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

[LDJ]

When it comes to Bigfoot ( and other things ), an " open mind " is open so far that the brains of the believers have fallen out. Having a " open mind " when it is blatantly obvious something does not exist, is not going to make it exist in the future.

Really? Think about what you just said.. you haven't got a clue whether or not Bigfoot exists.. yet your mind is closed to the possibility.. foolish does not quite describe your position..

[Sakari]

you haven't got a clue whether or not Bigfoot exists.. .

Uhm, no....I have a ton of " clues " that Bigfoot does not exist.

I used to think he did ( or she ), but after actually studying things, like biology, habitat, breeding populations ( biology ), etc,etc,etc....And not counting on just TV, Bigfoot books, and the internet ( although this site sure taught me a lot of things ) , I know they do not, and have not existed.

[legendarycryptids]

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.

[S2F]

Uhm, no....I have a ton of " clues " that Bigfoot does not exist.

I used to think he did ( or she ), but after actually studying things, like biology, habitat, breeding populations ( biology ), etc,etc,etc....And not counting on just TV, Bigfoot books, and the internet ( although this site sure taught me a lot of things ) , I know they do not, and have not existed.

I began my interest in Bigfoot more or less on the fence. I thought it was an intriguing possibility but the more I discussed, the more I researched and the more I learned the less I believed that Bigfoot was real. If someone really digs in to the Bigfoot myth and utilizes what we know about biology, ecology, animal behavior, primatology along with a host of other academia there really isn't any other reasonable conclusion to be drawn.

[Q-C]

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.

bolding mine, QC

There's a whole lot of descriptions of bigfoot that don't.

Self-isolation? We've got thousands of encounters spread across thousands of miles. They migrate, follow paths, game trails, roads. Like toys and candy and even interact with us.

They are curious about us. How many years before curiosity turns into a solid verified encounter? Apparently tens of thousands.

They choose to play hide and seek among us all this time? But remove all evidence of such proximity.

[Sakari]

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.

And here we go......

The debate starts all over again.....( even though all of the information is on this forum, in the past topics )

Edited June 14, 2014 by Sakari

[Swede]

Oh hell Swede.. thank god you're here.. such objectivity and illumination as I've never been privileged to witness previously.. I have no doubt that your application to Mensa will be approved at any moment.. we're all behind ya' bud..

Odd. Evasion and diversion are not generally considered to be equatable to credible documentation.

For example; you stated that the wholly undocumented "species" under discussion is (purportedly) "far more savvy than given credit" (LDJ #325). Could one then presume that you have at hand the credible documentation to support this statement? If so, providing said documentation would be an asset to your own credibility and the viability of your position.

Edit: Typo.

Edited June 14, 2014 by Swede

[Sakari]

Oh hell Swede.. thank god you're here.. such objectivity and illumination as I've never been privileged to witness previously.. I have no doubt that your application to Mensa will be approved at any moment.. we're all behind ya' bud..

Really? Think about what you just said.. you haven't got a clue whether or not Bigfoot exists.. yet your mind is closed to the possibility.. foolish does not quite describe your position..

Normally, I would say welcome to UM........

[Night Walker]

I think we are saying same thing N-W.. an open mind is the only way the truth will ever be discovered.. too many times we get distracted by the agendas of who happens to be presenting the argument..

I'm not sure that we are saying the same thing:

If Bigfoot exists as an undiscovered species then only objective evidence is the only way to that truth. However the objective evidence for Bigfoot (ie fakes and misidentifications) reveals that something else is going on...

If Bigfoot exists as an imaginary creature within a cultural context then an open mind (ie a willingness to entertain new ideas) can ultimately only assist in appreciating that truth...

Because Bigfoot is, at best, a subjective "experience" which is not supported by its own objective evidence then anyone (including ourselves) who is presenting a particular Bigfoot argument is also promoting their particular Bigfoot agenda. That is not necessarily a bad thing but the danger of distraction arises when we fail to adequately question that which we already suppose to be true...

[LDJ]

Uhm, no....I have a ton of " clues " that Bigfoot does not exist.

I used to think he did ( or she ), but after actually studying things, like biology, habitat, breeding populations ( biology ), etc,etc,etc....And not counting on just TV, Bigfoot books, and the internet ( although this site sure taught me a lot of things ) , I know they do not, and have not existed.

Then I shall respect your belief and not waste anymore of your time.

[LDJ]

Odd. Evasion and diversion are not generally considered to be equatable to credible documentation.

For example; you stated that the wholly undocumented "species" under discussion is (purportedly) "far more savvy than given credit" (LDJ #325). Could one then presume that you have at hand the credible documentation to support this statement? If so, providing said documentation would be an asset to your own credibility and the viability of your position.

Edit: Typo.

I'm sorry Swede.. I didn't get the memo that said the existence of Bigfoot relied solely on passing your subjective analysis.. while I generally enjoy a friendly joust and often encourage it, I am thinking that in this case it would just end up petty and less than satisfactory for both of us.. best wishes..

[LDJ]

Normally, I would say welcome to UM........

Understood..

[LDJ]

I'm not sure that we are saying the same thing:

If Bigfoot exists as an undiscovered species then only objective evidence is the only way to that truth. However the objective evidence for Bigfoot (ie fakes and misidentifications) reveals that something else is going on...

If Bigfoot exists as an imaginary creature within a cultural context then an open mind (ie a willingness to entertain new ideas) can ultimately only assist in appreciating that truth...

Because Bigfoot is, at best, a subjective "experience" which is not supported by its own objective evidence then anyone (including ourselves) who is presenting a particular Bigfoot argument is also promoting their particular Bigfoot agenda. That is not necessarily a bad thing but the danger of distraction arises when we fail to adequately question that which we already suppose to be true...

I was referring to having an open mind.. that's all..

[S2F]

I was referring to having an open mind.. that's all..

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

[Night Walker]

I was referring to having an open mind.. that's all..

That's all well and good but simply having an open mind is not nearly enough to get to the truth...

[LDJ]

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

of course.. but the gate swings both ways.

That's all well and good but simply having an open mind is not nearly enough to get to the truth...

I would suggest it is the ONLY way to get to the truth.. just sayin'..

[Insanity]

I began my interest in Bigfoot more or less on the fence. I thought it was an intriguing possibility but the more I discussed, the more I researched and the more I learned the less I believed that Bigfoot was real. If someone really digs in to the Bigfoot myth and utilizes what we know about biology, ecology, animal behavior, primatology along with a host of other academia there really isn't any other reasonable conclusion to be drawn.

Uhm, no....I have a ton of " clues " that Bigfoot does not exist.

I used to think he did ( or she ), but after actually studying things, like biology, habitat, breeding populations ( biology ), etc,etc,etc....And not counting on just TV, Bigfoot books, and the internet ( although this site sure taught me a lot of things ) , I know they do not, and have not existed.

I am curious on the research both of you have done to arrive at your conclusions. Would either of you discuss it in detail, including possible citation of sources used?

[Sakari]

I am curious on the research both of you have done to arrive at your conclusions. Would either of you discuss it in detail, including possible citation of sources used?

Sure...

Use the search function here on Bigfoot, and read through the last 5 to 7 years of the same replies I have put in numerous times. Even replies pointing people to replies from my past.

You can even search my name, or go to my profile. Dig through my 11,000 something posts, and narrow it down to Bigfoot.

Sorry man, I am tired of repeating myself, and repeating others facts. As I said, it is a broken record, " Groundhogs Day ".....It goes over, and over, and over..

No matter how many times things are pointed out, facts are given, hoax's are shown, theories are busted. They get buried, and months to years later new topics of the exact same thing, with the exact same questions, and theories get posted. Even though they have been answered and busted hundreds of times.

That is nothing personal, it is how this topic is.

I am not however, going to keep posting the same things over and over anymore. If a new thing pops up ( video, claim, etc. ) I will join in. But I am tired of singing the same song.

edit to add :

I all ready said in this topic, within the last 2 pages, I used to " believe ".....And, I am not typing it again on how I changed my mind, but it will answer part of your question.

Research / Try :

Biology

Ecology

Apes

Pacific Northwest Biology

Live in the PNW, and hunt and fish there....

Anyway, search away, lots and lots of posts from both of us, with links also.

Edited June 15, 2014 by Sakari

[+DieChecker]

There is probably even 2 or 3 threads that have almost this exact Title.

In my opinion, almost all the reasons skeptics put forward can be explained. Population numbers, ecological footprint (pun), origin... all can be refuted.

The ONLY thing that cannot be refuted is that No Bigfoot Body (or even DNA) has ever been conclusively shown to exist. Without a body or DNA, there is no Bigfoot. Everything else is just Discussion and What If.

People that say the Pacific Northwest, or Texas, or Ohio, are impossible environments for a bigfoot, are entirely in the same speculative level as people who say that bigfoot totally Could Live there. It is not possible to state what an unknown animal could or could not do. It is only possible to speculate.

Edited June 15, 2014 by DieChecker

[S2F]

There is probably even 2 or 3 threads that have almost this exact Title.

In my opinion, almost all the reasons skeptics put forward can be explained. Population numbers, ecological footprint (pun), origin... all can be refuted.

The ONLY thing that cannot be refuted is that No Bigfoot Body (or even DNA) has ever been conclusively shown to exist. Without a body or DNA, there is no Bigfoot. Everything else is just Discussion and What If.

I think refuted is perhaps too strong a word. To offer a counter point isn't the same as refutation. It just means there is more to be considered.

[Night Walker]

I would suggest it is the ONLY way to get to the truth.. just sayin'..

Yeah? How so? How many new species have been discovered by people using only an open mind? Just askin'...

But we're not really talking about a giant undiscovered species of man-beast here, are we?

[Q-C]

Of all the evidence for bigfoot, none of it interests mainstream science. Why?

Because it is not evidence, they checked?

Or, because science does not think a bigfoot creature inhabits NA? Period.

[Swede]

I'm sorry Swede.. I didn't get the memo that said the existence of Bigfoot relied solely on passing your subjective analysis.. while I generally enjoy a friendly joust and often encourage it, I am thinking that in this case it would just end up petty and less than satisfactory for both of us.. best wishes..

1) Credible (scientific) documentation, by its very nature, includes empirical data. Qualified data collection and documentation, while potentially subject to interpretation, is not to be considered in itself to be subjective. Nor, in the course of the evaluation of empirical data, is the evaluation of such data limited to the interpretation of any single individual. Such practices are inherent to the scientific process.

2) Some could interpret the specific bolded/general tone to indicate that you are lacking in the capacity to adequately support your own documented statements with credible and verifiable documentation. Duly noted.

.

[Swede]

Of all the evidence for bigfoot, none of it interests mainstream science. Why?

Because it is not evidence, they checked?

Or, because science does not think a bigfoot creature inhabits NA? Period.

Hi QC,

You may be misunderstanding a point or three.

First, one may wish to define (credible) evidence. One may also wish to be cognizant of the extensive amount of field research conducted by any number of trained and qualified individuals involved in environmental/biological/anthropological research, for numerous agencies and firms, on a continental level. And the vast number of observations and reports that are issued as a result of these investigations.

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".

Lastly, it may be inaccurate to believe that the professional community has been/is ignoring the topic. The simple matter is, as is well evidenced on pages such as this and many others, that there has yet to be a single shred of unquestionable "evidence" to support the various claims. There has, however, been a rather voluminous amount of hoaxes, fraudulent claims, faked data, bizarre scenarios, etc., etc. Thus, over the years, and quite understandably, professional interest in the topic may not always be of the highest priority. The final Sykes' report may be of interest.

Edit: Addition.

Edited June 15, 2014 by Swede

[Q-C]

Hi QC,

You may be misunderstanding a point or three.

First, one may wish to define (credible) evidence. One may also wish to be cognizant of the extensive amount of field research conducted by any number of trained and qualified individuals involved in environmental/biological/anthropological research, for numerous agencies and firms, on a continental level. And the vast number of observations and reports that are issued as a result of these investigations.

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".

Lastly, it may be inaccurate to believe that the professional community has been/is ignoring the topic. The simple matter is, as is well evidenced on pages such as this and many others, that there has yet to be a single shred of unquestionable "evidence" to support the various claims. There has, however, been a rather voluminous amount of hoaxes, fraudulent claims, faked data, bizarre scenarios, etc., etc. Thus, over the years, and quite understandably, professional interest in the topic may not always be of the highest priority. The final Sykes' report may be of interest.

Edit: Addition.

First, I am well aware of what credible means and that no credible evidence for Bigfoot has been documented.

I am also aware of studies (on topics other than bigfoot) being conducted all over the world by any number of professions. I am also aware observations and reports would accompany these investigations.

Second, please cite for me these number of qualified and specialized studies (no bigfootdom bedfellows plz) that have delved into the topic.

I am well aware of Dr. Sykes study. One study over the last x years hardly shows a general and zealous interest by the scientific community. And I suggest you completely familiarize yourself with Dr. Sykes, his study, how his samples were obtained, the scope of his study, and his reason for doing this study. Who did he talk to? Did he keep to the bigfoot community or did he embark on his own impartial study before collecting samples from people like Justin Smeja who required no testing for most of us to know the results.

Have his results about the Yeti as bear been reviewed by the scientific community yet who were skeptical of his results?

Last, why would hoaxes, fraudulent claims, faked data and bizarre scenarios have anything at all to do with professionals not making studies of a bigfoot type creature a priority? That makes no sense to me. Please cite how this is indeed the case.

I am inclined to say, rather, it is a non-belief in the existence of a bigfoot type creature inhabiting NA that has made bigfoot studies not only low on science's priority list but not any list at all. Save one with questionable backstories and interests and all over approach to an odd and very limited study. It made good TV though.

Meldrum is a bona fide scientist too. But

Edited June 16, 2014 by QuiteContrary