Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
grendals_bane

The Problems with Bigfoot

186 posts in this topic

This is my attempt to create a breakdown of the many reasons why I believe Bigfoot does not exist, it not an exhaustive list but I hope that it may prove of some use.

This guide is not an attempt to bash those who do believe but is an attempt to highlight the problems with the idea of Bigfoot existing.

Also, for the purpose of this breakdown I will be using the most common theory, which is that Bigfoot is an ape or hominid.

Evolution

I will begin by looking at how a species such as Bigfoot is commonly assumed to have evolved and highlighting the problems regarding this.

The two main ideas are that Bigfoot is a descendant of Gigantopithecus, or more closely related to man, putting it within the Hominid bracket.

Gigantopithecus: Does roughly fit the sizes as commonly reported as that of Bigfoot, of around 7ft - 9ft tall and weighing around the 1000lb mark.

The Problem with this: It is commonly held that Gigantopithecus was a quadruped, which if true Bigfoot would also most likely be a quadruped. The reason for this is that bipedalism usually only develops within small species, it is only after bipedalism has become established that the species can then increase in mass.

Large Theropod Dinosaurs such as T.Rex are a good example of this. Although T.Rex may have been one of the largest Theropod Dinosaurs to live, it was its much smaller ancestors that evolved bipedalism. Once established this would allow the following species to increase in size as each generation evolves measures to deal with the increasing mass being exerted on the limbs.

A 1000lb Gigantopithecus going from a quadruped to biped would just not be practical as each leg would have to support twice as much weight as before, severely hampering movement and cause excessive wear on the legs. An example can be seen in those who are bedridden with morbid obesity as their legs are not capable of supporting the mass of their bodies.

Hominid: This would solve the problems with developing bipedalim as if Bigfoot was a Hominid bipedalism would already be the established form of locomotion which would allow for increase in mass over time.

The Problem with this: Neanderthals,Homo Erectus and Homo Heidelbergensis are three commonly mentioned Hominids in regards to Bigfoot as well as occasionally older species such as Paranthropus. The difficulty here lies in that we have a fairly good idea of what the first three looked like, all of which were very Human in appearance. As for an older species such as Paranthropus, they do superficially resemble Bigfoot, apart from size, but like all non Human Hominids not a single species has been uncovered in America.

Habitat

Bigfoot is predominately sighted in the Pacific Northwest of the U.S, generally in wooded areas but has been sighted in almost every other state of America as well as Canada, again in mostly wooded areas.

The Problem with this: Species that live in forested areas are usually smaller than those that live in open terrain. For example the African Forest Elephant is smaller than its open country counterpart. This is because size hampers movement through woodland. Also a tall biped would have a higher centre of gravity reducing an animals stability whilst traveling through potentially uneven terrain.

Another problem with the habitat of Bigfoot is that no Apes are found in temperate forests within the northern hemisphere and their has never been any fossils uncovered to suggest the existence of any form of Ape in America.

Although it is possible convergent evolution could have occurred within the New World Monkeys to produce an Ape-Like species, which then migrated to North America during the Great American Interchange. But again we would be expected to find fossil evidence of this occurring as well as wondering why it would become extinct in its original territory, etc.

Diet

There are three options available regarding the diet of Bigfoot, Carnivorous, Herbivorous and Omnivorous.

Problem with being a Carnivore: If Bigfoot was Carnivorous then it would be the only Ape or Hominid known to only eat meat. It would also be limited to eating fresh meat as Apes and Hominids do not have a sufficient digestive system to counteract the harmful toxins found in rotting meat.

Limiting Bigfoot to only fresh meat would mean it would have to hunt and due to its size it would have a much higher calorific intake than a Human. One of the main problems I see, is that carnivores are generally opportunistic which would lead to reports of livestock being killed by a Bigfoot for example, as well as bringing it in to competition with other predators. The species would also struggle due to being hampered by its inability to consume rotting meat.

Problem with being a Herbivore Bigfoot being a Herbivore is a much more plausible idea, yet still poses problems. Plant matter is generally poor in nutrients which leads to Herbivores having to spend long periods of time eating. This would suggest a lifestyle similar to that of Gorillas confining Bigfoot to a home range of no more than a few miles which would increase the likelihood of discovery as if one Bigfoot was sighted then the others wouldn't be too far away.

Problem with being an Omnivore Out of the three being an Omnivore is the most likely diet as it is the most varied and fits closer to the diet of most Apes and Hominids. The problem here lies in that Omnivores are just as, if not more opportunistic than Carnivores and this poses the question as to why Bigfoot is not sighted as regularly as other Omnivores in urban areas. You also again have the problem of hunting and why livestock are not reported being killed, etc, and if the species uses rudimentary tools, why has no evidence of this been produced.

Ecological Niche

If we look at the most likely scenario regarding diet and assume Bigfoot does indeed live within wooded/forested areas as is most commonly reported we would be looking at a large, Omnivorous, mammal.

The Problem with this This would place it well within the niche currently occupied by the Black Bear, especially within the Pacific Northwest. It would also mean Bigfoot would most likely be viewed as a possible food source by Pumas, especially the young and weak. Due to this there would surely be evidence, in the form of carcasses, of young or weak Bigfoot being preyed upon by Pumas.

Also, due to the clash of niches with the Black Bear there would be evidence of violence between the species as is seen between Hyenas and Lions. As Bigfoot is alleged to be an Ape or Hominid, therefore meaning it would be a social species, would give it a distinct advantage over the Black Bear, thus reducing the Bears numbers and range, which is contrary to the current trend as Black Bear numbers are steady increasing.

This is also not taking into account possible interactions with Brown Bears and Wolves, who although occupy slightly more open country, could still encounter a Bigfoot.

These reasons and more lead me to believe that Bigfoot does not exist.

That is my take on the situation, which I have tried to come at as logically and unbiased as possible and I just hope it gives people a few things to ponder on, skeptics and believers alike.

I know I haven't tackled every area, such as population levels, etc but then I don't want to be here forever. :P

Edited by grendals_bane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Problem with being an Omnivore Out of the three being an Omnivore is the most likely diet as it is the most varied and fits closer to the diet of most Apes and Hominids. The problem here lies in that Omnivores are just as if not more opportunistic than Carnivores and this poses the question as to why Bigfoot is not sighted as regularly as other Omnivores in urban areas. You also again have the problem of hunting and why livestock are not reported being killed, etc, and if the species uses rudimentary tools, why has no evidence of this being produced.

just to tackle one or two statements (time is short atm)... there is a simply explanation for this, (coming from the opposite side of the debate), if they are intelligent creatures that have learned to associate man as someone to stay away from then why would they risk an encounter by coming into the city when food (calories) are quiet easy to come by in the Pacific North west for a good chunk of the year? (albeit, there have been sasquatch sightings at the edge of towns and farms reported). when it comes to "collecting/harvesting" food from the wild, i would argue (from my own experiences) that the pacific north west is one of the easiest places in the world to live off of the land.

You also again have the problem of hunting and why livestock are not reported being killed

up here where i live, most of the cattle is free-range. if one vanishes, it is just assumed a bear or the such killed it. unless someone sees it dying, there is no way to "know" what happened to it. then whatever is left of it (bones, etc) is usually quickly dispersed by wolves and coyotes and even mice, etc. I have come across remains of killed free-range cattle in the past while exploring old logging roads. never more then a few bones and the odd scrap of flesh. its hard to tell what killed the animal at that point without taking the bones to a lab, etc.

Gigantopithecus: Does roughly fit the sizes as commonly reported as that of Bigfoot, of around 7ft - 9ft tall and weighing around the 1000lb mark.

My personal take (theory) on Sasquatch (from my own experience and from experiences of a couple other people i have had the pleasure of knowing) is that Sasquatch is basically human. IE, several thousand years ago (or possible even longer ago), Hypertrichosis (or another disease that causes you to be covered in hair) popped up in a tribe. Those several people were "forcefully" told you leave the tribe. (Because we all know how people like people that are different :unsure2: ). And basically they survived, snatching wives, etc, from other villages and continued to survive in the woods unto this day (there are stories of sasquatches stealing women from tribes for mates and this would make sense if they were 'humans', only different). Then, overtime, a few other mutations, etc, might have popped up. Just enough to make them look different, but yet still human-ish, imho. (I for one, again from my own experience think that the size estimates of the "creature" is overblown... but again, thats just me).

And (going on the assumption my theory is correct) it would explain the whole "why are bones never found" part of the mystery. Ie, when the odd bone does turn it is taken for being a human bone (because, technically, it would be a human bone). :huh:

Lol, anyways, sorry to digress, don't want to drag your discussion off topic.

- Bavarian Raven

edited for spelling and clearity.

Edited by Bavarian Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal take (theory) on Sasquatch (from my own experience and from experiences of a couple other people i have had the pleasure of knowing) is that Sasquatch is basically human. IE, several thousand years ago (or possible even longer ago), Hypertrichosis (or another disease that causes you to be covered in hair) popped up in a tribe. Those several people were "forcefully" told you leave the tribe. (Because we all know how people like people that are different ). And basically they survived, snatching wives, etc, from other villages and continued to survive in the woods unto this day (there are stories of sasquatches stealing women from tribes for mates and this would make sense if they were 'humans', only different). Then, overtime, a few other mutations, etc, might have popped up. Just enough to make them look different, but yet still human-ish, imho. (I for one, again from my own experience think that the size estimates of the "creature" is overblown... but again, thats just me).

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

What you are talking about here is a very very limited gene pool to be working with....hardly enough to keep a group going for thousands of years. So the large size is one of these " mutations" then? How do you explain the supposed sightings in so many places throughout the US?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What you are talking about here is a very very limited gene pool to be working with....hardly enough to keep a group going for thousands of years. So the large size is one of these " mutations" then? How do you explain the supposed sightings in so many places throughout the US?

I'll do my best to answer your questions in reverse order.

How do you explain the supposed sightings in so many places throughout the US?

firstly, I don't deal or read or even look into sightings "throughout" the US of A. I have heard of the odd report from beyond the mtns, etc, but mostly only the local stuff interests me (Pacific northwest). So for that, i cannot give you a sound answer.

So the large size is one of these " mutations" then?

I personally don't believe they are much larger then an average sized joe - again from what I experienced and from the experiences of other people I know. Albeit this does not cover all the spectrum of sightings. Though perhaps gigantism is a possible answer. (correct me if i am wrong, but people with this disorder can grow to 7-9 feet in height).

What you are talking about here is a very very limited gene pool to be working with....hardly enough to keep a group going for thousands of years.

Though history has shown that populations have been started with very few individuals and continued to survive for long lengths of time (Easter Island, etc). So a limited gene pool is not the be all, end all of a population. Though this limited gene pool does lead into two interesting points, one, the stories of Sasquatches stealing women for mates (to help keep some genetic diversity and/or to deal with a lack of suitable mate) and two, that limited populations (severe population bottlenecks) can lead to loss of genetic diversity, traits, and skills/knowledge. Which could also easily explain their limited tool usage, etc. (From various reports i have read from my region, Sasquatches have been reported using wooden spears and some reported wearing crude hides wrapped around them as clothing).

-Bavarian Raven

Edited for spelling.

Edited by Bavarian Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good OP.

a lot of the rest are just fanciful imaginings of why bigfoot can buck these natural trends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never heard of BF wearing cloths. If they do exist and have learned to be afraid of man they would be good at avoiding us and could do so in a lot of the national forests. I know there are bears in my area and seldom does someone see one and you never find a carcass. Occasionally I have seen evidence of them.

A man not far from where I live claims he saw one in the national forest. He said it was by a cave overlooking the river and that it threw sticks and stuff at him. I don't know if I believe it, I have heard some loud usual sounds coming from the forest at night, lots of wilderness where I live. If there is going to be definite proof of their existence someone will have to kill one and bring it in. A picture won't do it they can be faked too easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, I'll agree with Neo that the OP is a very good post.

Evolution

Gigantopithecus:

Agree with you on this. I think the Giganto idea fits the physical descriptions and observed behavior worse then.... Hominid

Hominid:

...

The difficulty here lies in that we have a fairly good idea of what the first three looked like, all of which were very Human in appearance. As for an older species such as Paranthropus, they do superficially resemble Bigfoot, apart from size, but like all non Human Hominids not a single species has been uncovered in America.

I agree with your statements here also, but it is my belief, the early hominids could have gotten to the Americas as early as 1 million years ago. Time to adjust to the changing climate and ecology, while remaining very human like.

Habitat

...

The Problem with this: Species that live in forested areas are usually smaller than those that live in open terrain. For example the African Forest Elephant is smaller than its open country counterpart. This is because size hampers movement through woodland. Also a tall biped would have a higher centre of gravity reducing an animals stability whilst traveling through potentially uneven terrain.

This is true as a general rule, but if you assume Bigfoot is mega-fauna and enlarged in size during the last glaciation, it could be argued that a long generational time would prevent extinction and reduced size from occuring very quickly. It could very well be that bigfoot was not designed for the forests, but was forced there by human territorial growth. Just as plains buffalo became rare on the great plains, but held on in maountainous or partly forested regions.

Diet

...

Problem with being a Carnivore: If Bigfoot was Carnivorous then it would be the only Ape or Hominid known to only eat meat. It would also be limited to eating fresh meat as Apes and Hominids do not have a sufficient digestive system to counteract the harmful toxins found in rotting meat.

Many believe that Neanderthals ate a very high percentage of meat.

Limiting Bigfoot to only fresh meat would mean it would have to hunt and due to its size it would have a much higher calorific intake than a Human.

Very true and a very limiting factor. Reports of bigfoot claim they are very fast, very strong and have lots of energy. So they would need a lot of caliories.

Problem with being a Herbivore Bigfoot being a Herbivore is a much more plausible idea, yet still poses problems.

Agree. An herbivore bigfoot would be sluggish and would have been collected into zoos long ago.

Problem with being an Omnivore

...

The problem here lies in that Omnivores are just as, if not more opportunistic than Carnivores and this poses the question as to why Bigfoot is not sighted as regularly as other Omnivores in urban areas.

Again agree. If bigfoot was omnivorous, you'd think that every rural dump would have them hanging around for free calories, just like bears will.

The arguement that they are too smart to wander into civilized areas to get food is too simple, as many reports, maybe most, come from just such areas.

Ecological Niche

...

The Problem with this This would place it well within the niche currently occupied by the Black Bear, especially within the Pacific Northwest.

So? Bears once had a greater range and greater numbers. Bears in many areas are protected, because their numbers are well below their historic levels. This lower population of bears would actually allow bigfoot to expand its range and numbers, and would definately allow bigfoot enough food of the same type bears would eat to be available.

It would also mean Bigfoot would most likely be viewed as a possible food source by Pumas, especially the young and weak. Due to this there would surely be evidence, in the form of carcasses, of young or weak Bigfoot being preyed upon by Pumas.

This would be true if bigfoot bones are noticably outside the normal range of human norm for bones. Thousands of children go missing every year and generally if bones are found it is only part of the whole.

Not sure if every set of bones found anywhere are DNA tested or not. Could very well be that bigfoot bones have been collectedmany times and not recognized.

Also, due to the clash of niches with the Black Bear there would be evidence of violence between the species as is seen between Hyenas and Lions. As Bigfoot is alleged to be an Ape or Hominid, therefore meaning it would be a social species, would give it a distinct advantage over the Black Bear, thus reducing the Bears numbers and range, which is contrary to the current trend as Black Bear numbers are steady increasing.

A social bigfoot is an assumption based on existing apes, just as saying that big cats are not social because tigers, leopards, jaguars and pumas are loners, so lions cannot be social.

There is no reason to expect that bigfoot and bears would be hostile to each other. Wolves and bears live together in the wild together just find. Bears and wolverines also do not attack each other on sight.

Bears clearly have the advantage of a faster generational turnover, and more offspring per generation. Bigfoots are suspected to only have one young at a time and that it takes many years for the female to have another. Thus bears can outcompete bigfoot, even if bigfoot has some advantages. Homo Sapiens did the same thing to the Neanderthals. Modern humans had more children and out populated the neanderthals into hybridization and ultimately extinction.

Another problem with the habitat of Bigfoot is that no Apes are found in temperate forests within the northern hemisphere and their has never been any fossils uncovered to suggest the existence of any form of Ape in America.

Of course I totally agree. There is no evidence of bigfoot actually existing in the known fossil record. And of course no verified modern physical evidence either.

My personal take (theory) on Sasquatch (from my own experience and from experiences of a couple other people i have had the pleasure of knowing) is that Sasquatch is basically human. IE, several thousand years ago (or possible even longer ago), Hypertrichosis (or another disease that causes you to be covered in hair) popped up in a tribe. Those several people were "forcefully" told you leave the tribe. (Because we all know how people like people that are different :unsure2: ). And basically they survived, snatching wives, etc, from other villages and continued to survive in the woods unto this day (there are stories of sasquatches stealing women from tribes for mates and this would make sense if they were 'humans', only different). Then, overtime, a few other mutations, etc, might have popped up. Just enough to make them look different, but yet still human-ish, imho. (I for one, again from my own experience think that the size estimates of the "creature" is overblown... but again, thats just me).

I've thought the same thing on occation. That perhaps bigfoot is a genetic expression of some recessive gene in certain world wide groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never heard of BF wearing cloths.

Random Reports of Bigfoot Wearing Clothes - http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/bushman/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give us a body or a live one in captivity and then I will believe!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is true as a general rule, but if you assume Bigfoot is mega-fauna and enlarged in size during the last glaciation, it could be argued that a long generational time would prevent extinction and reduced size from occuring very quickly. It could very well be that bigfoot was not designed for the forests, but was forced there by human territorial growth. Just as plains buffalo became rare on the great plains, but held on in maountainous or partly forested regions.

At the same time having a long generational time could also contribute towards extinction due to individuals not being able to physically adapt to the rapidly changing environment.

So? Bears once had a greater range and greater numbers. Bears in many areas are protected, because their numbers are well below their historic levels. This lower population of bears would actually allow bigfoot to expand its range and numbers, and would definately allow bigfoot enough food of the same type bears would eat to be available.

But then you could argue that Bigfoot numbers should have also reduced and sighting become less common due to Human encroachment, etc.

A social bigfoot is an assumption based on existing apes, just as saying that big cats are not social because tigers, leopards, jaguars and pumas are loners, so lions cannot be social.

But as it is assumed by many that Bigfoot is an Ape or Hominid, then we can only assume its lifestyle would be similar to that of known Apes or Hominids.

It is no different than the assumptions made about extinct species, where their behaviour, etc, are based on its closest living relative.

There is no reason to expect that bigfoot and bears would be hostile to each other. Wolves and bears live together in the wild together just find. Bears and wolverines also do not attack each other on sight.

Wolves and Bears regularly steal kills from one another. Wolves have also been known to attack and kill Black Bears, especially whilst hibernating. Wolves also steal kills from Pumas and have been known to kill a Puma and her kittens.

Black Bears also steal kills from Pumas which sometimes lead to fighting.

Black Bears and Wolverines do sometimes have confrontations, again predominantly over scavenging rights.

Bears clearly have the advantage of a faster generational turnover, and more offspring per generation. Bigfoots are suspected to only have one young at a time and that it takes many years for the female to have another. Thus bears can outcompete bigfoot, even if bigfoot has some advantages. Homo Sapiens did the same thing to the Neanderthals. Modern humans had more children and out populated the neanderthals into hybridization and ultimately extinction.

If Bigfoot was an Ape or Hominid then this would lead to the assumption that it has the intelligence of one too. This would then lead to the ability to better take advantage of any food supplies available as well as taking advantage of the period Black Bears hibernate during, which would effect Black Bear survival.

Edited by grendals_bane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the Giganto idea fits the physical descriptions and observed behavior worse then.... Hominid

Except we are confident that giganto survived on fast growing and relatively nutritious bamboo like plants. Which we don't have here in north america.

it is my belief, the early hominids could have gotten to the Americas as early as 1 million years ago.

It's my belief that cheerios give you the power to fly.

No evidence whatsoever for your claim or mine.

T

his lower population of bears would actually allow bigfoot to expand its range and numbers, and would definately allow bigfoot enough food of the same type bears would eat to be available.

Except that we don't see any evidence whatsoever of a large animal filling the niche that bears used to occupy. And not to mention that we have evidence for bears, and they are a known animal.

Bears clearly have the advantage of a faster generational turnover, and more offspring per generation. Bigfoots are suspected to only have one young at a time and that it takes many years for the female to have another.

But this is only "suspected" because it is completely made up to try to explain away some of the lack of evidence. You can also make an equally invalid claim that bigfoot is suspected to reproduce by budding, and doesn't need a mate, and this is why there can be so few of them and still maintain a population. It shouldn't matter that no multi-celled animals reproduce by budding, just none of the other things bigfoot is "suspected of" align with the patterns and protocol we see elsewhere in nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except we are confident that giganto survived on fast growing and relatively nutritious bamboo like plants. Which we don't have here in north america.

It's my belief that cheerios give you the power to fly.

No evidence whatsoever for your claim or mine.

T

Except that we don't see any evidence whatsoever of a large animal filling the niche that bears used to occupy. And not to mention that we have evidence for bears, and they are a known animal.

But this is only "suspected" because it is completely made up to try to explain away some of the lack of evidence. You can also make an equally invalid claim that bigfoot is suspected to reproduce by budding, and doesn't need a mate, and this is why there can be so few of them and still maintain a population. It shouldn't matter that no multi-celled animals reproduce by budding, just none of the other things bigfoot is "suspected of" align with the patterns and protocol we see elsewhere in nature.

Exactly. Any unfounded claim, no matter how ridiculous is just as valid as the rest of the unfounded claims, which is to say, not valid at all. but they sure can be fun. I like the budding idea personally. I'd love to watch a squatch grow another one off its big hairy butt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. Any unfounded claim, no matter how ridiculous is just as valid as the rest of the unfounded claims, which is to say, not valid at all. but they sure can be fun. I like the budding idea personally. I'd love to watch a squatch grow another one off its big hairy butt.

This is why so few of them are sighted. When they are budding a baby sasquatch, their outline and silhouettes don't look like the usual hominid silhouette. so people don't recognize them, until the baby drops off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the same time having a long generational time could also contribute towards extinction due to individuals not being able to physically adapt to the rapidly changing environment.

But then you could argue that Bigfoot numbers should have also reduced and sighting become less common due to Human encroachment, etc.

True. And I've always been a proponent that bigfoot would have one foot in the grave.

But as it is assumed by many that Bigfoot is an Ape or Hominid, then we can only assume its lifestyle would be similar to that of known Apes or Hominids.

It is no different than the assumptions made about extinct species, where their behaviour, etc, are based on its closest living relative.

True. But an assumption is not a Fact, right? Bigfoot being loners would not be overly surprising.

Wolves and Bears regularly steal kills from one another. Wolves have also been known to attack and kill Black Bears, especially whilst hibernating. Wolves also steal kills from Pumas and have been known to kill a Puma and her kittens.

Black Bears also steal kills from Pumas which sometimes lead to fighting.

Black Bears and Wolverines do sometimes have confrontations, again predominantly over scavenging rights.

But if any of these animals ran into each other wandering around their territory, they would not immediately attack. The same would go for Bigfoot. All these animals would simply leave the other alone, unless there was food involved. I don't believe bears, wolves or pumas have any natural predators and bigfoot would be the same.

If Bigfoot was an Ape or Hominid then this would lead to the assumption that it has the intelligence of one too. This would then lead to the ability to better take advantage of any food supplies available as well as taking advantage of the period Black Bears hibernate during, which would effect Black Bear survival.

True, but would even greater intellegence help against a competing population that increases a three times the rate in one third the time? A population with a 10 year generation with one young per couple would take 40 years to multiply by 10, while a population with a 2 year generation with 2 or 3 young per couple would take only 4 or 5 years to multiply by 10. The bears have a clear advantage unless the bigfoot decide to try to eliminate the bears. Greater intellegence would allow them to plan for the future and allow them, just as humans, to eliminate enemy species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ll these animals would simply leave the other alone, unless there was food involved.

Who wants to be the first to post some animals fighting in the wild without food being at stake!?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except we are confident that giganto survived on fast growing and relatively nutritious bamboo like plants. Which we don't have here in north america.

I meant that Giganto would be much less likely then a homonid.

It's my belief that cheerios give you the power to fly.

No evidence whatsoever for your claim or mine.

Have cheerios ever allowed anyone to fly? Can humans fly by ingesting any substance?

North America was connected many times over the last million years due to repeating glaciation. Each time species moved back and forth across the land bridge. Horses originated in North America, and migrated to Asia. Cheetahs once lived in North America with Mammoths, rhinos and camels. All of which came over the land bridge. And, homonid fossils have been found in Northern China dating back 750,000 years ago. And it would be naive to believe that those were a one off adventurer and that no populations existed there and even further north.

Except that we don't see any evidence whatsoever of a large animal filling the niche that bears used to occupy. And not to mention that we have evidence for bears, and they are a known animal.

True enough. But, people do see... bigfoot.

But this is only "suspected" because it is completely made up to try to explain away some of the lack of evidence. You can also make an equally invalid claim that bigfoot is suspected to reproduce by budding, and doesn't need a mate, and this is why there can be so few of them and still maintain a population. It shouldn't matter that no multi-celled animals reproduce by budding, just none of the other things bigfoot is "suspected of" align with the patterns and protocol we see elsewhere in nature.

Point me at one "budding" mammal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True enough. But, people do see... bigfoot.

There is no actual evidence that anyone has ever seen a bigfoot. Not a single shred that has ever stood up to peer review.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have cheerios ever allowed anyone to fly? Can humans fly by ingesting any substance?

North America was connected many times over the last million years due to repeating glaciation. Each time species moved back and forth across the land bridge. Horses originated in North America, and migrated to Asia. Cheetahs once lived in North America with Mammoths, rhinos and camels. All of which came over the land bridge. And, homonid fossils have been found in Northern China dating back 750,000 years ago. And it would be naive to believe that those were a one off adventurer and that no populations existed there and even further north.

It would be naive to believe that we have evidence for all those other creatures, yet not a single solitary piece of evidence showing any homninids came to North America same except for us.

I don't know if your above statements are even correct though.

True enough. But, people do see... bigfoot.

No they don't.

There is usually some sort of evidence for things that can be observed. except for bigfoot. the only thing in this world that is observed, yet not in evidence.

There is no actual evidence that anyone has ever seen a bigfoot. Not a single shred that has ever stood up to peer review.

What he said.

Point me at one "budding" mammal.

Point me at one mammal with the stomach acids required to eat rancid meat, one of the silly hypothesis put forth to explain how bigfoot eats all the dead bigfeets. The people who suggest this would tell you, quite aggressively, that just because no other mammal reproduces by budding, does not mean that an as yet undiscovered mammal couldn't do so, and you are closed minded if you don't agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As having no side in the debate. I must confess that orangepeaceful79 does present a well thought out presentation and has almost convinced me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As having no side in the debate. I must confess that orangepeaceful79 does present a well thought out presentation and has almost convinced me.

And I confess that I've only stood on the shoulders of others who have done as much or more thinking as I have about the topic of bigfoot. I've only been blessed with the ability to recognize logical ideas and support them with reasonbly well-drafted responses. Make sure to give props to Neognosis, grendal's_bane, Sakari, and others who I lack the nomenclature to recall as well. Thanks though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Props to all those that support thier positions without sarcasm or name calling. This is what UM is all about. Bravo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem with bigfoot is that over the years, No one has ever been able to get at least a picture of one that wasn't some guy dressed up in a suit. They can't be that elusive. Come on.. If a monkey that was supposedly extinct was recently photographed we can get bigfoot on camera .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem with bigfoot is that over the years, No one has ever been able to get at least a picture of one that wasn't some guy dressed up in a suit. They can't be that elusive. Come on.. If a monkey that was supposedly extinct was recently photographed we can get bigfoot on camera .

Even a photograph wouldn't be proof though. Look at that Todd Standing guy. He had some really good looking photos that were proven to be fakes. With the digital technology that is available today photos are just not good enough to be evidence that will stand up to peer review, and thats the only evidence that is going to be good enough to actually prove Bigfoot exists. There is simply NO peer reviewed research or evidence in existence to support Bigfoot in reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal take (theory) on Sasquatch (from my own experience and from experiences of a couple other people i have had the pleasure of knowing) is that Sasquatch is basically human. IE, several thousand years ago (or possible even longer ago), Hypertrichosis (or another disease that causes you to be covered in hair) popped up in a tribe. Those several people were "forcefully" told you leave the tribe. (Because we all know how people like people that are different ). And basically they survived, snatching wives, etc, from other villages and continued to survive in the woods unto this day (there are stories of sasquatches stealing women from tribes for mates and this would make sense if they were 'humans', only different). Then, overtime, a few other mutations, etc, might have popped up. Just enough to make them look different, but yet still human-ish, imho. (I for one, again from my own experience think that the size estimates of the "creature" is overblown... but again, thats just me).

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

What you are talking about here is a very very limited gene pool to be working with....hardly enough to keep a group going for thousands of years. So the large size is one of these " mutations" then? How do you explain the supposed sightings in so many places throughout the US?

This is an interesting theory. I have considered BF being some type of Wild or feral man. I don't think the 'people' you describe would have to be too mutated to pass as BF, I think fear and exaggerated memory recollection fills the rest in.

In your statement are you saying BF is (was) real?

Props to all those that support thier positions without sarcasm or name calling. This is what UM is all about. Bravo.

Good call Goodnite, an enjoyable topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an interesting theory. I have considered BF being some type of Wild or feral man. I don't think the 'people' you describe would have to be too mutated to pass as BF, I think fear and exaggerated memory recollection fills the rest in.

In your statement are you saying BF is (was) real?

Good call Goodnite, an enjoyable topic.

The top part of that post was me quoting someone else.....my words were under the "-------------------------"

It appears that my attempt to quote was unsuccessful and has caused confusion. My apologies - I tend to side with the fact that there has never been any peer reviewed evidence that supports the exisitence of Bigfoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.