Bigfoot ....surviving remnant

[Trelane]

48 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

LoL!  Piney, I have never thought about BF from that perspective but now that you have brought it up it makes perfect sense!   and I totally agreee with you BTW   .  If you watch teh P&G film, the supposed holy grail of BF evidence from this perspective you immediately see how implausible it is that this huge, lumbering, clod of a creature could not only survive in the wild for eons but also thrive escape all detection except for fleeting glimpses.

 

Exactly my thoughts as well. I will repeat that a large population of such a huge animal would have recognizable effects on the environment they would occupy. The fluidity of claims about the creature further strip away any sense of probability. One group says its a human cousin, one says a large ape descendent, then on the fringe they claim multi-dimensional beings. Great stuff to tell around campfires for entertainment, but in no way ever proven to be real.

[+DieChecker]

On 3/19/2018 at 2:28 AM, Alien Origins said:

Well then what is everyones take on the Patterson-Gimlin film?

My opinion is that it is a fake. The circumstances of it happening and being filmed the way it was, was really so lucky as to be unbelievable. And Patterson was known to have a desire to get such a film because he was broke. And he was known to not be above fakery. 

That is not to say that I believe Bob Heironimus, or Phillip Morris, either. If either of those guys was an expert witness in a actual trial, they would be outright called liars regarding what they can prove about the P-G film. 

[+DieChecker]

On 3/19/2018 at 8:02 PM, Gaden said:

 No they haven't, if they had, then we would not be having this conversation. Some people have CLAIMED to have found these items, but the evidence does not support the claims. 

OH? So you know everything found in the woods, and if it was attributed to bigfoot or not? 

I think what you mean is basically what I said at the end of my post. That there has not been any such evidence turned over to science and shown to be anomalous to the point of scientific agreement that it represents Bigfoot. 

Such things as hair, feces, prints... have been found. That is beyond question. However much of it came back as human. And therefore was discarded as being from bigfoot. When we have no idea if those were actually subjected to testing without bias. And I mean by bias that what might appear to be a four inch long hair from a human scalp, could be from a bigfoot's arm. Or judging a feces only from the size. Have you never had a small bowel movement? Or dismissing any of a number of other things, since some test came back "human".

[Farmer77]

On ‎2‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 3:05 PM, Faustus said:

I 

I guess the question I'm asking is could Bigfoot just be remnant tribe of humans that chose to live feral due to whatever environmental pressures existed, and shifted from interaction, as many NA tribal elders describe, to concealment and avoidance?  Imagine an intelligent species of humans(like Denosivans,etc.) that evolved in a more feral or natural way, as opposed to how we evolved by civilization, farming, etc.  

 

That's my personal opinion if BF exists it is a prehistoric society which chose to go underground.

 

[+DieChecker]

On 3/19/2018 at 6:03 AM, stereologist said:

I believe the argument was not that all. The argument is that BF sightings were more common near large population areas. These areas were impossible for BF to exist. It highlighted how poor people are as eyewitnesses.

I remember it being that someone (?) posted reports based on urban areas and then stated it then showed that bigfoot couldn't be real, because he'd be seen.

My point in that thread was in fact that you can't dismiss all sightings simply because you can dismiss some. I you didn't get that, it probably because you were too hot over the definition of a "bigfoot pic".

Quote

The suggestion was that BF sightings were not of a real creature but there is something in humans that makes them want to suggest the existence of a large hairy creature that walks upright. It is something about human thinking that is revealed rather than the existence of some creature.

I do generally agree with that. That bigfoot is (most likely) a misunderstood "fill in the blank" response by the human mind, where someone sees bigfoot because for some reason they expect to see bigfoot.

Quote

The main problem with BF is that there is nothing but stories. Not  single creature has been found dead. No bones, no skin, no scat, nothing. No dead from natural causes. No dead from fires or floods or car collisions. Nothing. The search has been going on longer than for any other imagined creature. People suggest there are credible reports because some unnamed person was an "experienced outdoors man" or they were  in law enforcement. There is nothing substantial.

There is nothing wrong with following up on stories.

I tend to agree. My suggestion is that there is very little preventing BF from reality, excepting that no physical remains have been scientifically observed. I will not say, "never found", because there are numerous stories of people finding dead BFs, or hitting them with their car, or shooting one, but feeling bad about it and burying it.

Quote

The suggestion that so many groups tell such tales of hairy upright walking creatures is also without merit. Do they have skins of the creature? No. They tell tales that are very different from gentle creatures that become members of the family to malevolent creatures. I don't see people arguing for talking animals which so many of thee groups also tell. Talking animals are the norm and we all accept this blindly when watching movies but our complete belief in this does not add support to the idea that animals or toys can talk.

Humans range from gentile to malevolent, yes? So why would that be hard to believe? These native stories almost always tell us of their neighbors being cannibals too. The neighbors were actually there, but not supernatural cannibals. So, often there is reality mixed into their stories, and it requires weighing of what is possible. A large hairy human... Is possible. A talking beaver... is not.

On 3/19/2018 at 6:10 AM, stereologist said:

You mean like some of the hoaxers that have videos out?

The estimation of bear population can change over time due to the method of sampling. In our area we see a tremendous number of deer as the population explodes. Has the food supply increased or changed? No. The clear result has been a loss of trophy deer, the 12 to 14 point buck which are no longer seen. It also means that deer with obvious ribs are common in summer. As we know animal populations vary.

One of the sampling techniques used for bear is a wire designed to hook fur of passing animals.  Testing can identify unique animals. Never once has any of the testing resulted in an unknown species such as BF. The hair is always identifiable. The DNA testing always reveals bear. You'd think that trail cams might reveal a BF in something other than a twisted bear position. No. Not happening.

Doesn't discount my point, that the actual number of animals is often wrong. And the estimated food available, is often wrong.

A lack of proof isn't proof. Though it can imply a conclusion. I don't tend to disagree with that conclusion, that BF isn't real. However I do also tend to believe that a lot of what is used to dismiss BF isn't actually evidence there is no BF, but only is opinion based on conclusions based on assumptions. 

[Merc14]

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I tend to agree. My suggestion is that there is very little preventing BF from reality, excepting that no physical remains have been scientifically observed. I will not say, "never found", because there are numerous stories of people finding dead BFs, or hitting them with their car, or shooting one, but feeling bad about it and burying it.

Can you provide one (not asking for "numerous", just one) such story that you deem credible?

Edited March 22, 2018 by Merc14

[+DieChecker]

1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

Can you provide one (not asking for "numerous", just one) such story that you deem credible?

Depends on what is considered a credible source. I've seen lots of stories on the BFRO, which supposedly came from stable, professional, experienced people who know the outdoors, who have seen, or found, all kinds of things. I've been told in the past though that anything that comes from the BFRO is suspect to be fake, or misrepresnted.

[Merc14]

21 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Depends on what is considered a credible source. I've seen lots of stories on the BFRO, which supposedly came from stable, professional, experienced people who know the outdoors, who have seen, or found, all kinds of things. I've been told in the past though that anything that comes from the BFRO is suspect to be fake, or misrepresnted.

So which one do you deem credible enough to make you believe that person actually found a dead BF or some remains of a dead BF?  I'm curious because if I found a dead BF or parts of a dead BF, it wouldn't be a secret.

[Gaden]

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

OH? So you know everything found in the woods, and if it was attributed to bigfoot or not? 

I think what you mean is basically what I said at the end of my post. That there has not been any such evidence turned over to science and shown to be anomalous to the point of scientific agreement that it represents Bigfoot. 

Such things as hair, feces, prints... have been found. That is beyond question. However much of it came back as human. And therefore was discarded as being from bigfoot. When we have no idea if those were actually subjected to testing without bias. And I mean by bias that what might appear to be a four inch long hair from a human scalp, could be from a bigfoot's arm. Or judging a feces only from the size. Have you never had a small bowel movement? Or dismissing any of a number of other things, since some test came back "human".

 You have always argued just for the sake of arguing. My point stands. If any evidence had been found, ever, there would be no mystery, it would be common knowledge. The biologist or zoologist that proves the existence of viable evidence would gain financially and in popularity to a great extent. Can you point me to any of those papers?

 

[Minimalists]

10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

My opinion is that it is a fake. The circumstances of it happening and being filmed the way it was, was really so lucky as to be unbelievable. And Patterson was known to have a desire to get such a film because he was broke. And he was known to not be above fakery. 

That is not to say that I believe Bob Heironimus, or Phillip Morris, either. If either of those guys was an expert witness in a actual trial, they would be outright called liars regarding what they can prove about the P-G film. 

Quote

My opinion is that it is a fake.

Thats is essentially my opinion as well....

[VastLand]

On 2/9/2018 at 0:05 PM, Faustus said:

I just throw this out because, a lot of the DNA collected forensically(very carefully as to avoid contamination), and with hair morphology not matching any human on record, actually came back from the database as human.  

 

I'd love to see a hair morphology study done on a human that's been living authentically wild for 5 years, and see if the texture matches that of some of this purported Bigfoot hair.

 

I guess the question I'm asking is could Bigfoot just be remnant tribe of humans that chose to live feral due to whatever environmental pressures existed, and shifted from interaction, as many NA tribal elders describe, to concealment and avoidance?  Imagine an intelligent species of humans(like Denosivans,etc.) that evolved in a more feral or natural way, as opposed to how we evolved by civilization, farming, etc.  

Take a hog, and release it into the wild and we see an incredible transformation within 3 years.   Hyper Adaptation from enviromental pressure has occurred all over the planet at different times.  Perhaps an ancient line of human ancestors split off from early groups populating North America, and evolved in a more feral sense, and therefore is incredibly adept at remaining hidden from us in the remote wilderness.  

There are still tribes of humans in the amazon jungles, and elsewhere that are literally unfindable, and want no outside contact with man.  It's not an unsubstantiated premise, in that tribes of humans exist cut off from the outside world.  Why couldn't Bigfoot be them in North America?  There are literally million of hectors of wilderness available to hide in right here in US and Canada. 

 

 

There are "Bigfoot" names throughout the world, he is International, or atleast he is different races...

We have Australian "Yowi" which is said to be Ginger and have a sort of long Moustache, which is blonde.

We have Siberian "Yeti" which is said to be all white with blonde streaks around the face...

In america we have I believe two or three types mentioned, Ordinary bigfoot, who Anishinaabe call "Sabe"

Then some people in West Virginia claim there is a Skunk ape, and there are others....

There is a sumerian tablet called the Epic of Gilgamesh, which mentions an Enkidu figure, and this was the twin "clone" to Gilgamesh the giant. Enkidu was fashioned by Enki the "great fashioner" and he is 2/3rds god, having wooly hair all over his body, and being shorter than his Twin Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh is a "European" like figure I believe, and he is the King of Uruk, in the kings list, and he is also 2/3rds god. Is there a connection to bigfoot?

Maybe?

[Piney]

11 minutes ago, Blaye Otanka said:

In america we have I believe two or three types mentioned, Ordinary bigfoot, who Anishinaabe call "Sabe"

Saa' bii

The Lenape use the term Miisingkhaaliikan, or Miisingk for short. The mask I'm carving in the picture on your thread represents him. 

[Night Walker]

1 hour ago, Blaye Otanka said:

We have Australian "Yowi" which is said to be Ginger and have a sort of long Moustache, which is blonde.

Never heard of Yowies having long blonde facial hair. Where did you get that description from?

[+DieChecker]

14 hours ago, Merc14 said:

So which one do you deem credible enough to make you believe that person actually found a dead BF or some remains of a dead BF?  I'm curious because if I found a dead BF or parts of a dead BF, it wouldn't be a secret.

What if you saw something and then shot it? And then when you came up on it, it appeared you had shot a nakid wild human? Would you report it, or would you bury it and try to forget? Even if you are honorable, and would report it, do you not agree that a lot of people would not?

I'll go read some of the BF reports and post a half dozen or so.... It really depends on if you can accept what they have reported as being real. If we accept the stories as real, then there is something up, if we don't, then everything can be dismissed.

 

[+DieChecker]

4 hours ago, Night Walker said:

Never heard of Yowies having long blonde facial hair. Where did you get that description from?

I thought that was reported regarding some of the Almas in Northern China.

[+DieChecker]

5 hours ago, Blaye Otanka said:

There are "Bigfoot" names throughout the world, he is International, or atleast he is different races...

We have Australian "Yowi" which is said to be Ginger and have a sort of long Moustache, which is blonde.

We have Siberian "Yeti" which is said to be all white with blonde streaks around the face...

In america we have I believe two or three types mentioned, Ordinary bigfoot, who Anishinaabe call "Sabe"

Then some people in West Virginia claim there is a Skunk ape, and there are others....

There is a sumerian tablet called the Epic of Gilgamesh, which mentions an Enkidu figure, and this was the twin "clone" to Gilgamesh the giant. Enkidu was fashioned by Enki the "great fashioner" and he is 2/3rds god, having wooly hair all over his body, and being shorter than his Twin Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh is a "European" like figure I believe, and he is the King of Uruk, in the kings list, and he is also 2/3rds god. Is there a connection to bigfoot?

Maybe?

I thought the Skunk Ape was mainly in the region of Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi? I've not heard of a Virginia Skunk Ape.

Most Russian reported "Yeti" are actually black. The only Yeti that I know are reported as white are in the Himalayas. 

[+DieChecker]

14 hours ago, Gaden said:

 You have always argued just for the sake of arguing. My point stands. If any evidence had been found, ever, there would be no mystery, it would be common knowledge. The biologist or zoologist that proves the existence of viable evidence would gain financially and in popularity to a great extent. Can you point me to any of those papers?

 

And I still say that is wrongheaded thinking, even if the conclusion is correct.

[Myles]

5 hours ago, DieChecker said:

What if you saw something and then shot it? And then when you came up on it, it appeared you had shot a nakid wild human? Would you report it, or would you bury it and try to forget?

 

If that is the case (a naked human), then it doesn't support the existence of bigfoot.

[stereologist]

On 3/22/2018 at 6:22 AM, DieChecker said:

I remember it being that someone (?) posted reports based on urban areas and then stated it then showed that bigfoot couldn't be real, because he'd be seen.

My point in that thread was in fact that you can't dismiss all sightings simply because you can dismiss some. I you didn't get that, it probably because you were too hot over the definition of a "bigfoot pic".

I do generally agree with that. That bigfoot is (most likely) a misunderstood "fill in the blank" response by the human mind, where someone sees bigfoot because for some reason they expect to see bigfoot.

There is nothing wrong with following up on stories.

I tend to agree. My suggestion is that there is very little preventing BF from reality, excepting that no physical remains have been scientifically observed. I will not say, "never found", because there are numerous stories of people finding dead BFs, or hitting them with their car, or shooting one, but feeling bad about it and burying it.

Humans range from gentile to malevolent, yes? So why would that be hard to believe? These native stories almost always tell us of their neighbors being cannibals too. The neighbors were actually there, but not supernatural cannibals. So, often there is reality mixed into their stories, and it requires weighing of what is possible. A large hairy human... Is possible. A talking beaver... is not.

Doesn't discount my point, that the actual number of animals is often wrong. And the estimated food available, is often wrong.

A lack of proof isn't proof. Though it can imply a conclusion. I don't tend to disagree with that conclusion, that BF isn't real. However I do also tend to believe that a lot of what is used to dismiss BF isn't actually evidence there is no BF, but only is opinion based on conclusions based on assumptions. 

The issue was that the believer side chose to misrepresent the position by claiming BF was proved nonexistent in other areas. I know because it was my posts that were lied about. I was the one that posted that BF is more often seen in crowded areas. I was the one that suggested it highlighted the way in which people think. But believers openly lied about my posts with some jackass commentary such as, so you think that proves BF doesn't exist in the wilds of Canada because of mistaken witnesses in an Ohio park.

The problem of course is that it is impossible for a BF to remain hidden in a crowded park. Notice that the park sightings went silent after it caused such a stir? The reason is that the sightings were all mistakes or just plain hoaxes with people wanting to jump on the bandwagon. Even the loonies that want to see BF everywhere including crowded parks eventually realize it is not happening.

It seems that head in the sand believers  are just plain asses and can't stand to think that BF sightings appear to be all mistakes or outright hoaxes.

The BS stories such as people hitting them with cars never ever turn up evidence such as hairs on the car. The dead BFs are lies too. They never turn out to be real. It's like the dumb ass lie of the BF in the freezer. They are not just stories. They are fiction. Plain and simple they are tall tales, aka lies.

The issue with the range of tales by Native Americans is simple. If there were the friendly BF as reported, then where are they? If there were malevolent BF as reported, then where are they? The range of stories is just more evidence that they do not match up with the BF stories of today. Believers want to pretend that BF is connected to the myths of traditions of back then, but that is simply not true. Any BF murders being investigated? Any BFs dropping in on a picnic?

What decades of research shows is that BF does not exist in the areas where they are claimed to be. It's as simple as that. No amount of pretending changes the fact that decades and decades have passed with zero evidence to support BF.

[stereologist]

12 hours ago, Blaye Otanka said:

There are "Bigfoot" names throughout the world, he is International, or atleast he is different races...

We have Australian "Yowi" which is said to be Ginger and have a sort of long Moustache, which is blonde.

We have Siberian "Yeti" which is said to be all white with blonde streaks around the face...

In america we have I believe two or three types mentioned, Ordinary bigfoot, who Anishinaabe call "Sabe"

Then some people in West Virginia claim there is a Skunk ape, and there are others....

There is a sumerian tablet called the Epic of Gilgamesh, which mentions an Enkidu figure, and this was the twin "clone" to Gilgamesh the giant. Enkidu was fashioned by Enki the "great fashioner" and he is 2/3rds god, having wooly hair all over his body, and being shorter than his Twin Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh is a "European" like figure I believe, and he is the King of Uruk, in the kings list, and he is also 2/3rds god. Is there a connection to bigfoot?

Maybe?

Since nothing has been found ever, and I repeat it ever, anyplace in the world it seems that nothing exists.

My suggestion is that there is something in the way human brains work that suggests a possible innate response of large hairy ape like creature when we see something we can't properly interpret.

[stereologist]

6 hours ago, DieChecker said:

What if you saw something and then shot it? And then when you came up on it, it appeared you had shot a nakid wild human? Would you report it, or would you bury it and try to forget? Even if you are honorable, and would report it, do you not agree that a lot of people would not?

I'll go read some of the BF reports and post a half dozen or so.... It really depends on if you can accept what they have reported as being real. If we accept the stories as real, then there is something up, if we don't, then everything can be dismissed.

 

There are people supposedly hunting BF and intend to shoot. I don't buy this scenario for a second.

https://www.livescience.com/18063-shoot-bigfoot.html

https://www.livescience.com/20248-shooting-bigfoot-legal-texas.html

http://www.bigfootlunchclub.com/2011/05/humans-shoot-and-kill-bigfoot-on.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2333078/Was-Bigfoot-shot-killed-rural-Pennsylvania-Conspiracy-theorists-wild-speculation-local-residents-911-call.html

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=9552

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/01/06/bigfoot-hunter-claims-to-have-killed-beast-has-proof.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGr-Jm9LsYY

There are hundreds  more links about shooting BF

[Merc14]

10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

What if you saw something and then shot it? And then when you came up on it, it appeared you had shot a nakid wild human? Would you report it, or would you bury it and try to forget? Even if you are honorable, and would report it, do you not agree that a lot of people would not?

I'll go read some of the BF reports and post a half dozen or so.... It really depends on if you can accept what they have reported as being real. If we accept the stories as real, then there is something up, if we don't, then everything can be dismissed.

 

Hard to confuse a 600lb 7.5' creature covered in thick fur for a human.  Sorry, this makes no sense.

[+DieChecker]

21 hours ago, Myles said:

If that is the case (a naked human), then it doesn't support the existence of bigfoot.

It does if the human is feral, around 7 feet tall and covered in thick hair....

[+DieChecker]

20 hours ago, stereologist said:

There are people supposedly hunting BF and intend to shoot. I don't buy this scenario for a second.

https://www.livescience.com/18063-shoot-bigfoot.html

https://www.livescience.com/20248-shooting-bigfoot-legal-texas.html

http://www.bigfootlunchclub.com/2011/05/humans-shoot-and-kill-bigfoot-on.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2333078/Was-Bigfoot-shot-killed-rural-Pennsylvania-Conspiracy-theorists-wild-speculation-local-residents-911-call.html

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=9552

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/01/06/bigfoot-hunter-claims-to-have-killed-beast-has-proof.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGr-Jm9LsYY

There are hundreds  more links about shooting BF

I think there is a difference in people looking to shoot bigfoot, and people who shoot it and then realize that it appears very human, and panic.

[+DieChecker]

17 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Hard to confuse a 600lb 7.5' creature covered in thick fur for a human.  Sorry, this makes no sense.

How do you know? Have you shot one and then examined the corpse?

I don't have a lot of time right now... Life/Job/Kids and all, but I hope to eventually get back to the BFRO site and post some examples.