Yeah, I can live with extremely unlikely, as well.

Again, and maybe if I keep posting this idea, it might soak into some grey matter, someday, but I don't "believe" in cryptid animals, including Bigfoot. I don't categorically and completely rule out their existence, either. My clashes with Neognis have pretty well revolved around this particular. I'm quite skeptical, too, but don't presume to have every answer down pat, and condescend anyone's opinion, so long as they're presented logically, or at least with great conviction.

I have great doubts a giant, upright hominid exists in this world. Yet I don't descend upon a bulletin board forum dedicated to the conversation and interaction regarding the possibility they exist and try tooth and nail to discourage said discourse. That speaks rather poorly for those who do. Perhaps their time might be spent somewhere it's better appreciated?

Oh, I am very sorry. An apology is in order. I thought we were talking about hunters who just kill for sport, not utilizing their kills. I am fine with Cows being farmed and eaten, but I thought we were talking about hunters who go to kill for pure enjoyment. Hunting endangered species will never be alright by me, but unlike so many ridiculous protesters who hate humans and love any other species, I don't support the hunting of endangered species I let the hunters be. We'll suffer the ecosystem consequences and so will they.

No, not every creature alive leaves behind a fossil record. Sorry, but that is a gross misrepresentation. IMO

Every species with a medium sized population leaves behind at least on fossilized example of their species. Even if we never FIND that fossil it is there. But then again they are some very drastic variables which can change that, but for the most part, every species with a medium sized population leaves behind at least on fossilized example of their species.

No, that is not at all true. Darwin said, "It is unlikely for any given species to leave behind a single fossil."
fossilization is a very rare event indeed. Most of the fossils found come from hard bodied species or species with extremely large populations like bacteria, insects, and plants.

again since we don't know what a Bigfoot tooth really looks like. and we assume it is an ape.


how do we tell a Bigfoot tooth or bone or toe nail from any other ape tooth or bone or toe nail.


or human bone or tooth or toe nail.

Mommy, I hat to keep hacking at the little points but in Darwins time far less was known about fossilization and far fewer fossils were found. My Statement in the post above is ture.

If us skeptics were not on these boards, there wouldn't be much conversation. Bigfoot is a myth. It would be cool, but it isn't real.
If it were all true:
giant apes would exist in almost every country of the world
giant apes would exist in almost every state in the USA
they are very smart but are not curious enough to venture into human territory much
these smart apes all over the world stay hidden from humans
their young do not get venture into human territory
sometimes they run from man while other times they just calmly stroll away looking back at the camera
use birth control
know how to look both ways before crossing a street
are smart enough to avoid being caught forever, but don't use tools yet (We should give them "the wheel").

I understand that in Darwin's time a lot was known about fossils and that still makes your statement false. Not even 1/2 of all the species with a medium sized population will leave behind fossils.

I think it's time we started posting some cites if we are going to make scientific claims in debate.

Why do you not post some sites about how all living creatures leaving behind fossils is a fact of paleontology. Then I will give you one.

I didn't claim that all living creatures leave behind fossils. But we already know that some do. That is a fact of paleontology. Except bigfoot, that is.


You made a very definitive and specific statement:



Where did you get that from?

unlike most cryptids, their arent a lot of explanations for bigfoot. lake monsters could be otters, logs, seals, waves, wind slicks, seiches. bigfoot could either be a guy in a costume who stands 8 ft and over 1000 pounds, which i doubt, or its a very secretive animal living in a remote large forest.

I didn't claim that all living creatures leave behind fossils


But we already know that some do.



That is a fact of paleontology. Except bigfoot, that is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


so the question is if not all living creatures leave behind fossils but some do.


then why does Bigfoot have to be one that does.

Where's that "eating popcorn and watching" smiley?

At first I thought you said 'cities', but I was like, that don't make sense.. then I realised you meant 'sites' but just spelt it wrong...
Anyhow... just thought I'd mention that anyone with understanding would know not to believe everything that is on the internet. You asking for a site is like me saying.. ''hey, if you can show me site where they say the egg came before the chicken, I'll believe it as so'' and that my friend is not very wise. You would be better off asking for scientific analysis or results of experiments (too bad we can't do any ) than what a 'site' claims or even a book or statement by a archaeologist... claims and theories get you only so far.
As the 18th century philosopher David Humes said, that knowledge is derived from what we can see, hear and touch...

That's true, but then we wouldn't have all these fun threads opening up featuring youtube videos of apparent bigfoots, or mothmans, or chupacabras The internet is just another source of information, you can actually find alot of scientific journals online, the same ones you find in books, so really who can we trust for info? I don't know of anyone here at this forum who has seen, heard or touched Bigfoot, so their argument of his existence comes soley from the testimony of outside sources. People should include citations (cites) when making scientific claims, and if people want to debate the citation (like that creationist website that claims dinosaurs are still roaming the earth - some people swear by it, others don't) then they are free to.

Paleontology: Every creature alive leaves behind a fossil record. We find more every year. The idea that a creature could be alive up until today, yet leave NOTHING in the fossil record, is pretty far fetched. the last bigfoot like creature in the fossil record disappears a million years ago.

This is exactly what you said. Did you mean something other than what you wrote?

Well, I could tell you that I am a microbiologist and I know about these sort of things, but, then anyone could say anything on the internet. So, "Not every species will be found in the fossil record. It is estimated that fossils will not found for 55-60% of all species. About 10% of these species will leave some kind of trace fossils, but, the rest will either not leave any fossils or the fossils they leave will be buried to deep to ever be discovered." Futuyuma, David. Evolutionary Biology. Third Edition. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Hampshire, UK. 20 March 2006. There is a cite for you.

the last bigfoot like creature in the fossil record disappears a million years ago.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


this really should read that the last Bigfoot like creature that we have found in the fossil record died a million years ago.


this does not mean that this creature died out a million years ago. this does not mean that tis creature did not evolve into Bigfoot.

Thats just the thing is'nt it... where ever we get our info from, unless it has been proven to be conclusively true, then its just theoretical views and claims... in short information is not reliable if it makes a claim that has not been conclusively proven.
But then I do agree with you, the internet has some pretty good info but they all come from other sources. I personally give a piece of info on the net a second thought only if its info from a reliable source or just cold hard facts. I don't care much for sites that put up claims without supporting it with the necessary proof, though by all means it may even be true. But then again, the internets there for exploring anyway...

if not for a few teeth and a jaw, gigantophitecus would be considered a myth. most of the fossil record is gone. we probably have 10 percent of fossils of all the animals on earth. dinosaur bones are well preserved bc of the sediment. in the nw, the sediment destroys the bones and very little of it if not any is left. we are talking about the 3 million plus acres of forest in the nw. their is only 2 misidentifications of bigfoot, either a suited human ( which i doubt, since their were lots of sightings before 1958, the natives made masks of every animal in the area, including sasquatch. why should it be the exception.) or its a very elusive great ape that has managed to be seen, leave footprints, hair, scat, but is so hard to find at night. natives regard bigfoot as just another animal, not a god of supernatural being

Then the mystery would be solved!

ummm... no it wouldnt be solved. all that would prove is that history channel found a nest made. thats it .

If someone does ever come across a big foot, i don't so much worry about the hunter than i do about the people in the white lab coats that would be testing aka torturing it.

It would be interesting to see what code of ethics they would use if this were to happen, if they would follow the animal rights or have to sort of adjust it because if this is the missing link to man kind it would surely have more human like rituals, behaviour and emotion patterns making it hard to decipher between human rights or animal rights..


Yes, there are some hunters out there that would kill it simply for a trophy but i am sure there are many stock brokers and house wives that would kill it as a trophy/fame/money as well if given the chance.
There are all kinds of breeds of ignorant people.

[quote name='allie_shy' date='Dec 29 2007, 11:17 PM' post='2064659']
If someone does ever come across a big foot . . . It would be interesting to see what code of ethics they would use if this were to happen . . . there are some hunters out there that would kill it simply for a trophy but i am sure there are many stock brokers and house wives that would kill it as a trophy/fame/money as well if given the chance . . .

I have gradually become more and more of a skeptic about the existence of this and like creatures. To have remained in the wild and undetected, and undesiring of detection all this time, with all this searching, population and technology, it can't be a form of homo sapiens. For awhile, I allowed as how Neanderthals might still exist somewhere. They might have been smart enough to elude detection, given they'd also have more forest smarts than we do now.

But there is powerfully little evidence of tool use or, most especially, even primitive fire us.
That might leave the Australopithecines, and I know some, even the Goodalls, have speculated that this might be the case.
But even these must have shown some curiosity, enough to "kill the cat", by now, since Australopithecines were social beings, like humans.
It's just becoming more unlikely that these are out there. It seemed, in a way, as if a few might have survived, in the wilderness. But the wilderness has just shrunk so fast, even faster than humans have inhabited it.
I don't know that I think the finding of a nest adds much credibility anymore, either.
A nest this primitive?
This only suggests some type of primate, not a hominid, since there seems no fire and maybe not even tool use. Primates just don't work anymore as an explanation for Bigfoot. They just are too curious, and not intelligent enough to elude us by overcoming their curiosity.
The sheer size of these prints, suggest some other explanation than actual footprints. Of what evolutionary value would such large size have for a primate so obviously challenged to find game, or veggies? There seems little likelihood this is a primate. It would have to be a hominid, at least that far up on the scale. Smart enough to know to elude us, to overcome its natural (otherwise) friendly curiosity. Maybe, allowing for that, a somewhat retrograding population of hominids, Australopithecines or maybe Homo sapiens Neanderthalis, could have survived competing with us.
But not with feet this size. The prints just have to be accepted as not part of the evidence. Somehow. There is other evidence, but, quite frankly, the sighting of Skunk Ape or apes in the swamps, doesn't add to the credibility, it actually detracts from it. It has more credibility, as something with very limited range, very limited area. And higher up on the scale than a primate now. Maybe, it circulates only in British Columbia. A population of hominids, that is, Austrolopithecines, or maybe Neanderthals. But I just think, time is running out on that one, too. I mean, they've got to be putting time into eluding us, at this point. How likely is that?

You would eat that??? Not only are the animals raised in horrible and miserable conditions, but the meat is packed full of growth hormones, antibiotics, and who knows what else. I would much rather eat something out of the wild, somthing I can know is actually clean, and Im sure many hunters share my viewpoint.

people claim they look, and all they do is sit in their offices saying what cant and can exist. 2nd, their have been very few searchs for bigfoot, and most of them found evidence. i find it no surprise bc no one spends enough time looking. ive read that a group of conservationists spent 90 days searching for chimps and only 2.

I mean, there's a time ratio thing, don't you think?
If they don't have fire, and don't have much in the way of tools, they have to put in a lot of time, finding game, or other kinds of food, and getting a handle on that.
They don't have time, beyond that, to plan much to elude us, if they don't have even regular use of fire. There is scant evidence of fire use by Bigfoot.
So, time for food capture or gathering, leaves little time for planning avoidance responses to us.

". . . But not with feet this size. The prints just have to be accepted as not part of the evidence. Somehow. . .".

And, say a hominid, who has become retrograde, has been watching us occasionally, randomly. They'd have seen the use of fire. They'd have been reminded about fire, even if they'd forgotten about it. They'd have started using fire again.

So, is there any new evidence of fire? The only thing I've seen recently, is some new evidence of an omnivorous pattern, a meat-eating as well as vegetarian pattern.

And, in Africa, there have been found, new populations of primates that are bipedal.

But that's Africa. To have traversed from that original home area, to an area like North America, is a real challenge for such a primate.

It takes enormous amounts of time for such a primate to earn its living. It has little time to put into eluding us, or plannning to elude us, or observing us. In a rich, tropical environment, monkeys and sometimes primates will take a minute or two to watch us.

But there is a difference between that rich environment, and the relative sparseness of the northern forests. And for such an elusive creature to have defiantly moved into the territory of its most feared competitor, what would be the motive for such risky behavior? Lack of food? If lack of food, this suggests even less time available to put into eluding us or observing us.

Curiosity? If they were finding plenty of food, would this really embolden them to move south, as it were, to the swamps of America, to observe us, or to get different...what? Game? Vegetables?
Only plentiful food supplies would leave them the TIME to look at us, or to move around into new areas. The alternative reason, lack of food, would argue against the "observing" aspect reported for the swamp apes.

Social patterns...could be complex for a hominid, not so much so for a primate. Children...young....would be hard to discipline insofar as not making contact, for such hominids.

So, time is running out, probably faster than "believers" think. I'm willing to take in data here. But really, what do we have here? Indications of curiosity, which belie efforts at eluding us. Indications of change in range or pattern (the swamp ape), but for what reason?

I would much rather eat something out of the wild, somthing I can know is actually clean, and Im sure many hunters share my viewpoint.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



you would eat that knowing all of the poisons that man has pumped into the air and water.


where as the cattle may not be able to get away from the air. the water is usually filtered. if not by man then by nature.

we underestimate the elusiveness of animals sometimes. the mountain gorillas werent proved to be real until 1914. the pacific nw is not like ny. its way way bigger. very remote too.

No, I meant CITES. C-I-T-E-S

Not "sites."

Look it up in the dictionary. Here, I'll post it. Cite, short for citation:

citation: a short note recognizing a source of information or of a quoted passage; "the student's essay failed to list several important citations"; "the acknowledgments are usually printed at the front of a book"; "the article includes mention of similar clinical cases"
summon: call in an official matter, such as to attend court


Not an internet site.

Boy, I sure do feel stupid...

How about using an internet site as a cite (as in citation)?

There we go again using just the NW as the home. It has been reported in almost every country on this world. So "the sediment destroys the bones" comment doesn't work.

While they've been reported from many places, from where do the vast bulk of sighting reports come? The Pacific Northwest, by a huge margin. To diminish the probability the PNW is the main area of bigfoot occupation is probably due to a desire to cast doubt upon the very idea of their existence. Yes, there might be remnant populations in scattered areas of the US, but again, it should be obvious the PNW is the (if it exists) stronghold of the creature.

But you people use legands from native populations all over the country to support your insane idea that this creature is real.


So if you are going to use them as "evidence," you have to then be answerable to the fact that there are no fossils, even in places other than the PNW where the creature supposedly existed in the past.

'Nuff said.

The title of this post is "History Channel found Bigfoot."


someone threw a rock at a cabin and there were some very degraded and inconclusive "blood" samples


'Nuff said.

I agree that many of the US sightings are from the PNW (Texas, Michigan and Pennsylvania are also hign in sightings). But I don't know about Russia or China or any of the other countries in the world.

every animal we know of from native american legends are REAL. why should sasquatch be the exception? it isnt. maybe if ya looked like i told you too, you would find it. animal bones arent easy to find in an area bigger than 3 million acres

umm no. something threw a rock at the cabin, and the blood samples were from a non-human primate!!

I came across this tonight: Bigfoot Reports - Comprehensive Mapping Project, on Google Earth. My apologies if this has been posted elsewhere. It's explained as "Geolocated reports of encounters with bigfoot / sasquatch creatures in North America."