Did History Channel find Bigfoot

[sumthingnice60]

There are none, but bigfoot would also be a mammal, and there are plenty of mammals living in cold climates.

Don't broaden the category. I am talking about apes because I think we have established the fact that bigfoot is closest to an ape.

[bball]

Don't broaden the category. I am talking about apes because I think we have established the fact that bigfoot is closest to an ape.

Um...so. If mammals can survive in the winter, so could a large ape. Bears hibernate, more for a lack of food available, than to avoid winter weather.

[sumthingnice60]

Um...so. If mammals can survive in the winter, so could a large ape. Bears hibernate, more for a lack of food available, than to avoid winter weather.

A large ape really isn't meant to survive that cold weather. Give me proof that an ape can survive cold climates and I'll believe you. And stop comparing apes to other mammals. That's like saying elephants can survive in the arctic, because like polar bears, they are mammals and since polar bears can survive there, so can elephants.. It just doesn't make sense.

[Since804]

A large ape really isn't meant to survive that cold weather. Give me proof that an ape can survive cold climates and I'll believe you. And stop comparing apes to other mammals. That's like saying elephants can survive in the arctic, because like polar bears, they are mammals and since polar bears can survive there, so can elephants.. It just doesn't make sense.

But you're doing the same thing in reverse. Duh.

Stop comparing it to other animals period because nobody knows what the hell it is. None of your points are valid or make sense. Its a bunch of forced words.

Edited November 14, 2007 by Since804

[sumthingnice60]

But you're doing the same thing in reverse. Duh.

Stop comparing it to other animals period because nobody knows what the hell it is. None of your points are valid or make sense. Its a bunch of forced words.

I'm not comparing it to other animals. I'm just saying that it's an ape based on eyewitnesses so i'm just giving it characteristics an ape has. Simple as that.

[psyche101]

A large ape really isn't meant to survive that cold weather. Give me proof that an ape can survive cold climates and I'll believe you. And stop comparing apes to other mammals. That's like saying elephants can survive in the arctic, because like polar bears, they are mammals and since polar bears can survive there, so can elephants.. It just doesn't make sense.

True, I know of no Ape, but the Japanese Macaque - (Pic in hot natural spa surrounded by snow.) survives in temps as low as -15. Not that I disagree, this is an old world Monkey, not a 7 foot ape. Just wanted to bring it up before it gets hurled around as some sort of "proof"

I find the idea a wrestle. Some sightings are by very credible people. Yet, the creature does not fit the facts.

I could not agree more on the bones issue, it seems more than impossible that no trace has been found in modern time, nor the fossil record. We even found Homo Florensis by digging a 2M square hole. And we placed it right on top of an undiscovered hominid. Remember, this creature is purported as worldwide, yet no excavation has offered a clue. Gigantopethicus is no answer either. It is a wild straw grab. Nothing supports this hypothesis.

And as these things are supposedly found worldwide, the massive BC forrest debate is rendered invalid. Some reports are from ridiculously well populated areas, nothing could remain hidden in these cases. As pointed out earlier, take the hoaxes and explained sightings out of the entire sightings category. Do we really still have a convincing amount of evidence?

Edited November 14, 2007 by psyche101

[Since804]

I'm not comparing it to other animals. I'm just saying that it's an ape based on eyewitnesses so i'm just giving it characteristics an ape has. Simple as that.

An Indian Elephant looks similar to an African Elephant yet they live COMPLETELY differently.

You are trying to make speculation into law.

Your "just saying" is what makes it all invalid. You have basically said, since it looks similar to an ape and nobody has a clue what it is, lets just call it an ape and "establish" that it therefore MUST live like an ape. (even though you truly have NO clue or insight)

It doesn't work that way, sorry. and I won't reply to anything you say attempting to argue otherwise as that would be an idle debate.

[Adalwolf]

Yes.

[Since804]

True, I know of no Ape, but the Japanese Macaque - (Pic in hot natural spa surrounded by snow.) survives in temps as low as -15. Not that I disagree, this is an old world Monkey, not a 7 foot ape. Just wanted to bring it up before it gets hurled around as some sort of "proof"

I find the idea a wrestle. Some sightings are by very credible people. Yet, the creature does not fit the facts.

I could not agree more on the bones issue, it seems more than impossible that no trace has been found in modern time, nor the fossil record. We even found Homo Florensis by digging a 2M square hole. And we placed it right on top of an undiscovered hominid. Remember, this creature is purported as worldwide, yet no excavation has offered a clue. Gigantopethicus is no answer either. It is a wild straw grab. Nothing supports this hypothesis.

And as these things are supposedly found worldwide, the massive BC forrest debate is rendered invalid. Some reports are from ridiculously well populated areas, nothing could remain hidden in these cases. As pointed out earlier, take the hoaxes and explained sightings out of the entire sightings category. Do we really still have a convincing amount of evidence?

I just have to wonder what people have been seeing for thousands of years. Has the same man been running around in the woods and mountains in a hairy suit since before america was colonized?? How can native americans have the EXACT same lore as people on the other side of the world? There was no tv, radio, internet or true global mail to spread the story. People once laughed at stories of giant squid and while true we have found remains, you HAVE to factor in that

1)the ocean basically "craps" on the beach. The forest doesn't EVER shove its "garbage" to its edges like the ocean sometimes does.

2)more people live near/come to coastal areas than interior wooded areas, this is a fact that can't be denied. you can just look at a night picture of n. america to see this

b/c of 1 and 2, we really have no choice but to come upon the remains of a giant squid before they were washed away again or decompose.

when people, even credible woodsmen come back with the story of whatever they saw or experienced, people immediately call him a liar and say "its not possible"(since humans know EVERYTHING and all)

The evidence may not be convincing for some(who won't believe anyway unless there is a DEAD body that they can probe) but its convincing enough to make people think, consider and discuss. So, I'm open to the idea of Big Foot until I either die and know everything anyway or all of the forests are stripped(which we are working toward) and there's nowhere left for it to stay hidden.

Edited November 14, 2007 by Since804

[psyche101]

I just have to wonder what people have been seeing for thousands of years. Has the same man been running around in the woods and mountains in a hairy suit since before america was colonized?? How can native americans have the EXACT same lore as people on the other side of the world? There was no tv, radio, internet or true global mail to spread the story.

Amazing isn't it. This is the only credible information in regards to the creature, as I said earlier, I wrestle with the idea simply because I know of people who have seen this creature than not only have no reason to fabricate evidence, but are quite skeptical of most unexplained mysteries. Without the eyewitnesses, this would be as believable as the earlier mentioned tooth fairy.

This is also a good reason to doubt the existance of the supposed primate. If everywhere - why no bones.

People once laughed at stories of giant squid and while true we have found remains, you HAVE to factor in that

Uhhh, maybe some uneducated individuals did, not the scientific community. Japetus Steenstrup, the describer of Architeuthis, suggested a giant squid was the species described as a sea monk to the Danish king Christian III c.1550. Steenstrup also wrote a number of papers on giant squid in the 1850s. A portion of a giant squid was secured by the French gunboat Alecton in 1861 leading to wider recognition of the genus in the scientific community. From 1870 to 1880, many squid were stranded on the shores of Newfoundland. In the 1900's New Zealand in had a rash of strandings.

It was first filmed in 2004. People seem to think this was when it was discovered. Not the same kettle of fish.

1)the ocean basically "craps" on the beach. The forest doesn't EVER shove its "garbage" to its edges like the ocean sometimes does.

2)more people live near/come to coastal areas than interior wooded areas, this is a fact that can't be denied. you can just look at a night picture of n. america to see this

b/c of 1 and 2, we really have no choice but to come upon the remains of a giant squid before they were washed away again or decompose.

when people, even credible woodsmen come back with the story of whatever they saw or experienced, people immediately call him a liar and say "its not possible"(since humans know EVERYTHING and all)

As I said, some testimonies keep my eyebrow raised.

Hopefully you know more about the Giant Squid now. It has been recognised by science for centuries, not only by the above examples, also by remains in the stomachs of Sperm Whales.

It does not need to shove garbage anywhere. What about the reports in the well populated areas?Read up on the "Australian Gold Coast Yowies" Check out the Gold Coast. Just the concept is laughable. Why no evidence from the himilaya's asia, australia, java etc. etc. etc.

We all know what happened to the Johor Bigfoot. Like I said, so many hoaxes, does anyones know what amount of reports are deemed "credible" annually? The "reports" may be less than you or I realise.

The no bones debate is a solid one. It presents a very likely scenario.

Hunters/woodsmen could in some cases be wrong - they are humans too. I have spent a considerable time in the Australian outback. I have never seen anything to convince me of anything similar. I have found many carcasses in various states of decomposition though. Right down to a pile of broken bones. All very identifiable.

The evidence may not be convincing for some(who won't believe anyway unless there is a DEAD body that they can probe) but its convincing enough to make people think, consider and discuss. So, I'm open to the idea of Big Foot until I either die and know everything anyway or all of the forests are stripped(which we are working toward) and there's nowhere left for it to stay hidden.

Dead body not necessary. Just a bone, even something from the fossil record to suggest such a creature. Several places it is still purported to exist are indeed stripped. I live in one area that gets reports. I like the idea of a hominid relative clever enough to do what most consider impossible, and although I remain heavily skeptical, I have even started hunting evidence with my Son when time permits of a weekend (as I said we have local reports). I do keep an open mind, but the real facts tell me not to get too excited. Chances are pretty darn slim.

Edited November 14, 2007 by psyche101

[Blueguardian]

ok bigfoot skeptics i want you to come up with some hard evidence that bigfoot doesnt exist, all you seem to say is biggfoot itsnt real or doesnt exist, i'll believe you when you prove to me that bigfoot doesnt exist, now i call that a good challenge for you. cheers

[psyche101]

ok bigfoot skeptics i want you to come up with some hard evidence that bigfoot doesnt exist, all you seem to say is biggfoot itsnt real or doesnt exist, i'll believe you when you prove to me that bigfoot doesnt exist, now i call that a good challenge for you. cheers

Have you been reading the thread?

How on earth did you miss the debates on bones, breeding population etc? This is far more convincing than eyewitness reports?

How on earth did you come to the conclusion that anyone has simply said "it does not exist" and offered no reasoning?

I think you are getting mixed up with the believers argument for. It is based on the falibility of human interpretation. Otherwise known as eyewitnesses. Perhaps a re-read of the thread will offer you plenty of chances for debate!

[Since804]

ok bigfoot skeptics i want you to come up with some hard evidence that bigfoot doesnt exist, all you seem to say is biggfoot itsnt real or doesnt exist, i'll believe you when you prove to me that bigfoot doesnt exist, now i call that a good challenge for you. cheers

this is where the "stalemate" is...

lack of evidence doesn't prove non-existence

but lack of evidence is also what stops it from being "real" and worth investigating more seriously by people other than by hobbyists and interest groups

You can't "prove" the negative in this case without drastic/unrealistic measures such as cutting down every forest on earth and searching every single cave, cavern, ravine nook and cranny and crack

So until someone hands over something solid, the debate will continue....

[bball]

A large ape really isn't meant to survive that cold weather. Give me proof that an ape can survive cold climates and I'll believe you. And stop comparing apes to other mammals. That's like saying elephants can survive in the arctic, because like polar bears, they are mammals and since polar bears can survive there, so can elephants.. It just doesn't make sense.

Your analogy is a bad twisting of my words. Cats, bears, caribou, deer, etc. are all mammals that survive harsh climates. At it's very base a bigfoot would be a mammal. Though ape or apelike, it would still share much of the same anatomy and physiology with the other mammals and would not be limited to how other apes live. It would only be limited by it's survival skills. Bears hibernate to conserve energy, not just for avoiding cold weather. Weather is not the issue. Now imagine something just a bit smarter, with an excellently adapted coat of thick hair.

Nature is only limited to a certain extent. Now if I told you a few big cats have no problem surviving in extreme harsh climates, would you believe me? Well you shouldn't based on your logic, because virtually every species resides in less harsh climates. But there are a few superbly adapted cats living in the northern, cold climates. One is the rarest of cats, the Amur Leopard and the being the more well known Snow Leopard. They have thicker than normal (in the cat world) fur. These cats aren't even omnivorous and they manage to survive in the dead of winter.

Point is that you can't just denounce a possible bigfoot based on some predisposed disposition of what you think "should" be the case. There are exceptions in nature. As pointed out by pschye101 with those crazy little monkeys.

[seanph]

Believer or not, it boils down to evidence ...

1. In a remote, heavily forested, area where numerous sightings have taken place.

2. Rocks and a large log pelted the cabin (evidently throwing rocks is common amongst wild apes as a territorial warning).

3. Hair and DNA.

Blood, tissue and hair discovered later on a bear trap outside the cabin was tested. The hair did not match any known North American bear or animal and tests showed an uncanny similarity to human DNA with one exception: the irregular DNA matched that of a primate....

DID HISTORY CHANNEL FIND BIG FOOT?

<a href="http://www.nypost.com/seven/11092007/tv/di...oot__713410.htm" target="_blank">http://www.nypost.com/seven/11092007/tv/di...oot__713410.htm</a>

Now, you can argue all you want with regards to the first two ... but you can't argue hair and DNA. If the results are correct ... it appears that there is an unknown species roaming various remote areas of NA.

Forgive me for reposting this ... 2 minute video of what happened with the researchers and crew, plus some extras--including footage of the researchers being pelted with rocks as they are filming the intro. Go to "Evidence Locker", click "Browse Video List (bottom right)" for the BF segment, and then click the little "down arrow" on the right. Click on the picture to the left to see the extras. Interesting to say the least.

Monster quest: Bigfoot

<a href="http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content...p;mini_id=56117" target="_blank">http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content...p;mini_id=56117</a>

Respectfully,

Sean

Edited November 14, 2007 by seanph

[sumthingnice60]

An Indian Elephant looks similar to an African Elephant yet they live COMPLETELY differently.

You are trying to make speculation into law.

Your "just saying" is what makes it all invalid. You have basically said, since it looks similar to an ape and nobody has a clue what it is, lets just call it an ape and "establish" that it therefore MUST live like an ape. (even though you truly have NO clue or insight)

It doesn't work that way, sorry. and I won't reply to anything you say attempting to argue otherwise as that would be an idle debate.

Indian and African elephants live in the same temperature range. I am talking about a very dramatic change in temperature from where most apes live and from where bigfoot lives. I am assuming that it must live like an ape because I find that the most possible to believe. There is no way in hell you can convince me that it's lifestyle is closer to a caribou or something like that. I am not saying that it must live like an ape, I'm just saying that it's the most likely in my opinion.

[mrnoble23]

In its new show "MonsterQuest," an adventurous group braved the wilderness to see if "Big Foot" actually lives in Ontario, Canada.

Scientists Kurt Nelson and Jeff Meldrum spent five days with a video and audio crew at a cabin in the utterly remote Snelgrove Lake, pulling DNA samples from the trap and exploring the forest.

The show has caused a stir among enthusiasts because it has gotten so close to proving the Sasquatch monster may, in fact, exist.

The show made "contact" with the thing on its last night of filming.

"A stone was thrown at about 2 a.m.," executive producer Doug Hajibeck told The Post. "That stone hit like a bullet. It was thrown with amazing accuracy

http://www.nypost.com/seven/11092007/tv/di...oot__713410.htm

It seems to me that nothing was proven except they had PLENTY of motivation to stage the rock throwing (give me a break) and stage the DNA sampling. They obviously accomplish what they set out to do - create a show with no video proof and get people to talk about it!

[Eieam Wun]

Has anyone ever heard Lloyd Pye speak on homminids. One of the more thought proviking ideas he has said in his many talks is that the same arguments being put forth that Bigfoot doesn't exist was put forth for the panda bear. It was said that being black and white it could easily be seen in a green forest, being rather slow and not to bright easily be caught up or run into , ate bamboo, can't be all bears are omnivores or carnivores none are herbivores, and yet when one was finally found, it took almost 30 years just to find another one, EVEN AFTER IT WAS INITIALLY SHOWN TO EVEN EXIST. As Lloyd pye puts it we are trying to find bigfoot on foot no pun intended in an area that we are not well adapted to and are being outwitted, especially if big foot is mainly nocturnal. I don't believe we would find any carcass because I believe bigfoot, may not bury their dead but I doubt they would just leave their dead lying around either. Remember we only have info on one live homonids and that be us, so we can't exactly compare them to what other primates would or would not do. Of course animals breed to their limits but the environment puts a limit on how much survives, so you could have a relatively small population that survives especially if these hominids lived say up to about 30 years.

"How on earth did you miss the debates on bones, breeding population etc? This is far more convincing than eyewitness reports?"

are you asking or stating this is far more convincing than eyewitness reports?

Common sense is convincing but that as we know isn't proof, however, I find it interesting that the natives of Flores Indonesia have been saying for generations that there existed a small man like or primate like creature that coincidentally matches the hobit fossils now found, people are mistaken... but when you get sightings of something unknown repeatedly what is needed is funding not critisim.

just my opinion

anyone wish to hear lloyd pye speak on hominids and his thoughts that are closely aligned with sitchin (not to big a fan on sitchin my self) and talk about the starchild a three for one deal check it out here.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=26...h&plindex=0

[Since804]

Indian and African elephants live in the same temperature range. I am talking about a very dramatic change in temperature from where most apes live and from where bigfoot lives. I am assuming that it must live like an ape because I find that the most possible to believe. There is no way in hell you can convince me that it's lifestyle is closer to a caribou or something like that. I am not saying that it must live like an ape, I'm just saying that it's the most likely in my opinion.

The underlined text makes me and probably others not care about what you're trying to say. I immediately stopped reading your post at "assuming".

[capeo]

Has anyone ever heard Lloyd Pye speak on homminids. One of the more thought proviking ideas he has said in his many talks is that the same arguments being put forth that Bigfoot doesn't exist was put forth for the panda bear. It was said that being black and white it could easily be seen in a green forest, being rather slow and not to bright easily be caught up or run into , ate bamboo, can't be all bears are omnivores or carnivores none are herbivores, and yet when one was finally found, it took almost 30 years just to find another one, EVEN AFTER IT WAS INITIALLY SHOWN TO EVEN EXIST. As Lloyd pye puts it we are trying to find bigfoot on foot no pun intended in an area that we are not well adapted to and are being outwitted, especially if big foot is mainly nocturnal. I don't believe we would find any carcass because I believe bigfoot, may not bury their dead but I doubt they would just leave their dead lying around either. Remember we only have info on one live homonids and that be us, so we can't exactly compare them to what other primates would or would not do. Of course animals breed to their limits but the environment puts a limit on how much survives, so you could have a relatively small population that survives especially if these hominids lived say up to about 30 years.

"How on earth did you miss the debates on bones, breeding population etc? This is far more convincing than eyewitness reports?"

are you asking or stating this is far more convincing than eyewitness reports?

Common sense is convincing but that as we know isn't proof, however, I find it interesting that the natives of Flores Indonesia have been saying for generations that there existed a small man like or primate like creature that coincidentally matches the hobit fossils now found, people are mistaken... but when you get sightings of something unknown repeatedly what is needed is funding not critisim.

just my opinion

anyone wish to hear lloyd pye speak on hominids and his thoughts that are closely aligned with sitchin (not to big a fan on sitchin my self) and talk about the starchild a three for one deal check it out here.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=26...h&plindex=0

Well, Mr. Pye is an idiot because the ancient chinese have hunted panda for thousands of years and were very well aware of its existance. Again, this is the typical argument that holds no water. It doesn't matter when the western world discovered the animal the indigenous peoples where any large animal has ever existed had already hunted or captured the animal. There is no animal EVER, as large as a purported bigfoot, that has escaped human hunting or capture. Just to stick with the Panda so people get the history a bit. Their written description and medical uses go back at least 3000 years. Emperor Wen was buried with a Panda skull almost 2000 years ago. In the 600s the emperor of china gave the emperor of Japan two pandas. Westerners first saw a living on in 1916 when a german zoologist bought a cub from the chinese and less than five years later Teddy Roosevelt, Jr. went to China and bagged himself one. So I don't know Pye gets his history but it's way off.

[sumthingnice60]

The underlined text makes me and probably others not care about what you're trying to say. I immediately stopped reading your post at "assuming".

its not like you arent assumung things. Everyone is assuming things since we don't know much about bigfoot. I am just making an educated guess. If you don't care what I say, then don't argue with me.

[Since804]

its not like you arent assumung things. Everyone is assuming things since we don't know much about bigfoot. I am just making an educated guess. If you don't care what I say, then don't argue with me.

LOL hmmmm what did I assume?? Please tell me what I am assuming and have tried to pass off as fact as you have. Please.

An educated GUESS.... What you were saying was not a GUESS. You were STATING as if it was fact. You were applying limits to an uknown. Stating that it could NOT live in a given area because it seems to have ape characteristics is not a guess. That is a statement.

[Eieam Wun]

Well, Mr. Pye is an idiot because the ancient chinese have hunted panda for thousands of years and were very well aware of its existance. Again, this is the typical argument that holds no water. It doesn't matter when the western world discovered the animal the indigenous peoples where any large animal has ever existed had already hunted or captured the animal. There is no animal EVER, as large as a purported bigfoot, that has escaped human hunting or capture. Just to stick with the Panda so people get the history a bit. Their written description and medical uses go back at least 3000 years. Emperor Wen was buried with a Panda skull almost 2000 years ago. In the 600s the emperor of china gave the emperor of Japan two pandas. Westerners first saw a living on in 1916 when a german zoologist bought a cub from the chinese and less than five years later Teddy Roosevelt, Jr. went to China and bagged himself one. So I don't know Pye gets his history but it's way off.

I haven't done the research myself but I believe he is referriing to the western world saying that the panda bear doesn't exist, they heard via the chinese about the bear. Even so, I think you miss the point extremely well I might add, the idegenious people of indonesia also claim to have contact with their version of the hobbit yet no one in the WESTERN WORLD (cause if the western world doesn't say they exist they don't) took them seriously until the fossil was found (and still don't take them seriously as to being in contact with them in recent history), again we are talking about western societies. There is no animal ever that has escaped hunting or capture, are you serious? Ever heard of the giant squid which is far larger then Bigfoot, we neither captured nor hunted it and found it due mainly to its enviroment, water that move the carcass into the reaches of humans. While it must be noted that in the 1800 acording to wikipedia part of a squid was "secure", the wording they used, no giant squid had ever till this day been captured.

oh and I seem to know where you got your history from but apparently Mr Pye just read it a little clearer or actually did the research, the panda first became known to the west in 1869, KNOWN, over thirty years later one was indeed purchased. What he is saying is that even after it was KNOWN it was difficult for westerns to go there and catch them themselves not being familar with the terrain.

I think this argument holds enough water to float sea going carcasses...25% of land in north america has never been foot surveyed, and over 40% of the land in north america is uninhabited by humans, a lot of room to be missed.

[Neognosis]

yes, the Giant Squid, a being that lives at the bottom of the OCEAN, yet we still have what? That's right, remains.

But no bigfoot remains. EVER. Despite the fact that they live on land with us and there are stories about them on every continent. Maybe they are made of a very biodegradable substance, like those corn based packing chips, and they melt at the first rain?

[bball]

yes, the Giant Squid, a being that lives at the bottom of the OCEAN, yet we still have what? That's right, remains.

But no bigfoot remains. EVER. Despite the fact that they live on land with us and there are stories about them on every continent. Maybe they are made of a very biodegradable substance, like those corn based packing chips, and they melt at the first rain?

The wind doesn't move the remains of animals, the way the tide moves remains...