In a recent thread re: existence of Bigfoot, one commentator summed it up by saying that the jury is still out. I would like to offer another opinon. While true skeptics will not be content without the body, or bones of a sasquatch to examine, others should be able to examine the evidence and reach another conclusion. There is some good evidence, some of it going back prior to the 1950's and the origination of the term "bigfoot." If bigfoot were on trial, there would be enough evidence to convict it of being an undiscovered species. Consider...

1. Eyewitness testimony - credible people have reported. Sherrif's deputies, wildlife biologists, forest rangers, highway patrolmen, local police, hunters, a teacher, and a psychologist are among those who have reported witnessing a large bipedal ape-like creature. These reports are incredibly consistent in their description of the animal. If only 1% of the reported sightings are accurate, that's over 150 good reports.

2. Footprints - good footprint casts have been recovered from remote areas where hoaxing is extremely unlikely. Some of the best prints contain dermal ridges (like fingerprints) that are neither human nor known primate in their flow pattern. Also, bivariate analysis done by Dr. Farenbach on a significant number of samples shows a positive correlation between length and width indicating a living species instead of a hoax.

3. Hair and DNA - dna samples are few, as are hair samples, but they are there and show dna evidence for the existence of an unknown primate in North America.

4. Pictures and video - no expert has yet proven the Patterson footage to be fake. Opinions vary, but as blurry as the original footage from 1967 is, it has yet to be replicated. In 1994 the BBC hired a professional effects company to replicate the original and they failed miserably. The Patterson footage shows muscle and digit flexion that gorilla suit fakes cannot.

5. Native American Traditions - Native American tribes from the Pacific Northwest all have one thing in common. They recognize the sasquatch as a living animal. They all have different names for it - but they agree on what it looks like and where it lives.

6. Skookum Body Cast - Experts (with PHD's) have examined the cast and agreed that at least part of it was made by a large primate.

7. Vocalizations - difficult to prove scientifically because some are within the range of humans, but audio tape does exist that could be from the sasquatch.

8. Fossil Evidence - there have been fossils recovered that seem to match the description of sasquatch. See gigantopithecus.

This evidence is obviously considered inconclusive by some, but consider the fact that this type of evidence puts people in jail everyday.

Is it possible? Of course, but this evidence is nowhere near conclusvie. People that want to believe will make evidence fit their wants.

in some cases yes, thats true eric.
however, just on the main page of UM "Missing link in whale evolution discovered". and this is just found now.
soooooooooooo, maybe this means thats its not such a crazy idea for sasquatch/bigfoot. its just a matter of time maybe? well.....hopefully

I believe in other parts of the world there is a much better chance then here.

ill agree with that to an extent. although, the wilderness is pretty vast in some of north america.
but i could see it being easier to hide in the himalayas maybe, up in mountains, and the cold, where people dont tend to go everyday.

A true statement, and works both ways. A recent frequent skeptic poster discounts any credibility (or most, anyways) of any witness because, according to him, no "long distance backpackers" have reported such. The obstinance of one side is often countered by the other. While some assert most any odd sound or the briefest sighting to be proof of sasquatch's existence, by the same token some will go to ridiculous lengths to disbelieve the veracity of witnesses with known credentials.

BTW, I believe I was the poster declaring the jury still being out!

eyewitnesses accounts are hardly reliable

footprint hoaxing is very likely and very easy, making dermal ridges is easy for a special effects artist (most live on the west coast where the movie industry and co-incidentally bigfoot is largest)

i'd like to see where dna evidence said conclusively that some was found from an unknown primate in north america
i believe some was found in sumatra and the dna recovered in north america was of unknown origin and incomplete
i may be mistaken so i'd be curious to see more about this dna

pictures and footage is of very poor quality and is so easily and readily faked

the cast is only proof of something in the mud
[1] Some observers of the cast, including the co-founder of the BFRO, Ron Schaffner, recognized some features that led them to conclude it was made by a resting elk

native north americans have many creatures in their legends and lore, some are real animals , some are not this hardly proof of anything
start looking for giant thunderbirds and giant monsters if this is proof of a real animal

gigantopithecus was never found in north america, was only found in china, india, and vietnam, so that also gives no evidence towards a north american ape


so if the jury is still out, the evidence truck hasn't arrived yet in my opinion
i think orang pendek is the most likely cypto-hominid-apeman to be a real creature, whether it is new or otherwise

ok, two things (and not trying to pick a fight whatsoever)
but, how are they unreliable? people will use these in court to put others away in jail for life.
also, would your opinion of an eyewitness account change if it was someone you knew very well? best friend? close family member? would you be biased as to believing they saw something (not a bear)? or still not trust them, and think theyre crazy and saw something else.

Are they really that unreliable? I spent alot of time out in the wild, I've seen many animals. If I saw a 8-9 foot tall bipedal ape that weighs in excess of 600 lbs. I hardly think I would confuse it with a squirrel, deer, rabbit, or even black bear. I know for me, if I saw an animal like that I probably wouldn't be reading this site right now because I would have no doubt as to the creature's existence. Sure, eyewitness accounts can be unreliable. Are they all unreliable? I don't think so. And as far as faking pictures or video goes, if it's so easy why doesn't someone do it? There's alot of bigfoot video's on utube, and I haven't seen one yet that's any good. It's much easier to sit back and dismiss something than it is to come up with some actual proof.

unfortunately the skeptics will probably think you made it up, to get 'popular' or something. maybe for money. because they dont know you personally, and werent there.
although, if i may ask some details (im always curious) how long ago was this? and how long did you get a look at it? musta been exciting/scary.

One day we will have enough evidence if not proof that This species is very much real.

What's up Agent Mulder,

I think you misunderstood me - I've never seen one. I think I got close once, you can read the article posted here if you want. I'm not going to lie, I would love to see one. I've been out there quite a bit looking, but no luck so far. I've found tracks and heard some scary sounds, but that's hardly any proof. What I meant was, If I had seen one there would be no more need for debate. I would believe my own eyes. But I do agree with the last post. There is some good evidence available already and it should be only a matter of time until some lucky person gets the claim to fame for proving the issue. Cause whoever proves it will definetly go down in history. I do believe that many of the people who claim to have seen it are telling the truth.

There is no analogy between courtroom testimony of witnesses in a criminal or civil trial, and supposed 'eyewitness' testimony on Bigfoot, or UFO'S or any subject the basic existence of which is in question.

There is no legitimate debate on whether or not the 'phenomenon' of humans killing humans actually occurs in real life, or whether robbery takes place, or rape, or other criminal activity by humans. As to subjects on which the basic EXISTENCE is in question, such testimony would not pass the first hurdle in evidentiary law, i.e., Foundation and authenticity.

How many people get tried and convicted of murder when there's no body?

Not many.

Nice try, but this is not a good comparison. At a murder trial, the debate isn't whether "man" or "mankind" commits crimes and murder, but rather which particular man or person committed a particular murder.

And with no body or physical evidence of a victim, the accused will go free.

Well, I am not drawing a comparison, I am pointing out a distinction. In particular, the fallacy of the often-resorted to analogy that:

1. because there is an acceptance of eyewitness testimony in a proceedings such as a murder trial, then

2. This somehow confers a reflected legitimacy upon 'eyewitness' accounts of "Bigfoot", et al.

There also is the known fact among judges and attorneys that witnesses are often unreliable and can't seperate how they remember an event from what actually happened.

Tangible evidence blows eyewitness testimony out of the water every time in court.

cough::scott peterson::cough

The bodies of his wife and unborn child were eventually found separately on different days (Laci April 14, 2003, Conner April 13, 2003[2]) about 3 miles (5 km) from the spot where he had said he was fishing


cough:: do your research before you open your mouth cough::

Peterson was not even arrested until the bodies were identified.

I understand the point of eyewitness testimony. If three different people watch the same event from three different angles, you could have different accounts of the event. But in the case of an upright creature in a wilderness setting I think it would be hard to confuse it. Sure, a large black bear standing on two legs would give a large dark silouette 6-7 feet tall. But a bear will always drop to all fours when running off. The brain is outstanding at spacial orientation - it's how we can hit things with a weapon - a necessary aspect of survival. The reliable (and maybe reluctant) witnesses are probably so insistent because of the fact that the brain is registering an upright being in excess of five feet in height that moves off on two legs. I think it would be easier to confuse sasquatch with a very large human than any other animal. (wildmen stories?)

The other point to consider is that some witnesses have nothing to gain and something to lose by reporting. Consider an enforcement official - they are going to be a laughing stock at work. Nobody wants that. I know for me, I get messed with all the time over this issue. People that think "bigfoot" is out there are often looked at as wierdo's.

Something is making tracks out there. I think that the angle of hoaxing is overplayed. Just because it's possible to make a hoax, doesn't mean alot of people are doing it. It takes alot of effort to go just a few miles in rough terrain, especially in the pacific northwest. Someone hoaxing would want others to find it so they could laugh about it. They wouldn't go dozens of miles into the back country to leave tracks in an inconspicuous location. And think of the fact that something very heavy would be necessary to leave deep prints in firm substrate. I think that even skeptics would have to agree that the issue at least deserves some serious looking into. If bigfoot is real, that's exciting. People love big animals and here's one that's big, strong, intelligent, probably nocturnal, and has managed to avoid kill or capture for quite some time.

And that's where you are wrong.

Time and time again
people report bigfoot experiences
that are eaily explainable
or just ridiculous



there's another entire thread on this forum about how the brain misinterprets images it doesn't understand in order to make sense of them. Check it out.



Yet it doesn't stop you, and you haven't even seen anything. So why would it stop someone who is either hoaxing or genuinely convinced that they did see something?



people
bears
freezing and thawing of the ground

post photos of some of the tracks you claim to have found. More often than not, it requires a pretty good imagination, even on these silly "monster hunter" type shows, to see the print. They'll be pointing to something that looks like three depressions in the sand, and claiming it's evidence of a bipedal mythical creature. And they'll throw that nonsense into the pot of "thousands of witnesses and footprints" and the house of cards will be a story higher. But it's still a house of cards.



I agree that it's exciting. So much so that we are too willing to abandon logic to enjoy in the excitement.

Why has nobody brought a dog out to follow these tracks?

I saw on Discovery over the weekend that a bloodhound could track a person who had GOTTEN INTO A CAR AND DRIVEN ON A HIGHWAY WITH THE WINDOWS CLOSED, and then through a beach area with wind blowing salt air all over the scent.

But bigfoot is untrackable by hounds?

How do you explain that, Yetihunter?

That's a good point. I've heard that dogs are terrified of the creature. There are accounts of dogs being killed, I know of one account where the dogs would hide under the truck and not come out. I think that hounds should be used. But more importantly, why have there been no images on game cams?

Yea, the next time a group of bigfoot hunters finds a series of footprints, or the broken branches they claim are from bigfoot, they need to get a pack of hounds up there ASAP.

I think there have been no images on Game Cams because I think bigfoot is not real, but what other explanations have bigfoot believers put forth for this?

I think that we've established that bigfoot deniers will not change their minds until a body is found. But what will it take to change the minds of serious bigfoot believers?

For a long time I was only about 90% convinced. Before the legend meets science came out. My problem was the Patterson footage. I thought the body looked so real but I had an issue with the face. There was a line on the forehead that looked off to me. After studying the issue for a while I concluded that the footage was authentic. I know now that the issue is with the camera's resolution capability. The technology in 67 is no where near where it is today. Think of computers. In 67 there wasn't even any such thing as a pc. The camera was at its capability and it gave the best image it could give under the circumstances. The muscle definition did it for me. You can see flexion between frames that is indicitive of a real animal and not a man in a suit. A man in a suit would give less resolution and more blur than a real animal.

Convincing arguments could cause anyone to doubt just about anything. For me, I would need to see one to be 110% convinced. But it's the excitement of the chase. You know, all the tallest mountains have been climbed, scientist can get to the bottom of the ocean in submersibles, all the big rivers have been charted. What's left for the average joe like me? A sasquatch expedition. Most people can't hang in the woods for more than a couple of days. So it's an exciting and bold thing to do. You feel that there's the chance to discover or prove something important.

I don't think the body looks real at all.



Ok. See, I respect you as a forum member and defend you right to believe in whatever you want, but seriously? Who are you or I to conclude anything about a piece of shakey, blurry film?
I don't see any muscle definition. I see a blurry shadow.



I totally get it. For me, though, i don't need to discover or prove something. I just like backpacking for days and being outside in all sorts of weather. But will there ever come a point when bigfoot believers will say "alright, it's pretty obvious we aren't going to find anything?"

Or there always be someone who still believes?

Bigfooters speculate that the animal can see in the infared spectrum, like a rattlesnake, and therefore the gamecams give off red laser beams that cause them to become aware. I did see one time where a black bear got upset with the gamecam flash and tore the camera to shreds.

Interesting.

Yeah, I think the issue will continue until either a body is found, shot, or at least some more dna evidence can be found like say from a carcass or fresh bone. I'm not much into ufo's or the lochness monster but a lot of people argue for those things too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5tvXoGQ4UI

Thanks for reposting that.


Now it could be a blurry shadow, or a bunch in the fabric of the costume. Or just the light.

If you'd pm me your address, I'd be happy to forward you my eyeglasses.

If you'd pm me your address, I would be happy to forward you some course information at our local community college in biology, psychology, and logic.

Bastage! I'd expect nothing more than your long-distance backpacking and delivering them yourself.

Thanks Incorrigible 1. I was particularly convinced by the calf muscle. It seems to be very well developed, and on the clearest of photos, what seems like a padded bottom of the foot.

PS. Are people aware that footprint casts were made of this animal, and a couple of those contained the infamous "Dermal ridges?"

Where do you live? I would be glad to backpack there over the course of a month or two, without seeing hide nor hair of a mythical monster that does not exist.

Here's one for Neognosis and all other interested. Tonight 10.pm. pacific on History Channel is the Monster Quest show. This time looking for the skunk ape with HOUNDS!

I'll check it out!

I predict that they will find nothing, but it will take 45 minutes to reveal that.

I am sure that the evidence we have is sufficient enough to prove the existence of a large bi-pedal humanoid creature it's just whether or not we want to believe in such a thing. Which actually shouldn't be that hard to do. As easily as we know that monkeys and other apes exist and the knowledge that we have of Neanderthal man it should be easy to accept another ape-humanoid creature living with us on the world.

heh...


To prove something you need more than anecdotes and inconclusive fibres later shown to be synthetic or coconut hairs.

They have NOTHING physical. NOTHING.]

If you want to believe, go ahead. I won't fault you for believing, it's a very fun thing and I hope it is real, that would be cool and exciting.

But there is no proof.

If this is where he studied biology then I would definitely decline the offer. IMO