the same idiot level as an ape living in a temperate zone.

I'm not one of those, "Eat their dead", guys by the way. I'd say it was idiotic, or naive. How would they possibly find each other. Finding another bigfoot for breeding purposes using communicion vocalizations or scents or at some breeding ground is hard enough to support, but that another bigfoot Beams Down and eats each and every dead bigfoot is really beyond what even I would defend as minutely possible.

The point that Neo was making is that until SOMEONE somewhere brings some peer reviewed evidennce to the table its all just a lot of marlarkey, from the fantastic to the probable.  IT doesn't matter until someone proves it.  Period.

[Neognosis]

Quote

I'll use the same arguement I have before. How much of the total fossil record do you believe we have dug up? With more then 99.9999% of North America never examined/dug up for fossils? Isn't it possible that that 99% still hides exotic animals we've not classified yet? If you say no, isn't that really just Arrogance?

But that's the problem... besides having NO evidence that an ape species except for us lived in North America a long time ago, we are also expected to pretend that it isn't damning that we haven't found a single shred of evidence for a species that is not only giant, but claimed to STILL BE LIVING AND LEAVING BEHIND EVIDENCE.

How do you reconcile the fact that we can and have found evidence of species that have stopped making dead bodies, yet absolutely nothing from a creature that is supposedly still dying and leaving corpses?

I also can't think of anything else that is observed, yet leaves behind no evidence. But I don't think bigfoot is even observed. I think he is misidentified, made up, and/or a trick of the eye and mind, compounded by an artificial sharpening of the memory with each retelling.

[Bavarian Raven]

Quote

Quote

Quote

My personal take (theory) on Sasquatch (from my own experience and from experiences of a couple other people i have had the pleasure of knowing) is that Sasquatch is basically human. IE, several thousand years ago (or possible even longer ago), Hypertrichosis (or another disease that causes you to be covered in hair) popped up in a tribe. Those several people were "forcefully" told you leave the tribe. (Because we all know how people like people that are different ). And basically they survived, snatching wives, etc, from other villages and continued to survive in the woods unto this day (there are stories of sasquatches stealing women from tribes for mates and this would make sense if they were 'humans', only different). Then, overtime, a few other mutations, etc, might have popped up. Just enough to make them look different, but yet still human-ish, imho. (I for one, again from my own experience think that the size estimates of the "creature" is overblown... but again, thats just me).
--------------------------------

What you are talking about here is a very very limited gene pool to be working with....hardly enough to keep a group going for thousands of years. So the large size is one of these " mutations" then? How do you explain the supposed sightings in so many places throughout the US?

This is an interesting theory. I have considered BF being some type of Wild or feral man. I don't think the 'people' you describe would have to be too mutated to pass as BF, I think fear and exaggerated memory recollection fills the rest in.
In your statement are you saying BF is (was) real?

The first post (theory) was mine.
And I would like to add (about the point of Sasquatches and their dead) that if 'Sasquatches' really are more human then we realize, then it would not be unreasonable for them to both be living in tiny family units and therefore bury their dead. Other earlier forms of humans buried there dead so that would not be unreasonable to assume.

Quote

Another example would be the Black Bear which is smaller than the Brown Bear, as it doesn't live in such dense forest.

Brown bears live in dense forests as well and there ranges often overlap with black bears...

And while on the topic of bears...

Quote

Point me at one mammal with the stomach acids required to eat rancid meat,

Brown bears/Grizzlies will often-times "bury" (cover) their kills and let them sit for a while to rot before returning to eat them. So I would assume there stomach acid allows them to eat partially rotten meat. (As an aside, vultures can also eat VERY rancid meat without any ill effects ).

Quote

Props to all those that support thier positions without sarcasm or name calling. This is what UM is all about. Bravo.

This.

-Bavarian Raven-

Edited for spelling.

Edited by Bavarian Raven, 28 January 2012 - 09:25 PM.

[DieChecker]

orangepeaceful79, on 28 January 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

The point that Neo was making is that until SOMEONE somewhere brings some peer reviewed evidennce to the table its all just a lot of marlarkey, from the fantastic to the probable.  IT doesn't matter until someone proves it.  Period.

True. But I'm here for discussion. And speculation is the root of discussion when evidence does not exist. Thus, I speculate. If Neo does not like my speculation, he is free to post rebutals or other discussion, but what he posts is definitive statements that are not true, and mainly opinion. He is the one saying, "Never, Nothing, Nowhere" when clearly people do report bigfoot and someone, even if it is hoaxers, makes those footprints. He would just rather dismiss the subject out of hand. I've always thought that was very un-scientific.

[DieChecker]

Neognosis, on 28 January 2012 - 06:16 PM, said:

But that's the problem... besides having NO evidence that an ape species except for us lived in North America a long time ago, we are also expected to pretend that it isn't damning that we haven't found a single shred of evidence for a species that is not only giant, but claimed to STILL BE LIVING AND LEAVING BEHIND EVIDENCE.

It is damning, and I've admitted that was my #1 reason to doubt bigfoot exists. Even if we had fossils of early hominids in NA it would not mean that BF is real today. And similarly if a real BF was caught today, it would only be speculation as to when their species came to NA.

Do you beleive that every single large mammal species (Barring close sub-species) of the Pleistocene in North America has been documented? No new large mammal forms will EVER be documented from the fossil record?

Quote

How do you reconcile the fact that we can and have found evidence of species that have stopped making dead bodies, yet absolutely nothing from a creature that is supposedly still dying and leaving corpses?

I obviously cannot reconcile and explain it. I can only offer speculations. Speculations you've scoffed at many times in the past, and thus I will not post again here.

Quote

I also can't think of anything else that is observed, yet leaves behind no evidence. But I don't think bigfoot is even observed. I think he is misidentified, made up, and/or a trick of the eye and mind, compounded by an artificial sharpening of the memory with each retelling.

Well, at least that is a proper answer rather then just saying, "Nope, impossible". Thanks!

Sorry if my previous posts were rude or inflamatory. I'm rattled sometimes at night after my 3 year old and 7 month old have finally been put to bed.

[orangepeaceful79]

DieChecker, on 28 January 2012 - 09:52 PM, said:

True. But I'm here for discussion. And speculation is the root of discussion when evidence does not exist. Thus, I speculate. If Neo does not like my speculation, he is free to post rebutals or other discussion, but what he posts is definitive statements that are not true, and mainly opinion. He is the one saying, "Never, Nothing, Nowhere" when clearly people do report bigfoot and someone, even if it is hoaxers, makes those footprints. He would just rather dismiss the subject out of hand. I've always thought that was very un-scientific.

Thats not my interpretation of what Neo is doing.  I think that his # beef with the whole bigfoot thing is when people get their facts confused with speculation and insist that something is proven when it isn't.  There was an orator that once said that "everyone can have their own opinion, but not their own facts."  Thats at the heart of the discussion for me.  I can't believe in it until its proven.  I won't believe in it even if I have an "encounter" because I wouldn't trust my own perceptions - mostly because I recognize that I honestly WANT it to be true.  So I'll go by the standards that are good enough for the scientific community.  when eveidence is found that stands up to peer review then I will accept Bigfoot's existence.

[Neognosis]

Quote

f 'Sasquatches' really are more human then we realize, then it would not be unreasonable for them to both be living in tiny family units and therefore bury their dead. Other earlier forms of humans buried there dead so that would not be unreasonable to assume.

But family cohesion and culture leave.... EVIDENCE.

The cornerstone of what makes us human is... CULTURE.

And again, culture leaves evidence.

How do you suggest that an entire species could exist next to us and be "more human than we realize" yet leave no evidence?

Not to mention that corpses that are buried are actually more likely to be discovered later, and in a better state to be identified than corpses that are just left to the animals and the elements.

[Bavarian Raven]

Quote

Quote

Quote
f 'Sasquatches' really are more human then we realize, then it would not be unreasonable for them to both be living in tiny family units and therefore bury their dead. Other earlier forms of humans buried there dead so that would not be unreasonable to assume.

But family cohesion and culture leave.... EVIDENCE.

The cornerstone of what makes us human is... CULTURE.

And again, culture leaves evidence.

How do you suggest that an entire species could exist next to us and be "more human than we realize" yet leave no evidence?

Not to mention that corpses that are buried are actually more likely to be discovered later, and in a better state to be identified than corpses that are just left to the animals and the elements.

Firstly, I will apologize for my rambling reply. It's been a long day and I need sleep - i'll probably come back tomorrow and clean it up.

Going along on my belief that Sasquatches are basically a wild-man style human with a few physical differences...If they are living in such a "less advanced" state - what physical hard evidence would they leave? A few sharpened rocks as cutting/scrapping tools? Probably (but would we be able to tell them apart from relic tools made by first nations? Especially if that is where they diverged from? It does not take that much skill to break a rock and get a serviceable cutting/scraping tool (it wont be anywhere near as good or long lasting or beautiful as a master knapper would make, but it would suffice and the good thing about stone is, when it's no longer usable, you can make a new one).

Shelters would be the best physical evidence left behind, especially in parts of the Pacific North West where caves do not abound. Though overhanging ledges make decent shelters from bad weather assuming they are not exposed (have used them myself a few times when sudden bad weather caught me off guard). What evidence would be left there by their passage? I am assuming some sort of mattress of boughs similar to one I would make. Probably hemlock boughs (they're the softest) with an under layer of moss and ferns. But once the creator of said nest is gone, it is hard to call that pile of woven branches evidence. Though there would also be traces of food (bones) left behind and possibly discarded parts of wild edibles (ie, the unedible bits such as glacier lily stems, etc) which all biodegrade quickly. Ie, both things most hikers tend to ignore when out in the back country...

Kill sites would be another source of evidence. But again, unless you catch the 'sasquatch' in the act or find gnawed on bones, it would be hard to tell what exactly killed said deer or mountain goat, etc. The remaining bones and the such would be quickly scattered by coyotes/wolves/'coons and the such. Dead things dont stay intact long out here unless buried by the snow or underground*.

They are not reported to use fire, so fire pits and the such don't count (strangely enough, there are a few tribes in Africa(location?) that also 'lost' the use of fire too :S ).

* As for the buried bodies, you are right, they would be more easily identified if they are discovered at a later date and not mistaken for a human skeleton (again, in my belief 'Sasquatches' are basically wild-men with a few physical differences, including an extreme covering of body hair, which would be beneficial for surviving in a damp, northern environment such as the Pacific Northwest). But, (i dont know about your hobbies :S), but I don't spend a lot of time randomly digging out in the back country around here and what digging I do is usually into old river benches for my prospecting hobby. .

Quote

The cornerstone of what makes us human is... CULTURE.

As an aside (not to stray too far off topic), I would argue morso that what makes us human is our ability to THINK and REASON.
But that's an argument for another topic.

Anyways, nice chatting with you all. Cheers and have a good night

-Bavarian Raven-

Edited for spelling.

Edited by Bavarian Raven, 29 January 2012 - 02:57 AM.

[Habitat]

Bigfoot is the adult equivalent of the "imaginary friends" of childhood, it's fun to pretend they're there, but we know it isn't really.

[coolguy]

bigfoot is real i was reading on another forum that the us forest rangers have to cover up the big foot story.when that home moive of bigfoot was taken back in the 60's
that was real also the bigfoot in that moive was a female..if it was faked the guy would have never chosen a female big foot to hoax

[U. N.Owen]

Has anyone noticed just how Amerocentric this whole debate is? Okay, so the term `bigfoot` belongs to North America - but I for one see the corresponding phenomena as a small part of the existence (or otherwise) of man-like apes in many parts of the world: Russia, China (where the government actively funds the search for the `wildman`) and Central Asia...and possibly even parts of Australasia.

The culture surrounding `bigfoot` may have become something of joke in media saturated North America, but, when for example the people of the Caucases speak casual of a wild hairy hominid living in their midst you do need to, at the very least, pause for thought. Then when a number of Western mountaineers of great repute (such as Sir Edmund Hilary to name but one) tell tales of yeti encounters in the Himalayas, then likewise.

Even the BBC naturalist David Attenborough said recently on live British television that he gave some credit to yeti reports. His reasoning was simple: there is not much incentive to fake footprints 19,000 feet up!

Now it is possible that man-like apes exist in, for example, parts of Asia but not for example, the Pacific Northwest - but it seems to me that if there is firm evidence for the former then the case for the latter is also strengthened.

As regards evidence for `bigfoot` (sasquatch) I would mention the existence, in Native American art, of depictions of man-like ape figures( alongside known animals) - created many many years before the hype surrounding the bigfoot phenomena. Now why?

Edited by U. N.Owen, 29 January 2012 - 06:12 AM.

[Habitat]

Sightings of bears could account for a lot of "bigfoot" sightings, not of the hoax variety. Mountaineer Reinhold Messner who made it something of a quest to find the "yeti", seems to have settled on bears as the likely explanation.