Bigfoot: real or myth? -- Why? -- Why not?

[Sakari]

Please provide a single example of a qualified study that has resulted in the confirmation of the presence of a large, bipedal, undocumented, North American primate. What ever "logic" you may be attempting to apply here is quite beyond me.

.

I am 100% sure you are asking the wrong person.

QC has never said, even once, that there is such a thing.

[Swede]

Lockley, et al and Kim, et al, did in fact visit trackway sites before writing their “white papers”. They encountered the problem of too little information being available for some sites as well as the need for updating.

They then visited, studied, and collected data from some of the worldwide sites referred to in the study in each “white paper”. They used this collected data (measurements, etc.) in the content of these papers.

This is clearly noted in the papers themselves for anyone to read. This is why I considered them “field studies”.

The studies use the same trackway data. One, of 60 some worldwide hominid trackways. The other, of only about 11 of the same 60.

As far as your claiming that Meldrum “is not known for conducting a great deal of field work” where did you get this information? I have heard Meldrum say how much time he spends in the field looking for Sasquatch sign (his paper is on a giant North American hominoid trackway). However, since I cannot quote him exactly, I suggest you contact him and ask him for clarification of your claim.

1) To which paper are you referring? If you are referring to Lockley, et al 2008 (pp. 106-125), your understandings of the paper's evaluation of the 63 reported hominid trackway sites are quite clearly in error. Kindly provide specific and in-context citations and quotes. The paper immediately referenced is not a field report, despite your personal interpretations.

2) In regards to field "Bigfoot research" on Meldrum's part, one of my younger colleagues is a former student (anthropology) of Meldrum. Nor do you appear to be familiar with the temporal and logistical demands of extensive field work, particularly when one is constrained by the demands of more serious research, teaching loads, and funding.

.

[Swede]

I am 100% sure you are asking the wrong person.

QC has never said, even once, that there is such a thing.

However, to place the full quote in context:

I desired for you, Swede, to provide an example from your post below: (Font color added).

“Secondly, there actually has been, over the years, a number of qualified and specialized studies that have delved into the topic. None of these studies resulted in the confirmation of the various and assorted claims commonly bandied about in mediums such as the present. Please note that the studies referred to do not include such tragic shams as the "Ketchum Report".” Post #374 Page 25

.

[Swede]

Are you sure you are not part of the same “sordid internecine activities” of which you insinuate I appear to be a part. Post #396 Page 27

Quite the contrary young lady.

.

[+Hammerclaw]

Bryan Sykes is a Professor of Human Genetics at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of Wolfson College. Sykes published the first report on retrieving DNA from ancient bone.

He's also completed a comprehensive DNA study of hair samples from what have been described as Yetis, and other local names, throughout the Himalayas.

His analysis has revealed that the so called Yeti (etc) are in fact the descendants of an ancient admixture of the Polar Bear and the Himalayan Brown Bear. Note that the admixture is ancient, it isn't a recent thing. And this cross breeding is what has produced something that looks like neither a Brown Bear nor a Polar Bear.

Polar Bears and Brown Bears are two closely related species that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. There are hybrid populations of this cross living on several Alaskan islands and they look like brown bears but are genetically close to polar bears. http://news.ucsc.edu...r-genomics.html Edited July 13, 2014 by John Wesley Boyd

[klambo]

As far as Loch Ness, if a huge ass whale can survive on something as small as plankton, who am I to doubt that Nessie could survive on something similar?

You do know how much plankton a huge ass whale requires each day don't you? ........................ let's just say it would it would easily out eat you in an "all you can eat" buffet several fold.................. A Whale couldn' t survive Loch Ness for very long..........there simply would not be enough plankton to sustain it.

Edited July 13, 2014 by klambo

[Swede]

This too is obvious to me, that the public does not have access to every (scientific) study out there.

However, and pertaining to the debate at hand, how would I know if any examples of a mainstream science study into the North American Bigfoot (no bigfootdom bedfellows plz) exist if I have no access to them? I won’t simply assume this to be true without corroborating evidence.

I frankly doubt mainstream science in general gives a darn about investigating the existence of a North American Bigfoot. Thus, my position in this debate.

And once again, your position/personal interpretation would not be wholly accurate. Personally dislike redundancy, however:

The simple reality is that despite the volume of purported "evidence", there has yet to be any unambiguous data presented in support of a large, undocumented, bipedal, North American primate. Nor have any of the sample testings that you refer to led to any conclusive information. Furthermore, the numerous mufti-disciplinary environmental/anthropological/archaeological studies that have been conducted for many decades have also not yielded any data that would confirm (or even support) the existence of the speculated primate. And we again have the issue of the many documented hoaxes, faking of evidence, falsifiable photography, etc. This latter aspect is further compounded by the rather broad array of wholly amusing explanations that have arisen amongst the "true believers" in an attempt to rationalize the dearth of conclusive data (multidimensional entities, shape shifting, association with UFO's, etc.). And then we have the tales of urban "Bigfoot", train-hopping "Bigfoot", habituated "Bigfoot", ad infinitum. Not to mention the widely disparate physical descriptions of this undocumented primate.

With the above in mind, is there any wonder on your part as to why the professional community is, for the most part, rather skeptical of the legitimate presence of said undocumented primate? And is thus reticent to fund and launch the expansive research project that you personally desire? Particularly in light of the resources already committed to studies that one would expect to result in viable data related to the topic? (Swede 6-22-14, emphasis added).

What you do not appear to grasp is that the confirmation of a large, undocumented, bipedal, North American primate would be of more than passing interest to quite a number of scientific disciplines. Such authentication would be of notable scientific and even personal significance. Were there any truly credible data that would lead to the confirmation of such a primate, one can rest assured that more intensive research would be initiated. However, to date, and as yet again evidenced by the recently released Sykes' report, there would appear to be no realistic justification for mainstream science to "give a darn". Again, you would not appear to be familiar with the various real-world constraints of credible research. Your perception that it is the "job" of conventional research to "solve mysteries" would appear to be rather naive.

.

[toyomotor]

Polar Bears and Brown Bears are two closely related species that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. There are hybrid populations of this cross living on several Alaskan islands and they look like brown bears but are genetically close to polar bears. http://news.ucsc.edu...r-genomics.html

Yes, I think there are genetic versions which look like neither as far as cranial construction goes.

[+Hammerclaw]

Yes, I think there are genetic versions which look like neither as far as cranial construction goes.

I would hypothesise that what Sykes may have chanced upon in the Himalayas, is a relic population of the parent species that led to both Brown Bears and their polar cousins. Do you know of a skull that's been recovered? If not, I wouldn't pay much heed to the fanciful descriptions of the Yeti. In any case, as Ivan T. Sanderson once pointed out, the animal couldn't survive in the snowy peaks and must live in the forested valleys below them, traversing the high passes from one to the other. Edited July 14, 2014 by John Wesley Boyd

[toyomotor]

As I understand it, the hybridisation took place thousands of years ago, and the hybrids survived, but in isolation.

I reckon you're right about their habitat, similar to other bears but with the polar bear capability thrown in.

The program didn't show any skulls that I remember, but did describe them as different to Brown Bears and Polar Bears.

[+Hammerclaw]

As I understand it, the hybridisation took place thousands of years ago, and the hybrids survived, but in isolation.

I reckon you're right about their habitat, similar to other bears but with the polar bear capability thrown in.

The program didn't show any skulls that I remember, but did describe them as different to Brown Bears and Polar Bears.

The polar bear is semi aquatic, so it makes no sense for there to be a hybrid so far inland, ice age not withstanding. Instead one species containing genes found in two species could also mean one original species that branched into two. Hence my description of as an a living ancestral relic. I'm just throwing ideas out there, more often wrong than right. It's rather delightful speculating about something that's real. Edited July 14, 2014 by John Wesley Boyd

[+DieChecker]

Bryan Sykes is a Professor of Human Genetics at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of Wolfson College. Sykes published the first report on retrieving DNA from ancient bone.

He's also completed a comprehensive DNA study of hair samples from what have been described as Yetis, and other local names, throughout the Himalayas.

His analysis has revealed that the so called Yeti (etc) are in fact the descendants of an ancient admixture of the Polar Bear and the Himalayan Brown Bear. Note that the admixture is ancient, it isn't a recent thing. And this cross breeding is what has produced something that looks like neither a Brown Bear nor a Polar Bear.

Should we refer to it as Sykes' Bear?

Perhaps it is related to Bergman's Bear? That bear was big and reportedly appeared to have short legs.

Or maybe the short faced bear? Though there is no evidence of the short faced bears outside of N America, it would have a more "ape-like" appearance and match the description of a yeti better.

[Xochi]

A myth cause he is mentioned in quite a few different Native American myths. Same goes with the Yowie who is found in stories of an Australian Aboriginal tribe once fighting this beast.

[Gaden]

According to evolution theories, we branched off several times before becoming modern humans, as we spread out around the globe. This is proven by looking at DNA markers tracing modern human back to Africa some 200,000 years ago. With the number of times modern humans split off into different groups, it's not unreasonable to think one group chose a method of self-isolation to survive the odds against other human species. Given this concept, it is certainly plausible for Bigfoot to exist out there. It's most certainly interesting how everything described about Bigfoot similarily resembles that of ancient hunter-gatherer men.

So, is it not unreasonable to ask why no bones or fossils have been found supporting the existstance of this particular species? After all, your first sentence is a conclusion based on the fossil record.

[Gaden]

Ironically having an open mind also means entertaining the possibility that Bigfoot isn't real.

In my experience, the phrase "have an open mind" means to entertain all the possibilties. Funny thing is, to the people who use that phrase most, it means "believe everything you are told".

[Gaden]

The claims about American Indians claiming Bigfoot has existed is false. Made up by the " white man "......It is not true. Including the American Indians thinking " it " can transcend demensions.

None of that is true. You will only find that information on the Bigfoot sights, and from Bigfoot believers. Trying to make it real, to back up there claims.

And, that has been discussed thouroughly also....With links.

Before you ask......Here is plenty.

http://forums.randi....ad.php?t=104878

Yes, another case of telling a lie often enough that it becomes the truth.

[Mr.United_Nations]

A myth cause he is mentioned in quite a few different Native American myths. Same goes with the Yowie who is found in stories of an Australian Aboriginal tribe once fighting this beast.

The Yowie could of been a giant Wombat

[Imaginarynumber1]