Bigfoot Best Evidence

[Dejarma]

27 minutes ago, Guyver said:

But if it doesn't exist......then every single piece of evidence related to this phenomenon is fabricated - a giant hoax.  And for that to be true, then you have some ridiculous idiots with way too much time on their hands who hike into the most remote locations in the Pacific Northwest and plant fake tracks where  the chances of anyone finding them are almost zero.

Yeah exactly, Sherlock. Therefore how do you know those who took the photos are not the ones responsible for creating the tracks?

You need to think before you speak... Especially when speaking to me, all due respect.

[stereologist]

8 hours ago, Guyver said:

That is odd, because it is my understanding that they were not observed until 2003 or 2006.  In any event, it's aside from my point.  My point was that new ape and monkey species are routinely discovered. 

You clearly did not read your own link. That happens often here. It seems your point is not supported by the article you posted.

[stereologist]

3 hours ago, Guyver said:

Now, for the poo-pooers of the gigantopithecus reference.....what do you know of it?  When you look it up...you see what looks like an enormous orangutan, right?  So, gullible people probably think that's what it did in fact look like.  Yet, the only elements found of gigantopithecus are the mandible and teeth.  So in fact, you really don't know jack-diddley about gigantopithecus.....do you?

Therefore, since you don't know anything more about the creature except for extrapolated size based on teeth, and assumed distribution based on recovered fossils, how is it that you feel confident to make the claim that sasquatch and giganto have no chance of being related?

I just don't understand this type of thinking. It's certainly not scientific in any sense as it demonstrates presuppositions and projected opinions which may in fact be completely false and off base. 

But, the fact that bigfoot/sasquatch is colloquially referenced alongside the lockness monster, ufo's, ET, and whatever other myths and legends people like to mock, like leprechans gives people like you all something to point and laugh at.  Which is fine, I could give a rip less.  I'm just saying that logic and a real scientific mindset would not approach this particular phenomenon in the same way. 

This is simply you telling us your ignorance about science and paleontology. This is  you arguing from a position of personal ignorance. Keep it up.

Some people do not read the links they use. Some people do not read the links others post. You really should read about the fossils and how they fit in time, location, and within the family of apes before simply making uneducated guesses.

Edited October 21, 2017 by stereologist

[jmccr8]

4 hours ago, Guyver said:

Or in 50 days, an elk hunter in Washington could blast a sasquatch with a 300 H&H magnum and end the discussion once and for all proving that the skeptics were completely wrong and foolishly jumped to conclusions.  In any event, i don't really care.....and if you think the whole topic crap, why even bother to pay attention to it.  Looking at the view count on this thread, it's pretty obvious that there are sufficient numbers of people who find the topic interesting and worth reading about.  

Yes there can be a lot of interest in the discussion but there is no determination as to what the interest of the reader is. People respond on both sides of the discussion so it would stand to reason that people that just read would be from both sides of the subject as well, or maybe they don't care one way or the other and see it like reading the Saturday cartoons and find humor in reading the comments. When I first found this site I spent a couple of weeks just reading and laughing so much so that I thought my neighbors might think I had lost my mind if they were passing by my apartment door.

jmccr8

[Sakari]

On 10/18/2017 at 4:41 PM, Guyver said:

If we found the bones, hair, poop, nests, and take pictures of every single creature in the wild....then how it is that some people claim we discover nearly 26,000 new species of animal every year?

If we are discovering even a hundred new species of animal every year, it is quite demonstrable that we don't find hair, poop, nests, bones, and get pictures of every animal in the wild.  

You do know what "species" means, right? (the tortoise in the link is only one example)

Below is a link of new species found in 2016. I hope you can even see how this excuse (new species found every year) can not fly with a Bigfoot that lives near people, and in a civilized area. So some try to say.

http://earthsky.org/earth/top-10-new-species-of-2016

Edited October 21, 2017 by Sakari

[oldrover]

1 hour ago, Sakari said:

You do know what "species" means, right?

I don't. And I'm not really aware of anyone who does have an ironclad definition of the term either. Excuse the interruption. 

[Sakari]

1 hour ago, oldrover said:

I don't. And I'm not really aware of anyone who does have an ironclad definition of the term either. Excuse the interruption. 

Easy example for the comment I replied to.
 

Quote

 

A new species of giant tortoise found in 2016 on an island. This Island already had known tortoises. They all look the same. After some DNA testing, come to find out one of them is a undiscovered species of Tortoise.

A new species of tortoise has been hiding in plain sight in the Galápagos. Now it has a name.

There are two populations of giant tortoises on the island of Santa Cruz: The ones that live on the island’s east side are known as the Cerro Fatal tortoises, and the ones in the west and southwest are called the Reserva tortoises. The two groups look so much alike that until recently they were considered the same species, Chelonoidis porteri.

When a research team led by Yale evolutionary biologist Adalgisa Caccone analyzed chunks of repetitive nuclear DNA and maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA from the two populations, they discovered that the smaller Cerro Fatal and larger Reserva populations were not only different species, but were more closely related to species on different islands than to each other.

 

So, the point being, " new species are found every year" is pretty weak. Most of those are species of insects, and/or in the oceans. Either way, the animals are known, just not known they were not the same animal.

Now, a " new animal found" is different.

So, no beuno for a Bigfoot evidence claim.

[oldrover]

19 minutes ago, Sakari said:

Easy example for the comment I replied to.
 

So, the point being, " new species are found every year" is pretty weak. Most of those are species of insects, and/or in the oceans. Either way, the animals are known, just not known they were not the same animal.

Now, a " new animal found" is different.

So, no beuno for a Bigfoot evidence claim.

Don't get me wrong, Bigfoot, as far as biology is concerned anyway,  isn't a subject worth considering, it's nonsense. It's the definition if the term 'species' that I have the trouble with. 

[Sakari]

28 minutes ago, oldrover said:

Don't get me wrong, Bigfoot, as far as biology is concerned anyway,  isn't a subject worth considering, it's nonsense. It's the definition if the term 'species' that I have the trouble with. 

Tried to help you with that definition

[oldrover]

Just now, Sakari said:

Tried to help you with that definition

And that's what may be a god example. But generally, what I don't feel  comfortable with, and I'm a long way from being alone in this, is what consitutes the definition of the term. As in what criteria is applied when drawing the line. This is actually a frequently debated point. As it stands, there are around six models, as in different criteria applied, to define the term in use in mainstram science and taxonomy today. Which one is correct is my problem.

[oldrover]

Good, not god. 

[Carnoferox]

3 hours ago, oldrover said:

I don't. And I'm not really aware of anyone who does have an ironclad definition of the term either. Excuse the interruption. 

Mayr's definition of species seems to be the most commonly accepted:

"Species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."

http://www.pnas.org/content/102/suppl_1/6600.full

[OntarioSquatch]

Biological classification or taxonomy is mainly morphology-based (i.e. based on the study of an organism’s physical characteristics). If it were to only be based on breeding habits, we would run into a problem in the case of naturally occurring hybrids, and population separations that are the result of natural causes.

DNA is potentially useful as well, and I believe it’ll be very important in the case of Sasquatch. 

If sasquatch are modern Homo sapiens that have been genetically engineered with a few small genetic tweaks that make them look different, how would we classify them?

 

Edited October 22, 2017 by OntarioSquatch

[Agishe]

Reasoning in the range of "an unknown hominid lives in a forest (real animal) - hoaxers" may not reflect the real nature of the object. These conversations are somehow two-dimensional. Reality can be more complicated.
Considering a lot of evidence including (hypothetic) historical records, and the complete absence of solid evidence - it can be only one conclusion: he (bigfoot) does not have a body.

Edited October 22, 2017 by Agishe

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, OntarioSquatch said:

Biological classification or taxonomy is mainly morphology-based (i.e. based on the study of an organism’s physical characteristics). If it were to only be based on breeding habits, we would run into a problem in the case of naturally occurring hybrids, and population separations that are the result of natural causes.

DNA is potentially useful as well, and I believe it’ll be very important in the case of Sasquatch. 

If sasquatch are modern Homo sapiens that have been genetically engineered with a few small genetic tweaks that make them look different, how would we classify them?

 

Microorganisms are revealed by their chemistry, not morphology.

http://premierbiosoft.com/tech_notes/bac-id.html

[Guyver]

1 hour ago, OntarioSquatch said:

Biological classification or taxonomy is mainly morphology-based (i.e. based on the study of an organism’s physical characteristics). If it were to only be based on breeding habits, we would run into a problem in the case of naturally occurring hybrids, and population separations that are the result of natural causes.

DNA is potentially useful as well, and I believe it’ll be very important in the case of Sasquatch. 

If sasquatch are modern Homo sapiens that have been genetically engineered with a few small genetic tweaks that make them look different, how would we classify them?

 

How would they have been genetically engineered?  

Reports of the creature far exceed humans ability to genetically tamper with things.  Anyway, here's a link to some bigfoot track evidence.  What I like about some of these cases is the great difficulty it would have taken to fake them.  I mean, it takes a significant amout of force to be applied to make these tracks, and some of the trackways extend a significant distance and cover both varied terrain and other obstacles. 

LINK

[OntarioSquatch]

3 minutes ago, Guyver said:

How would they have been genetically engineered?  

Reports of the creature far exceed humans ability to genetically tamper with things. 

That’s correct. Our knowledge and technology isn’t anywhere near what would be required to create what witnesses have described seeing.

[oldrover]

13 hours ago, Carnoferox said:

Mayr's definition of species seems to be the most commonly accepted:

"Species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."

http://www.pnas.org/content/102/suppl_1/6600.full

Interesting stuff, it'll be a while before I can read it all though. 

[stereologist]

I took a look at the footprint site and I thought the first paragraph was absurd.

Quote

However it would be equally foolish to assume that every footprint is a hoax. As John Napia puts it, the hoax argument would require “the existence of a conspiracy of mafia like ramifications with cells in practically every major township from San francisco to Vancouver.”

There aren't that many prints. All it takes is a few hoaxers here and there. Sometimes the hoaxers admit they hoaxed the tracks.

Later on they try to claim that some of the casts show deformities instead of suggesting that the prints were made by made by poorly made hoax shoes or a hoaxer intent on whimsy. The article also fails to mention that dermal ridges have been found to be made by walnut shells.

[oldrover]

So, this guy is saying there that it's be absurd to consider a 'conspiracy of mafia like ramifications with cells in practically every major township from San Francisco to Vancouver', but the idea if a population of ten foot tall ape men with an equally widespread distribution is OK? I must admit I'd never thought If it like that.

I hadn't heard about the walnut shells before, I knew about the accidental by-product if casting causing them. 

[Guyver]

2 hours ago, stereologist said:

The article also fails to mention that dermal ridges have been found to be made by walnut shells.

That's because if one takes the time to examine the photo provided enlarged, it's obvious that the dermal features weren't made with walnut shells. 

[stereologist]

2 minutes ago, Guyver said:

That's because if one takes the time to examine the photo provided enlarged, it's obvious that the dermal features weren't made with walnut shells. 

They were made with walnut shells. Thanks for your suggestion.

[oldrover]

31 minutes ago, Guyver said:

That's because if one takes the time to examine the photo provided enlarged, it's obvious that the dermal features weren't made with walnut shells. 

I tend to agree, at least in the instances I've seen, the 'dermal ridges' are a by-product of casting plaster, and one familiar to anyone who's used to casting things with plaster.

https://www.csicop.org/sb/show/experiments_cast_doubt_on_bigfoot_evidence

But walnut shells seem to be a good idea, and one which'd produce evidence convincing enough for most bigfoot fans to read about second hand, after they've been through the filter of an 'expert' in the field.

[stereologist]

I think it is important to clarify the walnut issue just to make sure that any misunderstandings are reduced if not eliminated. So here is what I posted.

Quote

The article also fails to mention that dermal ridges have been found to be made by walnut shells.

All I am suggesting here is that in one or more cases the supposed dermal ridges were made by walnut shells. The issue here is that the print in question was deemed authentic by Krantz. This is the same Krantz that is relied on in the article to support the authenticity of the prints. First, the article would like to use Napier, a name misspelled in the article, to support the authenticity of the prints. Napier did not really believe in BF. Krantz was fooled by walnut shell imprints.

How do we know Krantz was fooled by walnut shells? He authenticated a print. The hoaxer admitted making the print; then described how the print was made including adding features with a walnut shell.

Quote

After an eight-month effort, I was able to talk with Parker, then living on the East Coast. He told me the footprint was a fake. He knew this because he had made the imprint and the cast! Originally he had intended only to see if Krantz could, as he bragged, "differentiate between [a track] made artificially or naturally." Parker said he now feels the thing has gone too far and regrets he made the [Bloomington] track. I asked how it had been made. "It took about twenty minutes to form the print in the mud," he said. The dermal ridges came from his foot and hands, placed in areas where the "least amount of wear or abrasion would occur." What about the "two traits"? "Oh," Parker replied, "I wasn't sure about that. I thought they might be toenails and scars, so I added both." Parker also told me he made "the ball of the foot appear deeper near the inside of the foot to simulate the weight-bearing area during a light push-off." At the last minute, he embedded the shell of an American black walnut where the fifth toe would have been to make the print look more realistic.(12)

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/skeptical.htm

There are other mentions of the walnut shell online. Such as at http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/dennett03.htm

Quote

 

It is hard enough for a researcher to do their work without someone faking so-called evidence. But when people only have fake evidence to work with their task is futile.

[stereologist]

The dermal ridges are formed in humans before birth. The article states the following:

Quote

He concluded his examination saying that that the dermal ridges are that of a non human primate. This conclusion he says is based on the fact that humans have creases running perpendicular to the lateral ridges on the first joint of the toes where the toe meets the foot.

I've been looking but I think that the fact that the dermal ridges are completely different from other primates suggests a hoax.