Hey All! I would like to express my frustration with the "skeptics" who post here. Cryptozoology as defined is the study of hidden animals. There are many examples of animals previously unknown to science that are now recognized such as; the ceolocanth, the okapi, the mountain gorilla, the giant squid, just to name a few. New species are constantly being discovered. This board deals with the topic of cryptozoology. So it's right to expect topics regarding Sasquatch be posted here.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But the skeptics here seem to take it too far. Instead of just stating their disagreement and their reasoning, they get into name calling, obnoxious bantering and so forth. This really screws it up for people like myself who are interested in reasonable discussion. Why do they feel the need to post so agressively? I don't know, but it seems they have issues. Like some little child throwing a tantrum in order to get their way, they want to have last word.

They insist upon scientific evidence, and then when you give them some they refuse to consider it. I was on a board today and mentioned a scientific hair analysis done by Dr. Farenbach. This is a "real" scientist, unlike the skeptics who post here, who are not scientists. He did a "real" analysis on three "real" samples of hair and reached some interesting conclusions. He determined the hair to NOT belong to any known group of North American mammals, found it similar in ways to human hair, but distinct in that it had consistent characteristics across the sample. It may be true that the sample would not be statisticly significant from a scientific point of view due to the size (less than 25), but to say that its not evidence is ridiculous. Seriously, these skeptics will accept the current morphology of gigantopithecus as rendered by science, and that from a few teeth and a jaw bone but refuse to consider a hair sample from a purported sasquatch! That shows more than healthy skepticism, it's called BIAS. That's the exact thing that true scientific thinkers should avoid. In short, I wish these self proclaimed "skeptics" would take up a new hobby and let the rest of us engage in reasonable discourse.

Thank you, Yetihunter. I agree too.

Just because we haven't found a body of bigfoot. Doesn't mean it dosen't exist. I mean believers are still going out in these woods searching. They will continue to search until they die. People who say that bigfoot & such doesn't exist. It won't stop them. They'll continue until I find something out in the woods.

As for the posters. I've been the ancient & alternative history section. I rarely post here. But I do agree with you with that as well.

I myself, try to walk in the "middle of the road" so to speak when the subject turns to strange phenomina and cryptozoology. I am not a believer, nor am I a die hard skeptic. I think a good researcher should strive to have a ballance of both healthy skepticism, and a desire to discover what is really going on. A good disscussion is great for this, as you can see many viewpoints in one place, that's why most of us are here on this forum. Unfortunately, some "skeptics" here are very agressive with their posts, and seem to wish not to disscuss such topics, but instead seek to disrupt others from doing so. Now, I know that there are people out there who wouldn't believe in the existance of, for example; Bigfoot or the Dogman, unless they had a body to examine. Some wouldn't even believe it then. There are many people who choose not to believe in anything out of the ordinary; well, that's their choice. That doesn't mean it isn't true, nor does it give them the right to ruin the enjoyment of such subjects by others. Well, that's all I have to say.

Good Journey.

Kyle Rajasthan.

I agree with you guys. It's fine to want to see evidence, but it's also interesting to consider what we already have. I'm not expert on ufo's or the dogman or whatever, but there are unknown animals awaiting discovery. Also, there are alot of aspects to the bigfoot/sasquatch mystery that are interesting to discuss. Even if its not "scienfic" its interesting nonetheless. For example, Teddy Roosevelt, big game hunter had an encounter with a sasquatch. I know that there are accounts of vikings encountering "hairy men" in North America. And, I just read that Daniel Boone had an encounter and recorded it in his journals. Now that's an interesting subject to research!

I find believers tend to be the ones fond of name calling and all types of insult. Even so far as insulting my parents. Some refuse to accept fact over want and get stroppy about it. If you are being called names, report it. It is against forum rules to attack members instead of the topic.
Bigfoot skeptics by large are disillusioned believers.
What is wrong with requesting scientific evidence? A million theories a month come out about conspiracies, aliens and bigfoot, and you think we should take every one seriously? Are you a science hater? Those that are discount the first step in proving Bigfoot and are shooting their own efforts in the proverbial foot. Why should a skeptic discount better evidence that proves the creature does not exist? What you ask is that members believe in the minority, that does not make sense if you are serious about cryptozoology. Your first loyalty should be for truth, not your wishes. If you want people to believe rather than find out, you are doing the entire field a diservice. Yes there are more animals to find, but considering we have populated the planet to the extent we have it is very unlikely we will find much of substantial size, especially a worldwide elusive phenomena that defys all know laws of physics and biology who is 8 foot tall and hairy and lives beside us. Honestly, if you consider ALL the facts, it is extremely unlikely the creature exists. What is wrong with pointing out the facts?

Heck, you are guilty of your very complaint. You had a go at me for posting too often in a row, when it is the only way I can catch up with al the members I wish to debate with. Remember? So isn't this thread somewhat hypocritical?

By diddley, we found a 2 inch furry lobster in the middle of nowhere on the bottom of the ocean. Does that not speak volumes to you?


[/RANT]

PS, Yes the board IS called Unexplained Mysteries, not mindless believeing morons. Some genuine mysteries are still present. Some genuine cryptids are yet to be catalogued like the pygmy elephant.

yetihunter, im with ya man, i know where your coming from

i used to be a debunker of cryptids, and then i found out someone i know saw this thing face to face in mid day light. i think its more ridicolous to consider this phenomona a hoax than it being an animal that is found rarely. if we had a body of giganto, i would be more suspicious of sasquatch. the nw isnt fossil friendly, i read lms, and it goes into detail about rarity of dead animals beneath vegetation. a place like snelgrove would be lucky to get 50 people visiting a yr. its untouched too, so its pretty reasonable that, it could exist. this animal is no bear, and living here for 100k's of yrs, it would have adapted to the nw, and learned how to hide from predators. sasquatch leaves tracks, poop, hairs, and smells. the only thing missing is a body, which no one will look for. ive been told by fahrenbach a bloodhound sniffed some sasquatch tracks, and got scared and went back to the car. i feel its too many indivdual witnesses, like 17000, to consider it nonsense. since its human in shape, theirs really no misidentification for it, unlike ufos, ghosts, lake monsters, sea monsters. out of all land animals, hominds are special, in that they leave very few remains.

both skeptics and proponents can come to one agreeable conclusion: gigantopithecus was the true bigfoot, and maybe one day, if we can extract dna from giganto bones, maybe we can reclone it

I guess we're all hypocrites to some extent. I was frustrated with the tone of the entire topic, it started out so well. But, you're right, I was wrong. I've learned a thing or two from IronGhost and Incorrigible1. They are patient posters, and clear thinkers. That's all I'm trying to be. Sure evidence is important. I've been looking at evidence and come to a different conclusion than you. That's all. I've been deep in the woods and heard scary sounds and found large footprints. I have posted my experience in a column here. I am interested in general discussion, not agressive bantering. Regards,

Yetihunter

I still say Meganthropous is a better candidate for speculation, and if you wish to research a worldwide phenomena, you need to include conditions from every location, not one that suits your theory. Yowies or Pendeks do not live in the PNW, neither does the Skunk Ape - and that one has a good possibility of being a real creature, even though more than likely an escaped Orangutan. Discounting the bulk of the evidence leaves holes as big in your theories, as such they are not worth considering over more convincing evidence. Backing up your claims with data would improve credibility in the theories you support as well.

or it could be an unknown ape species? or a genetic freak human with hair and gigantism? hermit? i have no idea

i specialize on geography and size of locations where sasquatch are reported. i feel the real reports come from remote areas, like cascade mountains, redwoods, and snelgrove.

i am not gonna claim every piece of evidence now is undeniable, but its worthy of merit, and scientists like meldrum, fahrenbach have produced results.

the gaussian curve argues against a hoax, the freeman and patterson films look pretty damn real, and i spent many times at zoos looking at primates, and they have similarities to the film subjects.

i would just like people to look for it, like a funded expedition. expecting to find one by now is ignorance, since people dont look enough. the nw is huge, over 72 million acres of forests and mountains, searching at night is hard. apes arent stupid, and are very elusive animals

the skunk ape i feel is an oranguatan with some fur coloration, or mud all over it.

Excellent. As are most of us. It starts to get out of hand when a beliver (or skeptic) makes a claim that cannot be proven. If a claim is presented as evidence, it should have support, anyone can come up with a theory, it's just too darn easy. Scary sounds and footprints are not evidence, they may fit into your perconceptions and the excitement can add to one's surmations. I know you are not in Oz, but ever heard a Koal Bear cry? It is dead set bone chilling. Sounds like a real big cat, and it's this cute and cuddly little marsupial.
Have you seen one up close? A Bigfoot I mean?
As you no doubt know, I look for Yowie evidence, I go to hot spots and see what I can find. Sometimes directions from sightings lead you to a shopping Mall, or an area very familiar to you, and you know it's all BS. If you want to quiet the skeptics, share your experiences, don't come in and say, "I know it exists" - cause you don't. I speak to people that say they have knowledge, and believe me, several have my utmost respect. Very hard to discount them, so I look. But can they go back and find one, or evidence? nah, in 100% of my experiences. Having said that I have mentioned it to some indigenous I know, they dead set laughed real hard. They know this country better than anyone, and I give them high recognition. If people could understand Dreamtime culture better, most Aussie yowie "evidence" would be wiped real quick. Rex Gilroy displays little or no understanding of the real culture in his work.
If honestly interested, how about doing what the skeptics do, instead of offering more half baked theories to shoot down, how about examining the physical and biological evidence and looking for holes? I warrant you would gain some stirling conversation! The Patty film is far from proof of anything other than Patty had a camera in his hand that day.
The subject can indeed be discussed civilly between believers and skeptics alike as long as perspective is maintaned.

what type of perspective?

That's fine, but honestly, if you are going to consider Geography, include the Yowie, the Pendek, the Alma, The Yeti etc. etc. Cover all bases. Not just one. It really does not help your case.

I do not agree thet the Patty creature looks real. Not to me, not by a long shot. The feeman film's subject walks across the field of view? Not a good habit for an elusive creature? If they were all so timid they would be in Zoo's now.
How was the gaussian curve applied, and to what evidence?
Worldwide, not just the PNW, people are looking for it. I posted many links to PNW expeditions. (Did Meldrum or Fahrenbach put this idea in your head?) For over 80 years. Howard-Bury recorded a sighting in 1921 in the Himilayas. People do look. Worldwide there should be something.
You will find our Geography very varied and interesting to study. Please consider including the rest of us in what is a global study.
People do look, how do you explain the many links I have posted? There are many PNW specific.
Also, I know you would cop less flak if you would offer links to the studies and tests, if the results are unobtainable, best give it a rest as unobtainable evidence is no evidence. Like when you claimed the hair could not be human because it lacks a medula, but human hair in places is missing the medula. Suddenly the hair is now claimed as human-chimp. Why? The Medula theory was shot down. See what I mean? The evidence you have may not actually be evidence. Even Meldrum and Fahrenbach can be very wrong. It does them a service to question their findings as every piece of evidence that cannot be refuted, actually is evidence, we just need to find some now.
Even a skeptic has to believe if you can offer a bone, a pelt or a body. Megatherium left a pelt The PNW should even have produced a bone with all the other expeditions up there, one skull would cause enough attention to consider this a real creature. Why isn't there any around Bluff Creek? Shouldn't we have found something there? Megatherium left pelts for us to find and they have been out of the picture for at least 8,000 years.

I would have thought truth? The best perspective to maintain when trying to resolve something?

I don't "believe" in bigfoot, yowie, or orang pendek. I believe in God. However, after examining the available evidence, i'm convinced something of the kind is out there. It's like this, if my Dad or Grandfather told me that they saw a sasquatch while out in the woods, clearly and with no doubt of mistaken identity, I would believe it; because I know their character. There's no way either one of them would lie. That's just the kind of men they are (or were). The same goes for a significant number of eyewitnesses. That's probably why they don't post on this board. They already know for sure and the debate is over.

I'm sure you're familiar with the female anthropologist working in Sumatra studying orang pendek. She had a sighting. She is believed because the funding for her research continues. What do they have? Local folklore, footprints, and sightings. The same goes for sasquatch. No, I don't post links to everything I say, and of course I can be wrong. To be honest, I don't even know how to post a link. I'm sure I'll eventually figure it out.

I've read just about every book on the subject I can get my hands on, and watched every documentary as well. Some are good, some are not. Witnesses are incredibly consistent and that should not be ignored. Dr. Meldrum is a respected scientist in his field and has done an excellent study on footprint casts. I'll see if I can figure out how to post a link to it. That's science. That's evidence. You may not agree with his findings, but to say it's not real evidence is irresponsible.

Here's the link I spoke of - I hope.

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html

And yet this is not evidence. They could absolutely believe they saw a particular thing and not lie purposefully and still be completely wrong. They may be great men but they are not perfect men. There has been only one of those.

If it weren't for skeptics pushing back, zoology books would be filled with chimeras, dragons, phoenixes, and goatmen, and zoos would still not have one. If there were no skeptics, we might not even have books! We would all live in mudhuts, and most of us would die young of terrible diseases. We'd be half-starved, disease-ridden, fear-addled savages, having believed in everything we had imagined or been told.

The ratio of BS production to useful scientific speculation is quite high. It is the nature of our species to come up with wild ideas. Some of them do pan out, but most simply lack merit or practicality. Skepticism is, to put it crudely, the application of a BS-filter against all that idea generation. Without that filter, science would be paralyzed. And we would still live paleolithic lifestyles.

It's the check and balance that keeps us on track. It's taking a brilliant new idea and then attempting to support it with repeatable, credible evidence, that allows us to move forward efficiently. Think of it as the Darwinism of ideas. In fact, the process of culling ideas can result in new ideas. When somoen proposes a new idea, the idea that is finally accepted is often an improved version of the original. The peer review process, and even the marketplace (when free), nudges an idea around so that it becomes more elegant, more effective at solving a problem: in other words, PROGRESS!

On the other side of that coin are the believers: those who settle for an idea without the need to test, verify, and improve. That's intellectual laziness. It's the equivalent of an inventor coming up with a new idea, and then trying to sell the idea without ever inventing anything. In order to sell his idea, he needs a prototype that will do what he says his invention will do. At the least, he needs a documented description of his idea that uses logic and doesn't depend on miracles. Again, skepticism demands that. Why do we not drink mercury to cure disease anymore? A skeptic said, "Wait a minute! People drink mercury; then they die! Something may be wrong with what that doctor is telling us!"

And thank you for the gracious, humble post from yesterday. It takes cajones to say what you did.

Nice post Optimistic Skeptic. I understand your point very well and I see a point that needs to be considered. Skeptics argue that eyewitness accounts are unreliable. I AGREE! However, there is some faulty logic happening there. The correct way to phrase it is; Eyewitness accounts are not 100% reliable. The logical error that skeptics make is in dismissing all eyewitness accounts. That is INCORRECT reasoning. To say that eyewitness accounts are not 100% reliable is not the same thing as saying that they are 0% reliable, or completely unworthy of examination.

I've not said they are not worthy of examination. However, the examination never yields anything. When someone claims they saw a bear acting aggressively and there are reports of a nusiance bear, people track and capture or kill the bear. But bigfoot has never even been succesfully tracked. That requires a suspension of disbelief. The report that dogs are afraid of it and wont' follow the scent requries even more suspension of disbelief.

As for your hairs, they are not conclusive and don't prove anything other than we do not know right now what the fibres are.

Please post a link about these "hairs" so that I can learn more.

The sheer number of "sightings" also is detrimental to the belief in bigfoot, not supportive of it. So many sightings, yet yeilding no evidence, make the likelyhood that there is actually nothing to find even more likely.

I have no problem with a large undiscovered primate(I think it is more likely in other parts of the world then the US). I do have problems with supposed BF researchers that go in, not neutral, but total believers, because of this they twist any evidence to fit their beliefs.

I agree, and I think this is why there is such a "mass" of sightings. I think that they see signs where there are none, or where there are other, more plausible explanations. But the phenemena is not limited to the researchers in the field. I can analyze an episode of one of the bigfoot Monster Hunters and see that they actually spend 47 minutes of airtime in pure speculation and acutally present no evidence at all. But some others see the same episode and come away thinking that the case for bigfoot was made stronger.

Eyewitness accounts are not 100% reliable. How reliable are they? Are they 5% reliable? Are the 10, 20, 30, 40 or even 50% reliable? Let's just say for the sake of argument that they are only 5% reliable. That means for every 100 people who report seeing a large bipedal ape crossing the road at night or running away through the woods at least 5 of them have seen a large bipedal ape running through the woods. Right? I mean even skeptics would have to agree that eyewitness accounts are more than 5% accurate, wouldn't they? If only one out of a hundred people have seen a sasquatch, doesn't that mean that SASQUATCH EXISTS? It's just pure logic. If sasquatch exists, there is something out there to look for.

I don't think there are as many "sightings" as the pro-'footers like to think. And an examination of most sightings reveals that they are not sightings at all. Hearing something oustide your tent is not a sighting. hearing sticks knocking together is not a sighting. Finding a footprint is not a sighting. Seeing something hairy running away in the forrest is not a bigfoot sighting.

I think that the claim of hundreds of sightings is, like most bigfoot "evidence," highly speculative and exaggerated. I think that if 'footers were more critical, they could elimate the overwhelming majority of what they currently accept as a sighting.



No, it's anti-logic. If 5% of the sightings are accurate, then the creature should have been trapped, killed, tracked, or at the very least some remains found.

No, because there is no evidence, bigfoot breaks too many fundamentals of biology and reason.

Even the rarest of the big cats can, and have, been hunted and tracked. But bigfoot is untrackable.
Even the rare wolverine has been studdied and filmed, well documented.
Species who's numbers are below a thousand are considered on the brink of extinction, and are expected to disappear without human intervention.

yet, we are to accept that bigfoot is immune to these rules, simply because we conclude that 5% of the sightings MUST be accurate? When we know that bigfoot breaks the above listed imperatives, and many more, and we KNOW that the eye and brain play tricks, and we KNOW that eyewitnesses are unreliable even under the best of scenarios, logic dictates that bigfoot is unlikely.


I can accept, at a basic level, that you believe bigfoot probably exists based on the number of sightings.

I think that the scienctific principles that make bigfoot highly unlikely are much more reliable, however.

Lets say 5% did see something. Misidentification could cover those.

We're saying out of 100 people who SAW SOMETHING there are probably upwards of 5% (arbitrarily) who've seen a bipedal ape. The point is... if there's even one credible sighting of an upright bipedal ape, then sasquatch is likely to exist, and therefore warrants investigation.

Warrants SOME investigation, but still NOT LIKELY TO EXIST.

What you are asking us to do is believe eyewitness sightings over the scientific principles of biology, zoology, and probably a slew of other "ologies."

Plus the lack of any physical evidence.

The very rules of the scientific method indicate that your statement is false. This is why the overwhelming majority of the scientific community don't waste time and money looking.

Afraid not, the first rule is OBSERVATION.

Not true. The observation has to be repeatable.



http://csicop.org/si/2002-03/bigfoot.html

bfro documents the animal, not shooting it. their is no other gov funded expeditions to look for it. how do you expect to find a body in a place like the pacific nw. until now, their is no reason its a hoax. the gaussian curve argues against it. if 10000 bigfoot exist in 72 million acres, that comes out to 1 sasquatch in 7200 acres, which the remains will be hard to find at night. remote places arent visited often, and people who visited have encountered these things

dont say "we should have found one" bc that is repeated too much and ignorance is shown. besides the bfro, no one else looks for it. hunters have came across these things. hair morphology exams from lynn rogers and fahrenbach conclude its an unknown species of ape, and dna tests indicate their is something in the nw

we all can agree on one thing: sasquatch used to exist. its name was gigantopithecus

Gigantopithecus probably didn't walk upright. We don't know since all we have are teeth, but they more closely match gorilla morphology than human. BF supposedly does walk upright. Similar to the 'orang pendak' sightings, that's one of the things that makes claiming its existence extraordinary (re: my sig.)

Scientifically, eyewitness reports are considered completely unreliable and they are never admissable as evidence. Even in law eyewitness reports alone are not enough to attain a conviction.


Gigantopithecus is not sasquatch, they are different. One is real and has evidence, the other does not have any evidence at all.
BFRO is not government funded, government funding on such a expiditon would be an unforgivable waste of tax money, it is something not taken seriously amongst zoologists.
The PNW has plenty of scientists studying other animals and none of them have ever seen bigfoot or found any evidence of it.

Ok, there are a couple of disconnects in this logic. First, "sighting" does not equal "observation." Second, credibility does not equal accuracy. By putting "5%" or any percent as a credibility rating, you still cannot arrive at a percentage rating for the accuracy. That only gives you a rating of how many sightings were by people who think they saw something anomolous and probably aren't blatantly lying about it. It tells you nothing about what they really saw.

Also, you can't apply a percentage across a range of sighting events the way you're suggesting. Saying "5% who've seen a bipedal ape" automatically includes the assumption that a bipedal ape exists in the first place to be sighted. That is circular logic.

As I've stated before, there is a quote out there similar to this (I'm paraphrasing,) "If there is a 1 in 100,000 chance that a large bipedal ape roams the Pacific Northwest, then we should expend about 1/100,000 of our speculative science efforts to investigate it." That comes down to about 1 scientist, and we have that in Dr. Meldrum.

I'm not sure you can classify that argument as circular. The numbers are arbitrary but the point stands. Since there is an almost perfect consistency to the types of sightings and descriptions the percentages could be much higher. I'm simply stating the point that if there is at least ONE actual, real, observation of a large bipedal ape, then it's logical to assume that much of the "legend" is based in reality. Much like with the Giant Squid, and the Komodo Dragon, there was a significant amount of folklore around the creature before its discovery. The fact that similar creatures are reported almost the world over in remote areas only lends credibility to the issue.

"Bipedal apes in the Pacific Northwest have been sighted, therefore they exist. They exist, therefore that is what is being sighted." That's circular logic, based on the faulty assumption in the first statement. Sightings are not proof, as others have stated. There is nothing to corroborate the "ONE actual, real, observation of a large bipedal ape," therefore we have no idea if such an observation exists. Let's turn this around: Solid, credible proof of bigfoot would still not convert a single sighting into a factual proven sighting of a bigfoot. It would simply mean that some of those sightings may have been of the heretofore cryptid. The sightings would move from "improbable" to "possible" bigfoot sightings. "Possible" is still not proof.

The claim you make of "almost perfect consistency" is also an extraordinary claim. I have not seen any studies that show any correlation under controlled circumstances between the characteristics of individual sightings. Commonalities in the generalization of what constitutes "a bigfoot sighting" cannot be transformed into a statistical analysis. That can be better classified as anecdotal, personal opinion on your part, a reflection of the popular notion of bigfoot. It can, and in fact has been argued that that very generalization affects how individuals describe their sightings. A good example of this is that UFO sightings used to be described as balloons and dirigibles. Only later were they described as alien spacecraft. The zeitgeist thoroughly saturates the perceptions.

The examples of pre-discovery sightings of Giant Squid and Komodo Dragons don't exhibit anything except that we didn't know everything then, and we don't now.

I respect your opinion, and the way you present yourself. I think that we fundamentally disagree about the issue of a sighting in general. I don't see anyway to classify them in some kind of scientific way for analysis. I think they are just people seeing large apes unknown to science from time to time. I don't doubt that many reported sightings are false, but I stand by my opinion that it is more than likely that some at least, are true. Regards.

So if we apply your line of logic to the lack of conclusive evidence then one could conclude that BF doesn’t exist, because out of 100 expeditions/sightings we should have found conclusive evidence at lest 5 times.




They find bodies in the North West woods all the time. Let me give you a few examples.

Ever heard of the green river killer? They found victims of his in the North West woods that were decades old.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/greenriverkillings/

There is also “Kennewick Man” his remains are over 9000 years old. They are so well preserved that anthropologists were able to identify several serious injuries that had healed, including a broken spear tip embedded in his hip. This guy lived a very hard life. Very interesting I would highly recommend you check him out.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/kennewick.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man

I lived in Washington for 12 years and found dead animals in the forest on occasion. And there are many more examples of bodily remains lasting for long periods of time in that climate.

Sorry no link or supporting evidence for the above personal observation.

Simply put again! We should have found some kind of physical evidence by now. And BTW we are not only confined to the Pacific North West in the lack of supporting physical evidence, as BF sighting have been reported all over North America. Surly with so many encounters and within such a large geographic area with a wide array of ecosystems, and climatic conditions someone would have found something or shot one by now.



Again, as so many poster have previously asked; please provide your source material for these claims. I would be very interested in reading about them.



I do not agree with this. It is unknown if Gigantopithecus was bipedal, also Gigantopithecus has only been found in tropical, and subtropical areas. From its dentition scientist think that its primary diet consisted bamboo and fruit. What would Gigantopithecus eat in northern latitudes during winter? It is extremely doubtful that an ape from warmer climes would have survived long enough to even make it to the Bering land bridge let alone cross it during an ice age. When and if they find enough of a Gigantopithecus skull we will know if they were bipedal. But until then one should refrain from making such claims. Perhaps it was only ancient stories of Gigantopithecus that crossed the Bering land bridge.

Why is it that we can find 300,000 year old evidence of Gigantopithecus but we can not find contemporary evidence of big foot?

And we have perfect agreement on that, my friend!

I think you're right. We seem to be using similar words, but speaking a different language!

Good analysis. I wish I had thought of that!



This is the one thing I might ever so slightly disagree with, or maybe I would have just worded it differently. While I don't think people with bad ideas should be encouraged, I don't think anyone with any ideas should be discouraged from bringing them forth. We can choose to ignore the noise. I would just suggest that they have credible supporting evidence for extraordinary claims, and be ready to face the gauntlet of peer review that will examine that evidence closely.

It's just too bad that what passes for peer review in the BF enthusiast camp is, "Hey, y'all! Billy Earl Ray Bob Jr. says that when he went behind that thar tree to take a whizz, he saw a bigfoot, and he ain't had but a 12-pack! It must be true! Pass me another beer, Shirley May, and put your shirt back on."

On the basis that the mountain gorilla was only discovered in 1902, I'm pretty open minded as to whether another ape-like cryptid exists.

I hate to be the only one reponding here, but oh well. We are speaking the same language but interpreting events differently.



First problem, you are comparing two separate and distinct events and making assumptions across the two that are mutually exclusive. I'm talking about eyewitness accounts; a somewhat common event (there have been over a thousand). We know that sighting reports go back many years. Reports of wildmen, hairy men, sasquatch, whatever, go all the way back to the First Nations people. See attached. We know that many of these "modern" reported sightings have accompanying footprints or sworn affidavits from the observers. I don't know of any expeditions formally reported with the aim of finding sasquatch bones or fossils.

Let's agree on terms. By conclusive evidence I assume you mean bones or a body. I know that kind of evidence hasn't been found yet. There are other forms of evidence that have been found that should suffice, or at least warrant further consideration such as; hair, footprints from remote locations, dna extracted from stool samples, recorded vocalizations, etc. These are all forms of evidence that can and have been analyzed scientifically. I posted a link earlier to Dr. Meldrum's footprint analysis. That analysis shows variation in toe spread, evidence of mid-foot flexibility, etc. These aspects make it unlikely for some of the samples to be fraudulent. PS. There were no comments to Dr. Meldrum's analysis. Did anyone bother to read it? I would also include the somewhat weathered but still there blood samples from the cabin in Canada featured on the Monster Hunters show a few months back and the resulting dna analysis.

In summary, to say that there should be conclusive evidence from 100 expeditions is false. I don't personally know of ANY expeditions with the aim of finding sasquatch bones. I remember reading a post from Psyche101 (i think) that stated there have been some, I've just never read any. I personally know of less than a dozen formally reported expeditions with the aim of obtaining some type of evidence. There are people out there with game cams now adays, but that's all I know of. If you have information about formal scientific expeditions seeking the type of evidence you require, I'd love to hear about it.

I'm perfectly in favor of skeptics posting. I welcome the perspective they bring.

I detest those who, on either side of the issue, prove time and again to be intolerant of other's viewpoints and contentions. Folks, people are seeing something out there. Whether it's as they report, a seven foot hairy upright hominid, or some relic species' memory, the phenomenon occurs. It's not a freaking raccoon in a tree! The P/G film is not a poor, obviously faked submission. I've seen plenty of poor, obviously faked vids on YouTube, and the P/G isn't among those. The fact that hoaxes have been planted doesn't eliminate the possibility something exists.

There's simply no reason to continually bombard threads with constant postings repeating the same points. This goes for both sides. State your case, and move on. We get it already.

Last, but not least, please consider you're posting upon a forum entitled Unexplained Mysteries>Cryptozoology. If you merely come here to bash the fact some people believe in the creature, and some people believe the possibility exists, then you are merely a troll.

Cryptozoology and its adherents want it to be a science. I want it to be a science, capable of producing solid, repeatable results and new knowledge. Therefore, I expend some small amount of my time trying to bring my tiny bit of rationality to the discussion of it, where I find it interesting, for purely selfish reasons. To be a science, cryptozoology must be pursued rationally and with some semblance of accepted scientific rigor. Hobbyists who bring illogic, blind foundationless belief, pseudoscientific "proof," and marketing-victim hyberbole to the table do nothing but damage the chances of cryptozoology building any credibility, many doing so while adamantly calling for recognition of cryptozoology as an accepted science! That is the epitome of irrationality.

In my observations, fanatical believers (the ones who are sane,) usually let their beliefs spring from their emotions as a form of instant gratification. They want what they want right now without having to work or pay for it. I will, however, maintain intellectual discipline over my beliefs, as is my right as a human, and make every effort to make sure my beliefs are not polluted with "facts" and principles I can't rigorously defend. Why would anyone let their minds be filled with pseudoscientific garbage? They do it for the same reason some people self-medicate, others buy on credit beyond their ability to ever repay, and many fall in love today with thoughts of an immediate marriage while planning their divorce for next year knowing they won't still be in the thralls of romantic bliss by then. It feels good right now, and it takes no effort. But you get exactly that for which you work. "Feel good" is woefully shortlived, and delayed payment is always made at a premium. The same goes for the pursuit of science.

Yes, I'm selfish. I want to know more. False information just gets in my way, though, and irrational approaches lessen the chance that I will know more that is worth knowing.

Just giving my reasons why I am:

The Optimistic Skeptic

If it wasn't for us skeptics, these threads would be very short. As long as information is provided I see no problem with it.

"Sightings" to you equals "observations." "Anecdotal information" to you equals "acceptable evidence." "Paucity of evidence" for you means that there has not been enough searching for evidence that you believe must exist.

To me, "sightings" equal a source for speculation, but are nothing even resembling evidence. "Anecdotal information" won't even register on my scale of factual weight. "Paucity of evidence" to me will only mean there simply isn't more evidence to be found, and expending special effort to search for more is not warranted unless there is a compelling level of other unexplainable aspects. In the case of Samsquanch, "sightings" don't meet that criteria.

Same words, different meanings. That might as well be different language. "Under red forest had bouncer the forgotten hat."

This all goes back to your OP, where you stated, "They insist upon scientific evidence, and then when you give them some they refuse to consider it." If your definition of "scientific" is not as rigorous as mine, then why should I consider any evidence presented? Calling it "scientific" does not make it so! The collection, transport, and examination of said "evidence" must be controlled to make it scientific. Has anyone presented such?

You then state: 'I was on a board today and mentioned a scientific hair analysis done by Dr. Farenbach. This is a "real" scientist, unlike the skeptics who post here, who are not scientists.'

Those are broad, unfounded statements there. How do you know I'm not a scientist, nor are others? As far as Dr. Fahrenbach being a "real" scientist, I question what that has to do with the question at hand. Dr. Fahrenbach has a dollar to make, and has fallen for hoaxes before, yet still takes in "evidence" collected from the same people who have admitted to committing hoaxes.

And then: "...and let the rest of us engage in reasonable discourse." There are a couple of terms for a group of people who all agree with each other getting together and hashing over all of the same beliefs without letting any differing perspectives come to light. See Myles statement for more insight.

Regardless of that, please cite the reference you offered to this other board regarding Dr. Fahrenbach's study on the hairs. I would very much enjoy reading it.

giganto's jaw was u-shaped like humans, meaning it likely was bipedal

their is 1 sasquatch per 7200 acres or 100 square miles. expecting to see it would be like winning the lotto. simple as that. if it wasnt real, their would be no sightings.

havent you seen fahrenbachs study on the hairs and lynn rogers tests, and curt nelsons dna extraction

We are not dealing with labratory experiments here. Are the continued sightnings not "repeated?" It seems like different observers claiming to see the same creature is by definition repeated.

I cited the Farenbach study from "Meet the Sasquatch" page 155 by Chris Murphy. I'm not sure about the legality of reproducing it here.

Hi! Optimistic! Sorry to interrupt, but would you mind citing the reference or posting a link, about Dr. Fahrenbach falling for hoaxes and then taking in evidence collected by people who have admitted to committing hoaxes. Sorry to bother you, but this is the first I've heard of that and I would like to know where you found it. Thanks!

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier. That people don't see how utterly, terribly weak and lazy is that statement goes to the core of the problem, and why pro-Samsquanchers are not taken seriously.

People are not computers, recording everything they see with perfect accuracy and perfect memory. Our psychology determines what we "see." People make mistakes. People infer and conjecture big pictures from little clues, often when they aren't related. These are the well-known and well-tested mechanisms by which we perceive the world around us as a contiguous reality instead of unrelated tid-bits. People lie. All of these are known, well-tested phenomena, with mounds and mounds of evidence and observation and experiment. We may not understand how they all work (even that last one,) but they are OBSERVABLE and not just SIGHTED. Any one of these will adequately explain every single bigfoot sighting ever claimed. Because of that, see my sig and understand that sightings are the exact OPPOSITE of extraordinary proof.

Believe what you want about Samsquanch (I personally would like for them to exist!) but I admonish all to have some intellectual honesty on the subject. See my previous post about the harm blind belief does to a push for acceptance.

Ok, I should have worded that more carefully. Please allow me to retract my previous statement about Dr. Fahrenbach falling for hoaxes. I have probability to believe that, but no proof. Again, skepticism cuts both ways! Everyone, please accept my apology for making such a harsh statement.

However, I stand by my claim that he has taken evidence from known hoaxsters. The one I had in mind specifically would be past tense now, since Paul Freeman is no longer alive.


Fahrenbach defends taking hair samples from Paul Freeman.

Fahrenbach claims a cast made by Freeman in 2002 and given to him is "non-human." From what I've read, footprints were Freeman's forté.

Paul Freeman admits hoaxing footprints.

Friend says, "he was a hoaxer!"

There are tons more links out there.

Thanks, Yetihunter! I'll look that over. Understood about the quotings. At the least, it's rude to the author.

Edit: Forgot to mention. "Repeated" doesn't equal "repeatable." Further, I should metion "verifiable." Sightings are neither. We don't know what's being repeated, because none of it has been verified.