The Problems with Bigfoot

[Neognosis]

Considering you can make a crude cutting edge in only a couple minutes thats good enough to cut through meat, etc, what motivation would there to be to carry a heavy tool with you?

Seems like it would not be practical to make a new tool every time you needed a blade. And we know that the other homo species that made tools kept them and didn't make a new tool every time they needed to use a tool that they had previously already made. And even if bigfoot made a new knife every time he need to gut or skin a deer, where are all these knives/tools now?

Especially a tool that would smell like blood, etc, in country that has predators?

Bigfoot has predators? Then were are the remains of bigfoots killed by predators? What eats bigfoot? See, when something is part of the food chain, it is observable. It's population would influence the population of everything else in the food chain. And we simply don't see any evidence or impact of a giant ape in our ecosystem.

[grendals_bane]

Bigfoot has predators? Then were are the remains of bigfoots killed by predators? What eats bigfoot? See, when something is part of the food chain, it is observable. It's population would influence the population of everything else in the food chain. And we simply don't see any evidence or impact of a giant ape in our ecosystem.

I agree with you that their would surely be some sign of Bigfoot being eaten somewhere.

If Bigfoot was real they probably would be preyed upon, if not as an adult then at least when young or sick. A likely candidate would be the likes of the Puma, as they are known to take down young bears at times, so would have no problem taking down a similar sized Bigfoot.

Yet no Bigfoot bodies have been found, no documentary filming Pumas have filmed one hunting down a Bigfoot, yet they have filmed them hunting pretty much every other animal. No bears or wolves have been observed doing the same either.

[Myles]

True. But I'm here for discussion. And speculation is the root of discussion when evidence does not exist. Thus, I speculate. If Neo does not like my speculation, he is free to post rebutals or other discussion, but what he posts is definitive statements that are not true, and mainly opinion. He is the one saying, "Never, Nothing, Nowhere" when clearly people do report bigfoot and someone, even if it is hoaxers, makes those footprints. He would just rather dismiss the subject out of hand. I've always thought that was very un-scientific.

Are you, a bigfoot believer, calling someone out for posting opinion and not facts?

[evancj]

Considering you can make a crude cutting edge in only a couple minutes thats good enough to cut through meat, etc, what motivation would there to be to carry a heavy tool with you? Especially a tool that would smell like blood, etc, in country that has predators? Thats assuming they even need it very often, for most of the wild foods in the Pacific North West you dont need tools to gather...

~

Anyways, fun debating with you all. Cheers.

-Bavarian Raven-

It's not that easy. You need specific kinds of rocks that are not found every where. Which means you need to carry your cutting tools around with you in case you are in an area that doesn't have those rocks. I have yet to hear about a bigfoot carrying around a tool kit.

[+DieChecker]

If they are living in such a "less advanced" state - what physical hard evidence would they leave? A few sharpened rocks as cutting/scrapping tools? Probably (but would we be able to tell them apart from relic tools made by first nations?

I've always thought that BF would simply acquire and then toss human tools, or stuff that humans made that could be used as a tool. Surely a bit of metal would work as well as a stone knife, and in many places I've hiked there are bits of debris everywhere. Wood, metal, glass... all easily came by for the bigfoot. If it was bright enough to use and make stone tools, human trash would be even better. So any trash you find in the woods... it might be artifacts of a homeless guy, an irresponsible hiker or bigfoot.

Ie, both things most hikers tend to ignore when out in the back country...

I agree. I think that 99% of stuff that might be evidence is ignored out of habit. People are usually looking at the landscape/trees when they are out hiking. Very few people (That I know anyway) go off trail 40 or 50 feet to look at a pile of poop, that could be from an elk, bear or cougar.

Are you, a bigfoot believer, calling someone out for posting opinion and not facts?

Ahhh... I could be viewed as a Believer, but I am more then willing to admit that bigfoot (As a unknown ape) is only possible if you cut down into the very lowest levels of probability, such that the chance approaches zero. And that I am more then willing to say that what I am putting forward is Opinion... when it is opinion, and as Facts... when they are facts. I try not to use blanket statements of Everyone, Always, Never, Impossible and Absolute.

[psyche101]

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

Because he is bipedal?

LINK

[Neognosis]

I watched another episode of "Finding Bigfoot" last night.

Two things struck me as particularly noteworthy:

1- I wish they would stop saying "squatch."

2- These people, even the "biologist," have lost touch with reality. It's extremely interesting, because you can watch the disconnect as it happens. A VERY interesting examination of the human mind and how it works. Also is quite an illumination as to how we seem to elect liars, cheats, and morons to office as well.

[Myles]

Ahhh... I could be viewed as a Believer, but I am more then willing to admit that bigfoot (As a unknown ape) is only possible if you cut down into the very lowest levels of probability, such that the chance approaches zero. And that I am more then willing to say that what I am putting forward is Opinion... when it is opinion, and as Facts... when they are facts. I try not to use blanket statements of Everyone, Always, Never, Impossible and Absolute.

Fair enough.

[Neognosis]

I try not to use blanket statements of Everyone, Always, Never, Impossible and Absolute.

I use them when it is warranted. Like NOBODY has EVER produced ANY evidence of bigfoot EVER.

[orangepeaceful79]

I use them when it is warranted. Like NOBODY has EVER produced ANY evidence of bigfoot EVER.

Ooooh oooh....let me try. Out of EVERYONE who has ever reported seeing a Bigfoot, there is ALWAYS one common thread. No ABSOLUTE proof has EVER been provided, thus making it IMPOSSIBLE so far to verify its existence. Until that happens, I will NEVER believe it is anything more than a fairy tale.

[Neognosis]

Dang, you have defeated me!

[+DieChecker]

Because he is bipedal?

LINK

Partly, but mostly because with BF supposed to be large and muscular, he'd need a lot of Calories. My opinion would be that because BF is supposed to be a traveler, he would not stay in one place too long to eat large quantities of vegetation, thus he'd only be able to eat a moderate amount and then would not have a lot of calories anyway.

Also a vegetatian BF should have a large "beer" gut, don't you think?

[+DieChecker]

I watched another episode of "Finding Bigfoot" last night.

Two things struck me as particularly noteworthy:

1- I wish they would stop saying "squatch."

2- These people, even the "biologist," have lost touch with reality. It's extremely interesting, because you can watch the disconnect as it happens. A VERY interesting examination of the human mind and how it works. Also is quite an illumination as to how we seem to elect liars, cheats, and morons to office as well.

1 - I also hate the term "Squatch". It is hillbilly slang.

2 - I agree, there reaches a point were they break Completely with reality. There is very little objectivism, even from their Scientist/Biologist.

I use them when it is warranted. Like NOBODY has EVER produced ANY evidence of bigfoot EVER.

I don't believe that is true. Stuff has been found, and shown to be inconclusive. Also some evidence is still being tested. If BF is directly related to Humans, then much of the evidence collected that tested as "Human" might actually be for real.

It also depends on your definition of evidence. Pictures, stories, reports... these can be considered evidence, just not good solid evidence. If someone said they saw a zebra running loose in Nebraska, people would go look for it. Based on eyewitness testimony evidence.

[Neognosis]

I don't believe that is true. Stuff has been found, and shown to be inconclusive.

First off, "inconclusive" is a great word. It lets you admit that whatever samples submitted weren't identifiable, but you get to keep some of the mystery if you say "inconclusive" verses if you say "unidentifiable."

And later, most of them are found to be something else anyway.

Second, until something appears in a peer reviewed journal, the way real scientists publish their findings, it is garbage.

It also doesn't matter what you BELIEVE, what matters are the facts. You can believe whatever you choose, but there just has never been any evidence that is acceptable.

Pictures, stories, reports... these can be considered evidence,

Only if you are not using any kind of scientific litmus test. The above simply is not evidence.

If I tell you that saw a pteradactyle in my back yard this morning, and swear to it, are you going to count that as evidence that dinosaurs still roam the earth? You might, but not if you are using a scientific process.

See, the definition is not up for interpretation. And there simply is NO scientific evidence.

[+DieChecker]

First off, "inconclusive" is a great word. It lets you admit that whatever samples submitted weren't identifiable, but you get to keep some of the mystery if you say "inconclusive" verses if you say "unidentifiable."

And later, most of them are found to be something else anyway.

Second, until something appears in a peer reviewed journal, the way real scientists publish their findings, it is garbage.

It also doesn't matter what you BELIEVE, what matters are the facts. You can believe whatever you choose, but there just has never been any evidence that is acceptable.

I'll agree there is no accepted evidence, otherwise we'd be discussing how many bigfoot there are and what range they inhabit, instead of only talking about if they exist at all.

My point with the Inconclusive evidence is that a lot of it went through the scientific process, and science did not figure out what that hair, or whatever, really was from. This is not Bobo the hillbilly saying something is inconclusive, it is Science saying it is inconclusive. Inconclusive in that it does not exactly match any known good samples. True many inconclusive results were due to not enough DNA or whatnot, but many of the results were due to their not being readily identified.

Only if you are not using any kind of scientific litmus test. The above simply is not evidence.

If I tell you that saw a pteradactyle in my back yard this morning, and swear to it, are you going to count that as evidence that dinosaurs still roam the earth? You might, but not if you are using a scientific process.

See, the definition is not up for interpretation. And there simply is NO scientific evidence.

If you said you saw it several times, it might be worth investigating based on your story. It might then be shown to be an eagle or vulture. But, the point would be that your eyewitness evidence provoked further gathering of evidence which reached a conclusion.

[Neognosis]

My point with the Inconclusive evidence is that a lot of it went through the scientific process, and science did not figure out what that hair, or whatever, really was from.

My point is that they often do later identify them, usually doll hairs, human hairs, coconut fiber, carpet fiber, etc.

But this is after the "documentary" airs, and nobody notices. Or more likely, people selectively decide to disregard.

But, the point would be that your eyewitness evidence provoked further gathering of evidence which reached a conclusion. . It might then be shown to be an eagle or vulture.

then it was never evidence at all, was it? And certainly not evidence for a pterodactyl.

[Particle Noun]

First off, "inconclusive" is a great word. It lets you admit that whatever samples submitted weren't identifiable, but you get to keep some of the mystery if you say "inconclusive" verses if you say "unidentifiable."

And later, most of them are found to be something else anyway.

Second, until something appears in a peer reviewed journal, the way real scientists publish their findings, it is garbage.

If DNA evidence appears in a scientific journal (a big if, but it appears that perhaps at the end of February this may happen), will you approch it openly? Or assume that because it's about bigfoot it's garbage right out of the gate?

I admit to being hopeful that the Ketchum DNA study, but we'll have to see. What I'm pretty confident of though is that *IF* this study does indicate something interesting, there are going to be a lot of people who will dismiss it without a second thought, even though it may be peer reviewed and compelling.

It will be interesting to say the least (again, *IF*)

[psyche101]

Partly, but mostly because with BF supposed to be large and muscular, he'd need a lot of Calories. My opinion would be that because BF is supposed to be a traveler, he would not stay in one place too long to eat large quantities of vegetation, thus he'd only be able to eat a moderate amount and then would not have a lot of calories anyway.

Also a vegetatian BF should have a large "beer" gut, don't you think?

Hi Mate

Yes, he should indeed have a large beer gut, like a Gorilla, but I do not think Gorillas are sluggish, I am of the understanding that they can run at about half the speed of a human which may not be all that fast, about 20mph, but still I would think more than sluggish, and then I wonder where Deer get their energy from!

Cheers.

[evancj]

If DNA evidence appears in a scientific journal (a big if, but it appears that perhaps at the end of February this may happen), will you approch it openly? Or assume that because it's about bigfoot it's garbage right out of the gate?

I admit to being hopeful that the Ketchum DNA study, but we'll have to see. What I'm pretty confident of though is that *IF* this study does indicate something interesting, there are going to be a lot of people who will dismiss it without a second thought, even though it may be peer reviewed and compelling.

It will be interesting to say the least (again, *IF*)

From what I understand Ketchum is not exactly the finest example of honesty, professional integrity, or loyalty. I goggled her and came up with page after page of completes and lawsuits against her and her lab. She apparently infringed on some patents, ripped off numerous customers and backstabbed her colleagues on this bigfoot DNA project you are talking about.

I don't think I would trust her results unless she had two or three other labs independently verify her findings.

Edited February 1, 2012 by evancj

[Neognosis]

If DNA evidence appears in a scientific journal (a big if, but it appears that perhaps at the end of February this may happen), will you approch it openly

If it appears in a legitimate, peer reviewed scientific journal, like the journal Nature, then sure. BTW, I approach everything openly. It is only by being closed minded that you can believe in bigfoot, because you have to "close" out everything else we know about our ecosystem.

[+DieChecker]

Hi Mate

Yes, he should indeed have a large beer gut, like a Gorilla, but I do not think Gorillas are sluggish, I am of the understanding that they can run at about half the speed of a human which may not be all that fast, about 20mph, but still I would think more than sluggish, and then I wonder where Deer get their energy from!

Cheers.

Ahh... an Elk might be a better example, as they are also large and muscular. Elk can move really quickly when they want to, but AFAIK, they generally don't move fast or very far, unless they are forced (hunting season). Perhaps a bigfoot might pull it off by eating high cal foods like berries and nuts. But there would have to be a lot of it.

[psyche101]

Ahh... an Elk might be a better example, as they are also large and muscular. Elk can move really quickly when they want to, but AFAIK, they generally don't move fast or very far, unless they are forced (hunting season). Perhaps a bigfoot might pull it off by eating high cal foods like berries and nuts. But there would have to be a lot of it.

I did think of an Elk, fast, and muscular, but it is not at all bipedal I know a Gorilla is not bipedal either, but I think you know where I am coming from there. Mostly your comment is why I briefly mentioned Deer, those things seem to have rubber bands inside of them although I have only seen them up close when in New Zealand, some are supposed to be wild in my area, but I have never seen one here.

I figure a Gorilla is closer to what is reported than an Elk. If a Gorilla can move over 20mph that seems reasonably quick for the size, and stance to me? Hardly lighting, but no sloth either.

It might be possible that nuts and berries give that strength, but I doubt that enough exist where they would go missing in NA and not be noticed? I would think more if anything that such a creature would probably be more of an insectivore where high levels of protein are required for a stealthy nutritional substance? I am more trying to anticipate debate before it happens, and I think this would be a decent case against a slow moving Omnivore? Insects are high in protein and would be hard to keep a close count on as well.

Edited February 1, 2012 by psyche101

[psyche101]

From what I understand Ketchum is not exactly the finest example of honesty, professional integrity, or loyalty. I goggled her and came up with page after page of completes and lawsuits against her and her lab. She apparently infringed on some patents, ripped off numerous customers and backstabbed her colleagues on this bigfoot DNA project you are talking about.

I don't think I would trust her results unless she had two or three other labs independently verify her findings.

Now that is going to make securing a peer review difficult!

[Tia]

Here's an interesting link..... Dr. Jane Goodall Speaks About Bigfoot

Now surely no one on here can deny Dr Goodall and Dianne Fossey were major links in the development of collecting data on the great apes so we should at least listen to her comments on this and maybe consider them.

[Neognosis]

Ah, the goodall nonsense.

Here's the most important quote from Goodall regarding bigfoot:

Well, I'm a romantic, so I always wanted them to exist.....................of course, the big, the big criticism of all this is, "Where is the body?" You know, why isn't there a body? I can't answer that, and maybe they don't exist, but I want them to.

goodall is also referencing something she read in a "snippet in a newspaper" somewhere.

What you should take away from that is that Jane Goodall WANTS them to exist, but can't explain why there is no body. Or any other evidence, for that matter.

Edited February 1, 2012 by Neognosis