Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 2 votes

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


  • Please log in to reply
517 replies to this topic

#211    Q-C

Q-C

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 5,517 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:41 PM

View PostStardrive, on 10 April 2013 - 09:29 PM, said:

Objection your honor, the prosecution is baiting the witness....  :lol:

It would sleep in a place it feels most safe. Say, a cluster of large downed trees surrounded by thick underbrush.

How it could go undetected is by having the ability to manipulate the resources within it's environment to suit it's needs.

All speculation of course   :innocent:

Ah! But does this giant creature always have optimum options? I wouldn't think so. It is not like looking for place to hide if one is a rabbit.
I've baited no one. What is wrong with my "picture" ?
It is everywhere, not just in optimum hiding conditions for it's size. Whatever they might possibly be.

Edited by QuiteContrary, 10 April 2013 - 09:44 PM.

Bigfoot is in the eye of the beholder

Scottish Scientists Only!

#212    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 20,276 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 11 April 2013 - 02:05 AM

View PostInsanity, on 10 April 2013 - 09:09 PM, said:

To catch prey.  Ambush predators must hide in order to catch prey, tigers are ambush predators and can weigh 700 lbs.  Even though they are endangered, if they were not, that would not change how they hunt.

No, it wouldn't.  It would definitely continue to ambush prey.

So, where are the reports of people being ambushed by Bigfoot?  Or, if Bigfoot is the perfect hunter, where is the missing chunk in the ecosystem that would indicate a large (abnormally so) predator in a sustainable (heck, even semi-sustainable) population living in any given area?  Why hasn't a baby Bigfoot, unwise in the ways of man and naively unsuspicious of meat simply lying out there in the open, stumbled into an animal trap?

Quote

The assumption that all large animals do not need to hide is not accurate, and is dependent on the definition of large.

The only relevant definition is large in comparison to the danger they are put in.

Quote

That probably depends on what you mean by large.

What else could it possibly mean?  There is no objective definition of "large".  It always has to do with comparison.

Quote

I'd agree that a 3,500 kg rhinoceros probably doesn't have much need to be exceptionally stealthy.

Not with its normal predators, no.

Quote

A 160kg white-tailed deer does have a need to be stealthy.  Somewhere between 160 to 3,500 kg a prey animal doesn't need to rely on stealth as much, but where?

Where the prey's size advantage dissuades the predator's likelihood of attacking.  Don't focus so much on weight.  It's size, mass, that matters.  An individual wildebeast can easily be taken down by two or three lions, but the lions will be very wary of attacking a sizeable herd (alternatively, they will eye an tiny calf with interest).

Quote

If it exists, it doesn't need to be prey for it to have a need to be stealthy or quiet.

We just don't see it happening any other place.  It is pretty specific behaviour.

Quote

Again, this depends on your definition on large.

Already covered.

Quote

This doesn't answer the question.  Which was, if there was a large chunk, I believe it was in reference to food sources originally, missing, how would we be aware of it?

Remember all those scientists, writing down everything they can about whatever animal, vegetable, or mineral they are studying?

One of the things many other fields (such as forestry, nature conservacies, and wildlife management) take great interest in are population numbers, predator:prey ratio, and, of course, sustainability, of which food supply is an integral part.  This is particularly true in areas where nature is close to airports or shipping docks, where the likelyhood of a foreign species decimating the local population is higher.

Quote

Guessing is a synonym of speculation.

In the same way that possibility is a synonym of probability.  And I did not say "guessing".  I said, "educated guess".

Quote

I used speculation, you used educated guesses, they are synonyms.

Not quite, in regards to scientific contex.  Speculation generally goes beyond what is defensible with the evidence available, and tends to be more of an opinion than a conclusion.  An educated guess, however, is based on existing evidence, what we may have on it (taking into account that it may well be incomplete).  Educated guesses have a high likelyhood of being valid formal hypothesis.  Speculation can help point the way, but it has nowhere near the power and credibility of an educated guess.

Quote

Gorillas usually flee humans rather than charge, why is that?

Because they figured out that humans pose a rather large threat to them.

At least, some of them did.  The ones who live in areas where poaching is prevalent did (though, again, not all of them, as Jane Goodall so poignatly pointed out when she befriended a tribe of them).

The apes living in preserves where they never had to fear man...don't fear man.  Indeed, they show a fair amount of curiousity towards them.

Touched by a Wild Mountain Gorilla

Quote

It is about both actually.

Possibilities are a dime a dozen.  Anything is possible, which doesn't do much to limit our investigation parameters.  You won't find possibilities anywhere in a research paper, save in the last paragraph where they talk about future possible directions of research, pending funding, of course.


#213    Insanity

Insanity

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 601 posts
  • Joined:17 Sep 2012
  • Location:Tau Ceti

  • "Men of broader intellect know that there is no sharp distinction betwixt the real and the unreal..." - H.P. Lovecraft, "The Tomb", Published 1922

Posted 11 April 2013 - 03:41 AM

View Postaquatus1, on 11 April 2013 - 02:05 AM, said:

Remember all those scientists, writing down everything they can about whatever animal, vegetable, or mineral they are studying?

One of the things many other fields (such as forestry, nature conservacies, and wildlife management) take great interest in are population numbers, predator:prey ratio, and, of course, sustainability, of which food supply is an integral part.  This is particularly true in areas where nature is close to airports or shipping docks, where the likelyhood of a foreign species decimating the local population is higher.

What I am specifically asking is that are there reports estimating the amounts of wild edible food sources?  

I know there are reports on the estimates of animal populations, I've drawn research from several, but I am not aware of any reports on the amount of acorns present in the Eastern United States, or on the amount of wild apples and pears in the Pacific Northwest.  These would need to be considered in any attempt to find this 'missing large chunk' as they are indeed potentially available food sources, as many primates are either herbivores or omnivores.  Tarsiers are the only carnivorous primate.  As there are thousands of edible wild plant species, measuring all of them would be infeasible, and you would need to measure as many as possible.  You'll also need to know the amount that was there before it was eaten by all the various wildlife, and then after it was eaten.  Not all wild plants remain edible or produce fruit at the same time, so this operation would need to be conducted on a fairly regular basis, and the more species being measured, the more often it would need to be done.  Go out on count apples during the fall twice, go out and count blueberries during the summer twice.  Maple tree seeds are edible, and some produce their seeds in the spring, some in the fall.  Then once you have done all that measurements, you have to then be able to determine which portion of the consumed food sources was eaten by bears, deer, even smaller animals, even potentially people and then somehow say "Everything is reasonably accounted for by all the known species, therefore there is no Sasquatch."

I have done food consumption measurements in a lab setting, and the process was you weigh the food container with the food in it, place in the animal's cage, after whatever duration you are measuring over, you remove the container and weigh it again.  The difference is the amount the animal ate.  We measured it quite accurately because it was a controlled setting.  If there was two animals, we would split the difference, often by individual body weights as larger animals do eat more.  When you have potentially tens of millions of animals of several different species feeding off thousands of plant species, how would you separate out who ate how much of what?

In this scenario, you'll be working with estimated populations of deer, bears and whichever other known species and we may not even know how accurate those estimates are, and the same applies with the estimated food sources.  Some species like raccoons, which are quite likely very plentiful and I doubt we even have estimated population numbers for them, would contribute to what is being eaten.  The missing chunk may very well fall within the standard error of the project and we'd never know the difference.

My opinion is that this type of evidence is quite probably something we can not reasonably measure.
If so, the absence of such evidence does not equate to evidence of absence.

I may be wrong, but if there are reports describing any such project over a suitably large area, measuring several different species, and that it is conducted on at least an annual basis, let me know.

"We see things only as we are constructed to see them, and can gain no idea of their absolute nature. With five feeble senses we pretend to comprehend the boundlessly complex cosmos, yet other beings with wider, stronger, or different range of senses might not only see very differently the things we see, but might see and study whole worlds of matter, energy, and life which lie close at hand yet can never be detected with the senses we have." - H.P. Lovecraft, "From Beyond" Published 1934

#214    Stardrive

Stardrive

    Resident Bass Guitarist

  • Member
  • 3,267 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 11 April 2013 - 04:59 AM

View PostQuiteContrary, on 10 April 2013 - 09:41 PM, said:

Ah! But does this giant creature always have optimum options? I wouldn't think so. It is not like looking for place to hide if one is a rabbit.
You just gave me an idea, thanks!

Quote

I've baited no one. What is wrong with my "picture" ?
I was just kiddin QC. Your picture looks fine and your stunning as usual.

Quote

It is everywhere, not just in optimum hiding conditions for it's size. Whatever they might possibly be.
I'll put it to you this way. If it preys on deer, what if it had the ability to build something that would completely hide them, but allow them to see out, so they could observe and track it's prey undetected. Whatever they might be is right, I've come up with 2 possibilities.

Posted Image

#215    Q-C

Q-C

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 5,517 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

Posted 11 April 2013 - 05:21 AM

View PostStardrive, on 11 April 2013 - 04:59 AM, said:

You just gave me an idea, thanks!


I was just kiddin QC. Your picture looks fine and your stunning as usual.

stunning isn't usual for me


I'll put it to you this way. If it preys on deer, what if it had the ability to build something that would completely hide them, but allow them to see out, so they could observe and track it's prey undetected. Whatever they might be is right, I've come up with 2 possibilities.

Their own hunting blind? Portable?

Bigfoot is in the eye of the beholder

Scottish Scientists Only!

#216    Q-C

Q-C

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 5,517 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

Posted 11 April 2013 - 07:55 PM

The upper limbs of Australopithecus sediba suggest they could hang underneath branches.
Just think of what just one bigfoot skeleton (or parts of one, skull, teeth) could tell us about these creatures!

http://lightyears.bl...saic/?hpt=hp_c3

Bigfoot is in the eye of the beholder

Scottish Scientists Only!

#217    pokingjoker

pokingjoker

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 111 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:38 PM

ha i was just gonna post bout the Australopithecus sediba. An interesting find.
As for the people claiming there is no large predator in america the proof is the data collected on animals and food sources, but correct me if im wrong in my thinking here. If the data collected already includes the sasquatch but we are not aware of the creature then the data would be figured out using only known animals so, if we have for example 100 deer killed by predators and half are from bears and the other half is said to be from lions, there we go./ but in truth because we dont include bigfoot the numbers could be 15% bear 50% lion and the other 35% bigfoot? but we just figured the bears did it. Does this make sense lol.


#218    Night Walker

Night Walker

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,267 posts
  • Joined:23 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where women glow and men plunder

  • We're all storytellers. We all live in a network of stories. There isn't a stronger connection between people than storytelling.

    J.M. Smith

Posted 12 April 2013 - 07:38 AM

View PostInsanity, on 09 April 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

Are you referring to hallucinations?

Imagination - of which hallucinations are but a small subset. Ken's post (#150) is a good illustration.

Hypothetical: If Bigfoot is purely a creation of human imagination then would the claims and evidence be any different to what we have thus far accumulated?


View PostStardrive, on 09 April 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:

I don't want to say anything publicly until I can gather verifying evidence.

ps. a hoax requires going public btw and no I don't have a website or an agenda to promote.

Is posting on UM not going public with your claim?

A hoax does not require publicity. Although multiple examples of hoaxes and pranks from around the world receive publicity every day the vast majority remain personal/private between family members, friends, workmates, etc. Imaginative play is important part of who we are as a species. We is The Trickster...

You are promoting the agenda that Bigfoot is a real creature and that you have strong evidence in support of that.


View PostStardrive, on 09 April 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:

Not my claims, my evidence. And like yourself, I only went where the evidence led me.

Your claim is of having evidence. Unlike myself - you conceal your findings and the circumstances around them. Not being snarky but that is a big difference...

Is there a difference between 1) having evidence, claiming that it is "strong but not conclusive", and not allowing it to be scutinized and 2) not having evidence, claiming that you do, and not allowing it to be scrutinized? Words mean both NOTHING and EVERYTHING within the World of Bigfoot...


View PostStardrive, on 09 April 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:

Reasons not to go public #1) Because my evidence is strong but not conclusive. Therefore, there may be people that would start to regard my findings and conclusions as fact.

You cannot stop people from thinking what they want to think, believing what they want to believe, and doing what they want to do but you can educate others (and yourself) by being open and accountable. By claiming to have strong evidence of Bigfoot you are already influencing people who have no reason to doubt you. By not revealing your evidence you are encouraging people's imagination to fill in the blanks...


View PostStardrive, on 09 April 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:

Reason #2) as Ken pointed out, every billy-bob yahoo without a life would be out there attempting to replicate what we found. Muddying the waters even more than they are now. I want verification and going public may cause problems in that regard.

How are the waters already muddied?

What is the nature of your evidence - photographs, film, footprint casts, DNA? Would putting it up for scrutiny allow others to find the location?


View PostStardrive, on 09 April 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:

Reason #3) How was it put to me?..... oh yeah, there would be those that would trample all over me to get what I have and then take the credit for the discovery. With the possibility of using it for monetary gain and self promotion.

Again, you cannot stop people from doing what they are going to do but have you taken any steps to have your evidence independently examined by qualified persons? If your claims are legitimate then fame and/or fortune are inevitable for such a momentous discovery...

http://www.olympiabigfoot.com/
http://www.hollywood...st-prize-383106


View PostStardrive, on 09 April 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:

NW you have a website. Is that why you want me to go public? So you can add more content to your website? Or are you just curious?

Yowie/Bigfoot is my hobby and I subscribe to the notions of openness, scrutiny, and accountability. I like investigating but it is perhaps not surprising that few claimants actually like having their Yowie/Bigfoot claims independently investigated in any detail. At the moment I am just curious...

Posted Image Yes! Canada's most fearsome predator. The Kodiak Marmoset – it's the world's largest smallest primate. "My God! He's killing us..."

The Yowie-ocalypse is upon us...

#219    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 12 April 2013 - 08:17 AM

Night Walker:

Stardrive hasn't made any claim other than to state he's out looking and he's noticed something that he's looking further into, that's hardly anything to stop the presses so to speak. And posting it here is hardly going public, likewise saying that he's looking is hardly a promotion that Bigfoot is a real creature. He's made no claims to have seen it, he's not posted up questionable video.......and he's not claimed to have shot one, a la Slick Rick Dyer. Now, people will do all the things you say, hell the rumor mill in any office or manufacturing plant is often given more credibility than any memo or press release made by the company themselves. Here's a great example, I worked for an electronics manufacturer in the early eighties for seven years. Rumors were so rampant there is was a joke. I had rumors going around about me that I'd gotten two females pregnant and was a "practicing homosexual", mind you all three of these were going around literally at the same time. I'd no more impregnated any female than the man in the moon, and while I do have certain character flaws, being gay ain't one of them, although, I have to admit I rather thought the term "practicing homosexual" was funny. I thought it suggested I hadn't gotten it right or something.

My point is how people handle, deal with or even pass along a given statement is really out of our control. "I think I found something and I'm looking further into it." Is a very simple statement and anyone who can read should be able to get their head around it without too much trouble. However, I'm sure someone will get all excited and pass along to whomever that there's this fellow on this site who's got proof positive old Bigfoot is real and he's a looking for more. That's is a huge leap of faith if you will. It's like when someone says they saw a UFO, all a UFO is is an Unidentified Flying Object. Could be anything really, but as soon as you use the term UFO, many people make the sudden leap to it being an alien spacecraft, when in point of fact all it really means is you saw something in the sky and you could figure out what it was, not you saw ET's mother ship.

As far as independent verification, well yeah. I think that's a given but don't you think he should have something to verify before he tries to get that done? Hmmm? Seems pointless to have someone independent source verify a theory you have with no evidence to check.


Quote

Yowie/Bigfoot is my hobby and I subscribe to the notions of openness, scrutiny, and accountability. I like investigating but it is perhaps not surprising that few claimants actually like having their Yowie/Bigfoot claims independently investigated in any detail. At the moment I am just curious...


Isn't that sort of the same thing Stardrive is doing? Almost sounds like one of those "pot/kettle" things to me.


#220    Night Walker

Night Walker

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,267 posts
  • Joined:23 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where women glow and men plunder

  • We're all storytellers. We all live in a network of stories. There isn't a stronger connection between people than storytelling.

    J.M. Smith

Posted 12 April 2013 - 08:35 AM

Stardrive claims to have strong (but not conclusive) evidence of Bigfoot - I am simply asking questions about it and supplying my opinion about the situation as it currently stands. This is a forum for discussion.

View PostNight Walker, on 12 April 2013 - 07:38 AM, said:

Yowie/Bigfoot is my hobby and I subscribe to the notions of openness, scrutiny, and accountability. I like investigating but it is perhaps not surprising that few claimants actually like having their Yowie/Bigfoot claims independently investigated in any detail. At the moment I am just curious...

View Postkeninsc, on 12 April 2013 - 08:17 AM, said:

Isn't that sort of the same thing Stardrive is doing? Almost sounds like one of those "pot/kettle" things to me.

Sure - except for details of the secrect Bigfoot evidence and scrutiny parts...

Posted Image Yes! Canada's most fearsome predator. The Kodiak Marmoset – it's the world's largest smallest primate. "My God! He's killing us..."

The Yowie-ocalypse is upon us...

#221    keninsc

keninsc

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined:08 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

Posted 12 April 2013 - 09:24 AM

Quote

I can understand your position given the evidence (or lack of) that you've studied and examined. I'm not in your shoes nor you mine.
Which brings me to one reason I wouldn't go pubilc. I would like verification, to see it again. I don't want to say anything publicly until I can gather verifying evidence.

Well, he pretty much stated what you continue to try to pry out of him, three pages ago. Given the recent hoaxes, again a la Rick Dyer, and given that many others still love to play at hoaxing, the last he'd want to do is given them ammunition to perpetrate more hoaxes. It's up to him to decide and having spoken with him a couple times via telephone, I support his choice until he has proof positive. While I haven't seen his evidence with my own eyes, I can say that based on pictures and his descriptions it's very compelling, but proof it ain't.

Can't blame you for trying, but give it a rest.


#222    Myles

Myles

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,932 posts
  • Joined:08 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 April 2013 - 11:33 AM

View Postkeninsc, on 12 April 2013 - 09:24 AM, said:

Well, he pretty much stated what you continue to try to pry out of him, three pages ago. Given the recent hoaxes, again a la Rick Dyer, and given that many others still love to play at hoaxing, the last he'd want to do is given them ammunition to perpetrate more hoaxes. It's up to him to decide and having spoken with him a couple times via telephone, I support his choice until he has proof positive. While I haven't seen his evidence with my own eyes, I can say that based on pictures and his descriptions it's very compelling, but proof it ain't.

Can't blame you for trying, but give it a rest.
Remember that this is a discussion forum.   If Stardrive doesn't want to face questions, he should not have posted on here.
He came on here saying he had strong (but not conclusive) evidence but he's not telling what it is.   Why would he do that?  It seems he would like to see some discussion on it.


#223    Stardrive

Stardrive

    Resident Bass Guitarist

  • Member
  • 3,267 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 12 April 2013 - 05:57 PM

I'll discuss it, no problem. I'll talk about it till your ears drop off. I'm just not 100% certain myself that what I found is sasq related or something else entirely. Which is why I'm sitting tight on my evidence until I can have some verification. Revealing all on a PUBLIC (ahem) discussion forum has the potential to muddy the waters in my quest for verification. Yes, this is a public forum, open to all, last time I checked.

Ken nailed it. Complelling yes, proof, nope not even close.  Did I learn something new from what was examined and studied? Most definately, but from whom or what I learned from is the question I have now.

Posted Image

#224    evancj

evancj

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,777 posts
  • Joined:07 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern, UT

Posted 12 April 2013 - 06:46 PM

Night Walker does have a point. Stardrive is walking a fine line here. While I DO NOT think Stardrive would pull a the Ketchum maneuver on us, it is a bit reminiscent of that kind of ploy.

From what I understand SD has found some sort of disposable tool or implement that was designed to be dismantled in order to disguise it's identity as a tool, and hide the origin and existence of it's maker. A very interesting theory.

I for one will wait and see what he has to show us. Hopefully it wont take half a decade to happen.


#225    Q-C

Q-C

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 5,517 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

Posted 12 April 2013 - 07:25 PM

I agree, I too have spoken with Stardrive in a few pm's and I find him intelligent, honest, and eager about his discovery. I do not in any way feel he is baiting us along.
I like Stardrive, and I can understand his hesitancy and caution. Thoroughness is good thing, but I too hope we all get to see it before too long.
Granted, I do not know him personally, and I've never met him formally, but I stand by my judgement, fwiw.

Bigfoot is in the eye of the beholder

Scottish Scientists Only!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users