274 replies to this topic

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

JGirl, on 26 November 2012 - 05:17 PM, said:

i think that's enough already about bigfoot
there are no such creatures. if there were we would have found them by now. we have been pretty much everywhere that they would supposedly inhabit.
why are people so gullible?

How do you know we would have found one by now when you have no idea what makes this animal click?

you're making presumptions, like many people do.
you presume that BigFoot *must* behave in a manner that we are familiar.

all I can say  is, proove that

[orangepeaceful79]

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 05 February 2013 - 04:36 PM, said:

How do you know we would have found one by now when you have no idea what makes this animal click?

you're making presumptions, like many people do.
you presume that BigFoot *must* behave in a manner that we are familiar.

all I can say  is, proove that

Hey, EOT - how's it going, man?  

I see what you are saying.  Both sides of this argument have to do some assuming, due to the lack of objective data.   Don't you think though that its a bit of an odd coincidence that its only the Cryptids like Bigfoot and other "unfindables" that tend to break all the rules of nature that allow us to objectively prove their existence?  I mean, look at all the other animals we've discovered - mostly by accident just by coming across evidence of their being alive and all animal-y.  Then think of all the people who are actively out there searching for Bigfoot and other cryptids and they can't find anything useful?  Its just weird.

To me it doesn't make Cryptids impossible (impossible is a pretty tall order, kind of like never or always), but it does make Bigfoot - since we are talking about Bigfoot, pretty damn unlikely.  All assumptions aside, it seems more likely that if Bigfoot was indeed a real, living breathing creature that we'd have found SOMETHING that could be used to validate its existence.  

I dunno.  I guess thats why its a mystery.

[scowl]

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 05 February 2013 - 04:36 PM, said:

How do you know we would have found one by now when you have no idea what makes this animal click?

you're making presumptions, like many people do.
you presume that BigFoot *must* behave in a manner that we are familiar.

All animals need food, water, and to mate. All animals compete for the resources in their environment. Unless someone can propose a theory of how Bigfoot doesn't need to follow these rules of nature, we have to presume it does follow them like all other animals on Earth.

Quote

all I can say  is, proove that

But can you spell it?

[QuiteContrary]

http://www.skeptic.c...rtalk/12/12/05/

Excellent link supplied by Rafterman in another thread.

Give it a listen. It's long, but worth it every minute.

One of many points brought up:
Doesn't Ketchum claim peer reviewed articles under her belt?
Disotell says he found none.

[Archimedes]

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 05 February 2013 - 04:36 PM, said:

How do you know we would have found one by now when you have no idea what makes this animal click?

you're making presumptions, like many people do.
you presume that BigFoot *must* behave in a manner that we are familiar.

all I can say  is, proove that

I don't get this.

All throughout history new species of all sorts of weird and wonderful types have been found.  Biologists didn't need to know anything about gorilla behaviour (and there was a time that gorillas (apart from to the natives who were familiar with them)) held much the same status as bigfoot does now - a mythical monstrous man-like creature that lived in the wilds of the forests somewhere.  Yet gorillas have been found, studied, their behaviour studied thoroughly, they have been classified (into species and subspecies) and their place secured in the evolutionary tree, etc.

And gorillas have a behavioural trait that is a common excuse for bigfoot never being found - they are shy of humans (unless provoked) and thus avoid them in general.

That's just one example (I know it's not a perfect analogy, it' just to illustrate a point that there is no inherent reason other than ad-hoc excuses for why mysterious hairy man creatures can't be found and documented).  Zoologists are finding and studying weird creatures in deep dark caves in the middle of nowhere, weird fish and marine animals deep down in the ocean depths, ecosystems that feed off the heat from volcanic vents, etc.  Things far weirder than Bigfoot and living in far more inaccessible locations.  And nothing was known of their behaviour before they were discovered.  Obviously.  You can't study a species behaviour until you've found it and are able to study its habits.

You don't need to know anything about a creature's behaviour to discover it.  You just need to look in the right place and take decent pictures of video of it.  It's incumbent on those who say he exists to explain why he hasn't been properly studied and documented.  And it seems all they have are ad hoc excuses, the same that exist in all sorts of fringe ideas.  Bigfoot is shy of humans.  Ghosts drain camera batteries.  Martian artefacts are being covered up by NASA. etc.

Edited by Archimedes, 14 February 2013 - 10:01 PM.

[keninsc]

That's really the way of it.

The whole search for Bigfoot has taken on a strange sort of direction now. Much as I hate to agree with Rick Dyer, he did make a valid point in that he said it's become more about social networking. Now, before Gorillas were "officially discovered" there were body parts you could buy in various market places. Seems the natives believed they had magical powers associated with them. However, when it comes to Bigfoot, we don't have that much. Some fuzzy videos and pictures, shoot the best film to date is the PG film and no one can seem decide if it's real or a fake and all this after forty-four years of scrutiny and no bodies, no skeletons, nothing really.

Now, there have been credible people who have come forward, but they have nothing but their story for the most part to offer up. Which can't be considered proof of anything really, it's just an interesting story.

Personally, I think before long someone will find a body or skeleton or shoot one and the mystic' will be all be over. Although, I'm not sure I quite agree with you not needing to know anything about the creature in order to discover it. Granted, if you just happen upon one by happenstance and you shoot it or get DNA from it then, yeah I see your point. The trick is that's what we have to do when hunting for one because we really don't understand anything about them. Yeah, footprints and such but other than that, what else do you have? Truth is not much.

Now, I do know that there are at least a couple guys actively looking for signs.......and I wish more than anything I could join them in their efforts, but for now, I'm pretty much stuck on line same as most anyone else.

[Render]

Bigfoot genome sequenced? There are skeptics

Quote

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers led by Melba Ketchum of DNA Diagnostics in Nacogdoches, New Mexico, claims to have succeeded in sequencing the genome of Bigfoot (Sasquatch). The team published their findings in DeNovo, a journal that Ketchum purchased and renamed because mainstream scientific journals would not accept the study. Scientists have been understandably skeptical. According to critics, a major problem with the research is that it bypassed the normal peer review process. Ketchum claims that established journals wouldn't publish "Novel North American Hominins, Next Generation Sequencing of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies" because it is controversial and because the members of her research team are not associated with large universities. Historically, such arguments have been made by those who blame the mainstream scientific community's lack of acceptance on conspiracy, rather than on bad science. Ketchum goes so far as to compare her own experience with that of Galileo.

The science in the paper itself is shaky. People across North America provided researchers, mostly forensic experts, with 111 "Bigfoot DNA samples" consisting of hair, fur, flesh and blood. The team sequenced 20 whole mitochondrial genomes, 10 partial mitochondrial genomes, and 3 whole nuclear genomes. In their paper, they conclude that Sasquatch is a hybrid, created by interbreeding between female Homo sapiens and males of an unidentified hominin species, neither Neanderthal nor Denisovan. Although the isolated mitochondrial DNA did come from humans, these were mostly from Europe or the Middle East. Only a few were Native American. To explain this discrepancy, the team speculated that during the last ice age, some humans walked over the ice through Greenland, despite that the fact that there is no evidence that this ever happened. A much more likely explanation is the samples were contaminated. Electron micrographs of nuclear samples do show an intermingling of patches of double and single-stranded DNA, a sign that some contaminant has mixed with modern human DNA. The researchers could have isolated the non-human DNA and attempted to match it with that of another species. However, they do not report doing that. Ketchum claims that her team did not submit the genetic sequences to GenBank, the open access genetic database, because GenBank only accept sequences from officially recognized species. GenBank has no such restriction, according to Leonid Kruglyak, a geneticist at Princeton University. Nevertheless, the team has created a new species name for Sasquatch, Homo sapiens cognatus, which they are attempting to register with ZooBank, and Ketchum is already fighting to protect Bigfoot's human and constitutional rights.

http://phys.org/news...d-skeptics.html

[QuiteContrary]

I have to thank commenters,

VendicarE  "Where's da humans women at? A little wine, a little song, a little bigfoot in her thong... And the rest is history...."

and

jimbo92107  "When will the pseudo-scientific community stop harassing large, hirsute men that like to stroll naked through the woods?"

from the article mentioned above, for clearing it all up!  

Edited by QuiteContrary, 25 February 2013 - 12:31 PM.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

orangepeaceful79, on 05 February 2013 - 05:23 PM, said:

Hey, EOT - how's it going, man?  

I see what you are saying.  Both sides of this argument have to do some assuming, due to the lack of objective data.   Don't you think though that its a bit of an odd coincidence that its only the Cryptids like Bigfoot and other "unfindables" that tend to break all the rules of nature that allow us to objectively prove their existence?  I mean, look at all the other animals we've discovered - mostly by accident just by coming across evidence of their being alive and all animal-y.  Then think of all the people who are actively out there searching for Bigfoot and other cryptids and they can't find anything useful?  Its just weird.

To me it doesn't make Cryptids impossible (impossible is a pretty tall order, kind of like never or always), but it does make Bigfoot - since we are talking about Bigfoot, pretty damn unlikely.  All assumptions aside, it seems more likely that if Bigfoot was indeed a real, living breathing creature that we'd have found SOMETHING that could be used to validate its existence.  

I dunno.  I guess thats why its a mystery.

things have been found but a lot of people dismiss evidences "out of hand"  because they are convinced BF does not exist.

No one has ever seen an electron or neutrino but people believe in them like they are as real as anything.

BF has left tracks all over NA. but every time tracks are displayed, skeptics out-of-hand (and habit) just dismiss them. how so? Don't you need evidence they are fake?

The recordings of these animals screaching. the voice print matches nothing known to man. that gets dismissed? interesting.

I think we mostly disagree on what we call "evidences"

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Archimedes, on 14 February 2013 - 10:00 PM, said:

I don't get this.

All throughout history new species of all sorts of weird and wonderful types have been found.  Biologists didn't need to know anything about gorilla behaviour (and there was a time that gorillas (apart from to the natives who were familiar with them)) held much the same status as bigfoot does now - a mythical monstrous man-like creature that lived in the wilds of the forests somewhere.  Yet gorillas have been found, studied, their behaviour studied thoroughly, they have been classified (into species and subspecies) and their place secured in the evolutionary tree, etc.

And gorillas have a behavioural trait that is a common excuse for bigfoot never being found - they are shy of humans (unless provoked) and thus avoid them in general.

That's just one example (I know it's not a perfect analogy, it' just to illustrate a point that there is no inherent reason other than ad-hoc excuses for why mysterious hairy man creatures can't be found and documented).  Zoologists are finding and studying weird creatures in deep dark caves in the middle of nowhere, weird fish and marine animals deep down in the ocean depths, ecosystems that feed off the heat from volcanic vents, etc.  Things far weirder than Bigfoot and living in far more inaccessible locations.  And nothing was known of their behaviour before they were discovered.  Obviously.  You can't study a species behaviour until you've found it and are able to study its habits.

You don't need to know anything about a creature's behaviour to discover it.  You just need to look in the right place and take decent pictures of video of it.  It's incumbent on those who say he exists to explain why he hasn't been properly studied and documented.  And it seems all they have are ad hoc excuses, the same that exist in all sorts of fringe ideas.  Bigfoot is shy of humans.  Ghosts drain camera batteries.  Martian artefacts are being covered up by NASA. etc.

"Things far weirder than Bigfoot and living in far more inaccessible locations."

And just how do you know exactly how weird BigFoot really is?

thank you for proving my point :--)

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

keninsc, on 15 February 2013 - 06:41 AM, said:

That's really the way of it.

The whole search for Bigfoot has taken on a strange sort of direction now. Much as I hate to agree with Rick Dyer, he did make a valid point in that he said it's become more about social networking. Now, before Gorillas were "officially discovered" there were body parts you could buy in various market places. Seems the natives believed they had magical powers associated with them. However, when it comes to Bigfoot, we don't have that much. Some fuzzy videos and pictures, shoot the best film to date is the PG film and no one can seem decide if it's real or a fake and all this after forty-four years of scrutiny and no bodies, no skeletons, nothing really.

Now, there have been credible people who have come forward, but they have nothing but their story for the most part to offer up. Which can't be considered proof of anything really, it's just an interesting story.

Personally, I think before long someone will find a body or skeleton or shoot one and the mystic' will be all be over. Although, I'm not sure I quite agree with you not needing to know anything about the creature in order to discover it. Granted, if you just happen upon one by happenstance and you shoot it or get DNA from it then, yeah I see your point. The trick is that's what we have to do when hunting for one because we really don't understand anything about them. Yeah, footprints and such but other than that, what else do you have? Truth is not much.

Now, I do know that there are at least a couple guys actively looking for signs.......and I wish more than anything I could join them in their efforts, but for now, I'm pretty much stuck on line same as most anyone else.

Keninsc,,

When was the last time enyone ever claimed to see a red wolf or found remains of a red wolf in the woods?

When was the last time someone saw red wolf poop in the woods?

I hate to tell you but claimed sightings of bigfoot are far more common than sightings of the red wolf.

does that mean the red wolf cannot exist?

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Just a quick note to say that many animals known to man have some rather unique and interesting abilities.

As an example, people knew that the American ratler (snake) can go hunting down a mouse in the wild and go right to the mouse's location and get him
every single time. But they never knew how the snake could always be right.

Then they tested the snake in a lab. They hid a mouse in a huge temperature controlled room, brought the hungry snake in and let him go.
The snake would look around for a while, and then suddenly, zoom! - right to the exact spot the mouse was hidden, every time!

So they got cute with the snake :--)
they made the room temperature the same as the mouse's body temperature. Then they brought in the hungry snake. He did nothing,.

But as long as the room temperature was more than 1/10 of a degree (F) above or below the mouse's body temperature,
the snake would always find the mouse.

Got it figured out? Yup, the ratler has infrared vision and can "see" heat. But who knew?!

Now who really knows what unique ability a BF may have? we cannot say for sure that it must have the same abilities as other apes
because that would be tantamount to saying a ratler can only have abilities like other snakes. 'taint not so!
the only way you can be certain is to *catch* one.

peace love dove

[Archimedes]

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 05 March 2013 - 09:02 PM, said:

"Things far weirder than Bigfoot and living in far more inaccessible locations."

And just how do you know exactly how weird BigFoot really is?

thank you for proving my point :--)

He's a large hominid that lives in the forests of North America.  How weird can such a creature be?

Weirder and harder to find than cavefish that have no eyes and are adapted to living in total darkness in deep caves?

Weirder and harder to find than giant tubeworms that live miles under the ocean and feed off the energy from volcanic vents?

Weirder and harder to find than the one inch long 750 legged millipede species that lives entirely within a 2 square mile area of California, which was first spotted in 1926 and not rediscovered for 80 years? (yes, that's a real thing - http://en.wikipedia....llacme_plenipes)

No, he's a large primate that lives in forests.  What could he possibly have other than some camouflage system entirely unknown in any other mammals that makes it impossible for him to be found?  This is just an appeal to magic.  And I see it all the time in bigfoot discussions - maybe we can't find bigfoot because he was all sort of super powers that prevent him from being found.  Despite some people claiming there are 50,000 of them (more than the brown bear population of the USA of which there is no shortage of amazing photography and video) he's impossible to find or photograph and apparently leaves nothing but very questionable traces of things like hair.

Edited by Archimedes, 05 March 2013 - 10:21 PM.

[evancj]

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 05 March 2013 - 09:17 PM, said:

Just a quick note to say that many animals known to man have some rather unique and interesting abilities.

As an example, people knew that the American ratler (snake) can go hunting down a mouse in the wild and go right to the mouse's location and get him
every single time. But they never knew how the snake could always be right.

Then they tested the snake in a lab. They hid a mouse in a huge temperature controlled room, brought the hungry snake in and let him go.
The snake would look around for a while, and then suddenly, zoom! - right to the exact spot the mouse was hidden, every time!

So they got cute with the snake :--)
they made the room temperature the same as the mouse's body temperature. Then they brought in the hungry snake. He did nothing,.

But as long as the room temperature was more than 1/10 of a degree (F) above or below the mouse's body temperature,
the snake would always find the mouse.

Got it figured out? Yup, the ratler has infrared vision and can "see" heat. But who knew?!

Now who really knows what unique ability a BF may have? we cannot say for sure that it must have the same abilities as other apes
because that would be tantamount to saying a ratler can only have abilities like other snakes. 'taint not so!
the only way you can be certain is to *catch* one.

peace love dove

Rattlesnakes are not special, or unique when it comes to pit organs. There are over 150 species of pit vipers in the Americas, and Asia. Boas (40 species) and pythons (7 species) also have pit organs. The only unique thing about rattlers is their rattles which serves as a warning system.

Edited by evancj, 06 March 2013 - 12:35 AM.

[Stardrive]

Archimedes, on 05 March 2013 - 10:20 PM, said:

No, he's a large primate that lives in forests.  What could he possibly have other than some camouflage system entirely unknown in any other mammals that makes it impossible for him to be found?  

If it's ears were larger and more circular than a humans, a set of radar dish ears would come in handy. If it were tall, muscular, and bi/quadrapdal, it could out maneuver anyone or anything in the forest. If it had a broad flat nose with large nostrils, it would probably have a keen sense of smell also. No magic needed.

Evan, speaking of rattlers, we have to be carefull around here because the eastern diamond backs (through (un)natural selection) don't rattle when you near them. I guess the only ones that survived were the ones that don't make any noise.

Edited by Stardrive, 06 March 2013 - 05:56 AM.