Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
AlterScape

Bigfoot Best Evidence

372 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

DieChecker
1 minute ago, stereologist said:

So the lack of evidence is all there is. I agree with that.

Is there food out there? Sure. Since BF seems to be imaginary we can imagine it eating anything.

Is there unwatched territory out there? Yes, but that does not mean that BF should be able to avoid leaving any evidence for its existence. People claim to see BF so why is there nothing other than what appear to be hoaxed footprints?

No one is suggesting that seeing BF in high traffic areas is anything other than seeing BF in high traffic areas. It shows that misidentification is rampant. That is what it shows. The inference is that misidentification also applies to low traffic areas. The only person making the suggestion that reports are fake is DieChecker. I am only suggesting that misidentifcations are common and that reporting BF in Central Park and other high traffic areas is evidence for misidentifications being common.

As far as I can tell there is no reason to believe in BF. There is no evidence. All reasons given for BF not existing are facts used  in a decision process leading to an opinion. They are fact. The fact that no BF has been killed by a car is fact. The fact that no BF has been killed by a forest fire is fact. The fact that misidentifcations are rampant is fact. The fact that hoaxers make videos is fact. The fact that no DNA has been found is fact. The fact that no scat has been found is fact. The fact that no hairs have been found is fact. The fact that there is nothing in the fossil record is fact. The fact that areas have been scoured to the point of eradicating all deer such as in Pennsylvania is fact. The fact that no bear sampling lines have turned up BF is fact. The fact that there is no evidence from any place in the world for yeti, BF, or yowie or whatever is fact. The fact that the entire US has been visited by people many times is fact.

The facts are facts. From that it is possible to draw a conclusion. My conclusion is that after nearly a century there is no evidence for BF and BF does not exist.

There are non-facts that get into the argument.

BF builds nests. Really? That's right, that's opinion.

BF buries their dead. Really? That's right, that's opinion.

BF is intelligent. Really? That's right, that's opinion.

BF lives as individuals. Really? That's right, that's opinion.

BF is interdimensional. Really? That's right, that's opinion.

There are plenty of excuses as to why BF has not been found. The excuses are not based on evidence since there is none. They are suggestions or opinion.

What I see in the post I quoted is a misunderstanding of reasoning. Reasons based on facts are given as to why there is no new unseen planet in the solar system, no new Sun, the Earth is not hollow, the Moon is not hollow, the Apollo Moon landings happened, and so forth. An object leaves it mark on the environment. So far BF has not left its mark on the environment. BF does not appear to exist.

Uhhhh.... Yeah... I agree with 99% of that.

So........ If there's no evidence for BF. Then what is there to talk about? Eyewitness accounts? Possible variables that may allow for BF to exist? --- Those are the things I wish to discuss. If you want to add and say "poo-poo" on each case, that's fine. But, really there no real evidence and everyone agrees on that, so the objects of discussion will have to revolve into what can't be proven. If all we can talk about is what is provable, then we might as well shut down this entire section of the Forums.

If the issue is so cut and dried, I guess maybe we should get a Mod to close down every BF thread, and end discussion all together? That seems to be what some people wish for....

OR... are we going to allow people to express "opinion", and not go all childish and calling people imbeciles, idiots and such?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
stereologist
3 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Uhhhh.... Yeah... I agree with 99% of that.

So........ If there's no evidence for BF. Then what is there to talk about? Eyewitness accounts? Possible variables that may allow for BF to exist? --- Those are the things I wish to discuss. If you want to add and say "poo-poo" on each case, that's fine. But, really there no real evidence and everyone agrees on that, so the objects of discussion will have to revolve into what can't be proven. If all we can talk about is what is provable, then we might as well shut down this entire section of the Forums.

If the issue is so cut and dried, I guess maybe we should get a Mod to close down every BF thread, and end discussion all together? That seems to be what some people wish for....

OR... are we going to allow people to express "opinion", and not go all childish and calling people imbeciles, idiots and such?

Time to count to ten. Your rant is rather childish.

My suggestion is that BF is a matter of misidentification. I am interested in what it is that causes people to misidentify something as a tall hairy hominid. I think it might be cultural. Maybe it's a built in mechanism that causes us to envision a "boogey man".

The made up stories all come from the BF camp. I'm looking at the facts and the facts tell me that BF does not appear to exist.

Take DNA for example. Tests show that samples are known animals. In some cases the tests come back as inconclusive because the sample is bad. BF believers take great happiness in those tests because once again it does not say a clear loud NO. Some BF believers get the false idea that inconclusive somehow supports the existence of BF. It says nothing either way because that is what inconclusive means.

Again, why do people see BF at times when they are seeing something like a bear or maybe a deer feeding on a low branch or a person or even a tree trunk or who knows what they are seeing. But something is telling them to say BF. What causes us to think BF?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
9 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Time to count to ten. Your rant is rather childish.

My suggestion is that BF is a matter of misidentification. I am interested in what it is that causes people to misidentify something as a tall hairy hominid. I think it might be cultural. Maybe it's a built in mechanism that causes us to envision a "boogey man".

The made up stories all come from the BF camp. I'm looking at the facts and the facts tell me that BF does not appear to exist.

Take DNA for example. Tests show that samples are known animals. In some cases the tests come back as inconclusive because the sample is bad. BF believers take great happiness in those tests because once again it does not say a clear loud NO. Some BF believers get the false idea that inconclusive somehow supports the existence of BF. It says nothing either way because that is what inconclusive means.

Again, why do people see BF at times when they are seeing something like a bear or maybe a deer feeding on a low branch or a person or even a tree trunk or who knows what they are seeing. But something is telling them to say BF. What causes us to think BF?

Childish? Perhaps. But I've been witness to childishness from all sides in these BF discussions. Surely you can agree there are some posters who are actively trying to shut down even casual discussion of the BF phenomena? And they honestly feel justified in doing so. 

I generally agree with the misidentification theory, in that I think it is the same mechanism that causes people to believe they see aliens, ufos, fairies, angels and ghosts. They are predisposed to some belief and it causes their brain to fill in details based on that belief. So BF believers are predisposed to see a tree stump with moss on it as a hunched over BF. And so on. So we agree on that.

I do think that some of the eyewitness stories are legit, even if they are misidentification. That people do see something, and then think it is bigfoot.

There definitely is a phenomena going on here though. Why so many people are predisposed to seeing something that has no actual evidence is very interesting to me. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Childish? Perhaps. But I've been witness to childishness from all sides in these BF discussions. Surely you can agree there are some posters who are actively trying to shut down even casual discussion of the BF phenomena? And they honestly feel justified in doing so. 

I generally agree with the misidentification theory, in that I think it is the same mechanism that causes people to believe they see aliens, ufos, fairies, angels and ghosts. They are predisposed to some belief and it causes their brain to fill in details based on that belief. So BF believers are predisposed to see a tree stump with moss on it as a hunched over BF. And so on. So we agree on that.

I do think that some of the eyewitness stories are legit, even if they are misidentification. That people do see something, and then think it is bigfoot.

There definitely is a phenomena going on here though. Why so many people are predisposed to seeing something that has no actual evidence is very interesting to me. 

I think it is interesting that people see BF or yeti or whatever. I have no idea why people see something like that. It appears to  be a cross cultural phenomenon. I have no idea but maybe that is how we see an enemy - as a nonhuman. Maybe our brains are wired to see trouble as being nonhuman. I have no idea.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
5 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Uhhhh.... Yeah... I agree with 99% of that.

So........ If there's no evidence for BF. Then what is there to talk about? Eyewitness accounts? Possible variables that may allow for BF to exist? --- Those are the things I wish to discuss. If you want to add and say "poo-poo" on each case, that's fine. But, really there no real evidence and everyone agrees on that, so the objects of discussion will have to revolve into what can't be proven. If all we can talk about is what is provable, then we might as well shut down this entire section of the Forums.

If the issue is so cut and dried, I guess maybe we should get a Mod to close down every BF thread, and end discussion all together? That seems to be what some people wish for....

OR... are we going to allow people to express "opinion", and not go all childish and calling people imbeciles, idiots and such?

I believe the vast majority of  "BF sightings" are simple misidentification of something by people.   I most of those cases the person honestly believes they saw a BF and aren't lying or intentionally misleading their audience chasing fame, they truly think they saw a BF hence the earnestness of their reports/stories.  These threads are important because they can help people who have had a sighting or believe the story told by someone else who has had a "sighting" that there are plausible explantions for teh event.   

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldrover
Just now, stereologist said:

I think it is interesting that people see BF or yeti or whatever. I have no idea why people see something like that. It appears to  be a cross cultural phenomenon. I have no idea but maybe that is how we see an enemy - as a nonhuman. Maybe our brains are wired to see trouble as being nonhuman. I have no idea.

The yeti and bigfoot aren't a cross cultural phenomena. They're both modern Western ideas. The indigenous yeti traditions of the Himalayas aren't the same as our stories set there at all.

And don't forget, bigfoot didn't take off till atlfter Tom Slick brought bis chief yeti hunter, Peter Byrne, over to the U.S. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gaden
3 hours ago, Merc14 said:

... These threads are important because they can help people who have had a sighting or believe the story told by someone else who has had a "sighting" that there are plausible explantions for teh event.   

 Except that those people are never convinced and, are, in fact, the ones who start the vitriol laced arguments. i.e. " I know what I saw" !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gaden
9 hours ago, stereologist said:

...

What I see in the post I quoted is a misunderstanding of reasoning. Reasons based on facts are given as to why there is no new unseen planet in the solar system, no new Sun, the Earth is not hollow, the Moon is not hollow, the Apollo Moon landings happened, and so forth. An object leaves it mark on the environment. So far BF has not left its mark on the environment. BF does not appear to exist.

 

 

 As I have stated numerous times, the answer lies within the psyche of the human mind. Somewhere, sometime, a behavioral scientist wrote a paper about this very phenomena. I haven't read it, but this book probably goes a long way toward explaining it;

https://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0805070893/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1487022787&sr=1-1&keywords=Why+People+Believe+Weird+Things

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
11 hours ago, stereologist said:

I think it is interesting that people see BF or yeti or whatever. I have no idea why people see something like that. It appears to  be a cross cultural phenomenon. I have no idea but maybe that is how we see an enemy - as a nonhuman. Maybe our brains are wired to see trouble as being nonhuman. I have no idea.

I think I read that some (Actual) researchers believed it was due to our interactions with Neanderthals in Europe those many tens of thousands of years ago. I'm not sure I buy that, because Neanderthals didn't remarkably look different then us. Not like Bigfoot is supposed to look anyway.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
3 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I think I read that some (Actual) researchers believed it was due to our interactions with Neanderthals in Europe those many tens of thousands of years ago. I'm not sure I buy that, because Neanderthals didn't remarkably look different then us. Not like Bigfoot is supposed to look anyway.

Have you ever looked at http://themandus.org/ ?  Basically this dude's theory is that our current image of the neanderthal is incorrect and using the known bone structure he reconstructs the neanderthal with a more ape like appearance. I have no idea about the veracity of the whole thing but its an interesting thought process. 

Neanderthal-200

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_Only
On 10/10/2017 at 5:00 AM, flabbins said:

I don't think you can't get WI-FI out that far? He probably doesn't know what youtube is.

Doesn't matter if his phone has a good, non wifi, wireless network.

You are making some dangerous assumptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doctor wu

http://kuow.org/post/sinful-scientist-jane-goodall-isn-t-ruling-out-sasquatch

"She’s also full of surprises. Goodall, famous for her research into the social structures of wild chimpanzees, says she’s open to the possibility that Bigfoot exists."Goodall said she’s heard many stories from people who have no reason to lie about a Sasquatch sighting. And that makes her believe.“It’s bizarre that we’ve never found any remains,” Goodall said. “Maybe it’s a spiritual creature. The closest I come when I think about ‘what could it be’ is like the remnant of Neanderthals.”

Edited by doctor wu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
15 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Have you ever looked at http://themandus.org/ ?  Basically this dude's theory is that our current image of the neanderthal is incorrect and using the known bone structure he reconstructs the neanderthal with a more ape like appearance. I have no idea about the veracity of the whole thing but its an interesting thought process. 

Neanderthal-200

 

 

Vendramini's stuff is pure BS and disregards 160+ years worth of research into Neanderthals. It's another half-baked hypothesis akin to the aquatic ape crap.

Edited by Carnoferox
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
On 11/2/2017 at 10:06 PM, Farmer77 said:

Have you ever looked at http://themandus.org/ ?  Basically this dude's theory is that our current image of the neanderthal is incorrect and using the known bone structure he reconstructs the neanderthal with a more ape like appearance. I have no idea about the veracity of the whole thing but its an interesting thought process. 

Neanderthal-200

 

 

I see how he might come to those conclusions. However, I myself, think that he's done a whole farm full of cherry picking to try to fit facts to his idea. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BorizBadinov

Thanks for sharing the link. 

IMHO the body proportions look way off, just looks like a fat boy running. And that other pic.... >.<

I do like how they blurred the PG still to look more like the pics they used but I admit this one looks contrived to me. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
On 03/11/2017 at 8:31 PM, Carnoferox said:

Vendramini's stuff is pure BS and disregards 160+ years worth of research into Neanderthals. It's another half-baked hypothesis akin to the aquatic ape crap.

Never heard of him but my first thought was some lame attempt to make humans seem more distinct from other hominids. Probably to fit some religious belief he holds.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sakari
49 minutes ago, BorizBadinov said:

Thanks for sharing the link. 

IMHO the body proportions look way off, just looks like a fat boy running. And that other pic.... >.<

I do like how they blurred the PG still to look more like the pics they used but I admit this one looks contrived to me. 

 

I only posted as I did not know a "new" sighting fake had been reported. Thought some might enjoy :)

Just got back from the PNW. Not one damn Bif to be seen. No Salmon either. Well, some were coming into the mouth of the Elk, but turning right back into the Ocean.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldrover
Just now, I'mConvinced said:

Never heard of him but my first thought was some lame attempt to make humans seem more distinct from other hominids. Probably to fit some religious belief he holds.

He's an Aussie screenwriter, absolutely no background in anthropology, paelaeontology, or any other relevant discipline. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'mConvinced
1 minute ago, oldrover said:

He's an Aussie screenwriter, absolutely no background in anthropology, paelaeontology, or any other relevant discipline. 

Just think if his picture were accurate, we mated with Neanderthals :blink:.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
1 hour ago, I'mConvinced said:

Never heard of him but my first thought was some lame attempt to make humans seem more distinct from other hominids. Probably to fit some religious belief he holds.

It's not to fit religious beliefs (he's not a creationist), but rather an attempt to sell books. As oldrover mentioned he is a screenwriter by trade and he has created this sensational hypothesis mostly for the money.

Edited by Carnoferox
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BorizBadinov

Sakari,

I like to look at them all, I do. Good or bad it interests me. Next time you are in the PNW hit up the Trask River area near Tillamook. I used to camp there a lot when I lived in Or. Love the coast range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.