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 -
Guyver

Scientific Proof of Sasquatch

205 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Guyver

I just came across some information regarding the topic of Sasquatch, and scientific evidence pertaining to its existence.  The author of the article claims to make all the data available free of charge for any interested person or scientific group who wishes to confirm or dispute these findings.  Is this the type of scientific evidence that you accept that points to the existence of a large hominin type creature living near St. Helen's?

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

Here is a link to one article containing more information if you don't wish to listen to the Coast to Coast presentation. 

LINK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

PS.  For the comedians in the house......I do realize the picture attached to the video is an obviously bad choice.  Yes....that's not what the information is about.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd

Footprints and teeth marks are not enough to prove a new species. We need remains or a living specimen.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alien Origins

Interesting..I am just not going to sit through a 27 minute video.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
2 minutes ago, Stiff said:

Would a family photo suffice?

Those are Chewbacca's cousins!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
4 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Yeah that guy is an absolute joke. I bet he has just as much proof as Todd Standing does! :lol:

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stiff
1 minute ago, sci-nerd said:

Those are Chewbacca's cousins!

It's all to do with the vocals

 

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan

https://www.andywhiteanthropology.com/blog/bigfoot-bone-stacks-and-binfords-body-part-utility-indices

Here is a good article on said paper.

Here is said, paper.

http://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/linked/biotic_taphonomic_signature_analysis_and_neoichnology1.pdf

Anyway there is a reason why the Bigfoot community didn't buy into it. There is also a reason why the scientific community didn't really care about it.

@Guyver

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
18 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

Footprints and teeth marks are not enough to prove a new species. We need remains or a living specimen.

Right.  I object to the use of "proof" in this context as well.  I'm really just reporting on the information rather than defending the ways it's been presented.  I'm guessing that eventually someone will actually be interested in providing their opinion on the actual facts of this case rather than attemtping to turn the thread into a comedy number.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
6 minutes ago, danydandan said:

https://www.andywhiteanthropology.com/blog/bigfoot-bone-stacks-and-binfords-body-part-utility-indices

Here is a good article on said paper.

Here is said, paper.

http://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/linked/biotic_taphonomic_signature_analysis_and_neoichnology1.pdf

Anyway there is a reason why the Bigfoot community didn't buy into it. There is also a reason why the scientific community didn't really care about it.

Good post Dan.  On the first link.....

"And what of the reported tooth marks?  This is a part of the report I have not yet considered in detail. I would be surprised to find that the tooth marks could not be reasonably attributed to non-human carnivores (perhaps more than one kind). But I'll reserve comment on that until I read through their analysis carefully. "

I find this odd because it is the bite marks themselves that should be of the greatest interest.  These will distinguish bear, cougar, coyote or other species.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
2 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Right.  I object to the use of "proof" in this context as well.  I'm really just reporting on the information rather than defending the ways it's been presented.  I'm guessing that eventually someone will actually be interested in providing their opinion on the actual facts of this case rather than attemtping to turn the thread into a comedy number.  

Have you actually read the paper?

I'm not anthropologist or biologist but that paper is a mess and not very scientific. You should not as a scientist arrive at your conclusions prior to partaking in any research.

And the author literally challenges people to discredit his conclusions?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
4 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Good post Dan.  On the first link.....

"And what of the reported tooth marks?  This is a part of the report I have not yet considered in detail. I would be surprised to find that the tooth marks could not be reasonably attributed to non-human carnivores (perhaps more than one kind). But I'll reserve comment on that until I read through their analysis carefully. "

I find this odd because it is the bite marks themselves that should be of the greatest interest.  These will distinguish bear, cougar, coyote or other species.  

I don't have a clue man. I just read the paper and was taken a back by it's last of rigour. Especially when someone sensationalises  it by saying 'Scientific Prove' which it's isn't neither scientific nor prove.

But could they not be bear or whatever or even faked?

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
2 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Have you actually read the paper?

I'm not anthropologist or biologist but that paper is a mess and not very scientific. You should not as a scientist arrive at your conclusions prior to partaking in any research.

And the author literally challenges people to discredit his conclusions?

I haven't read the entire paper......no.  What I do like is that he's actually challenging scientists to dispute his finding.  That gives him some credibility, in my mind because a true scientific professional should have no problem disputing the findings if indeed they are faulty.  

In any event, I couldn't agree more with the part I bolded.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
3 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I don't have a clue man. I just read the paper and was taken a back by it's last of rigour. Especially when someone sensationalises  it by saying 'Scientific Prove' which it's isn't neither scientific nor prove.

But could they not be bear or whatever or even faked?

This is the title of the paper - "Using Biotic Taphonomy Signature Analysis and Neoichnology Profiling to determine the identity of the carnivore taxa responsible for the deposition and mechanical mastication of three independent prey bone assemblages in the Mount St. Helen’s ecosystem of the Cascade mountain range"

The scientific proof claims may come from other people.....not the author - but I don't know that for a fact.   The title of the paper doesn't claim proof....but the author himself does claim that the information will withstand the rigor of scrutiny and that the scientific analysis of the bite marks conclusively "prove" that the marks were made by a "hominin" species, and not bear, cougar, coyote, or other known species.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
2 minutes ago, Guyver said:

"Using Biotic Taphonomy Signature Analysis and Neoichnology Profiling to determine the identity of the carnivore taxa responsible for the deposition and mechanical mastication of three independent prey bone assemblages in the Mount St. Helen’s ecosystem of the Cascade mountain range"

That's just a very fancy way of saying "teeth marks". If they meant it seriously, they should test for unknown DNA!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo
41 minutes ago, Stiff said:

Would a family photo suffice?

 

 

a1b82051e41cba955aff2cc78a293515.jpg

How did you get into my photobucket account?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stiff
2 minutes ago, seanjo said:

How did you get into my photobucket account?

winkb5604b.gif

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
20 minutes ago, Guyver said:

This is the title of the paper - "Using Biotic Taphonomy Signature Analysis and Neoichnology Profiling to determine the identity of the carnivore taxa responsible for the deposition and mechanical mastication of three independent prey bone assemblages in the Mount St. Helen’s ecosystem of the Cascade mountain range"

Exactly what Scidude said. How can you identify what carnivore taxa are/is responsible for the desposition etcetca when your attributing them to an unknown, made-up or at least a species of no comparable carnivore to compare with. The only thing your going to find out is one of two outcomes. One, oh look it's something we found before. Two, oh wow it's something we haven't seen before. That number two outcome does not prove or provide a proof for a Big Foot. Like I said he went out to find Bigfoot, he reached his conclusions prior to his analysis.

I literally have no clue about these things, but I know poor scientific research when I see it. I have been trying to find both, Scientists that agree or disagree and can not find either. So this paper had like zero impact.

It's equivalent to them lunatics looking for Jesus's DNA.

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
1 minute ago, danydandan said:

Exactly what Scidude said. How can you identify who's carnivore taxa are responsible for the desposition etcetca when your attributing them to an unknown, made-up or at least a species of no comparable carnivore to compare with. The only thing your going to find out is one of two outcomes. One, oh look it's something we found before. Two, oh wow it's something we haven't seen before. That number two outcome does not prove or provide a proof for a Big Foot.

It's equivalent to them lunatics looking for Jesus's DNA.

I’m surprised to hear you consider it this way.  Bite marks are the exact kind of evidence that science works  on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

Note to self.  In the future, don’t bother making bigfoot threads.  Just go watch the football game instead.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
3 minutes ago, Guyver said:

I’m surprised to hear you consider it this way.  Bite marks are the exact kind of evidence that science works  on.

But all it's going to answer is as I stated. Option one or Two, option three these are Bigfoot teeth isn't on the table as per the question. Simply because there is no primary source for comparison.

If it's option two, it doesn't necessarily mean its Bigfoot. That's my point.

Now have these teeth marks appeared at other Bigfoot areas? And if they showed remarkable similarities I'd be very interested in.

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1

Thanks @Guyver, I would probably have missed this news if it was not for your thread here. 

This sounds like great stuff and seems to add credibility to the strong eyewitness stories in the area too. I was already a believer that something unknown to science is going on and this sounds like some heavy icing on the cake. So far no one has presented a reasonable counter theory that explains the find. It seems the most the critics have to say is 'this isn't proof'. And this may be correct as the word 'proof' is notoriously tricky. My interest is what is the most reasonable belief considering all the evidence and argumentation.

I continue to hold to neither of the two leading theories.

1) All hoax/misidentification (way too much smoke by way too many credible people)

2) They are another type of animal not identified and classified. (they wouldn't be a mystery and we'd have specimens if that were the case)

3) I hold to the 'Paranormal Bigfoot' theory. (A creature that is real but has attributes and abilities not understood by science and doesn't want contact with humans and uses some of his abilities to that end) 

 

P.S. I agree with Guyver too in that those cheesy artificial bigfoot photos do the video no favors.

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.