Man says the footprints he found aren't human

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

5 minutes ago, Habitat said:

You don't think Tom was being a joker ?

That was my assumption as well, it just oozed sarcasm.

[Habitat]

Just now, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

That was my assumption as well, it just oozed sarcasm.

I thought it was somewhat amusing !

[ThereWeAreThen]

4 hours ago, Habitat said:

You don't think Tom was being a joker ?

Yea my bad. Will admit I only read the first few lines as I was tired and in bed. Apolagies to Tom. 

[Tom1200]

9 hours ago, ThereWeAreThen said:

Wtf is wrong with you? How on Earth does what the poster you're replying to, prove they were just hard to kill??? It proves they don't exist!!!!

Careful now!  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  e.g. When Dutch explorers first reported seeing black swans in Australia they were dismissed as liars - after all, everybody knew that swans are white, so black ones couldn't possibly be real.  There's a huge amount of philosophy and psychology at play here, none of which I'll pretend to understand, but suffice it to say the absence of Bigfoot pelts does not prove they don't exist.

That's not to imply I automatically believe they do exist, any more than I automatically subscribe to God, Allah, Yahweh, Shiva or a thousand other beliefs.  I'd like to think there still are large creatures somewhere on this planet awaiting discovery; and perhaps they are smart enough to actively hide from humans (with good reason).  But the evidence presented for Bigfoots (Bigfeet?) doesn't impress, let alone convince, me. 

Having said that, I've never had the opportunity to explore the areas in question, so have no first-hand appreciation of the difficulties involved.  Perhaps the terrain is so rugged and treacherous that there are valleys that remain isolated and unexplored?  At the moment I only have Hammerclaw's brief history of the area to rely on as evidence.  I've no reason to doubt the accuracy or sincerity of his contribution, but that's the sort of claim that I would try to validate if I were serious about investigating Bigfoot.  Which I'm not.

So one solution to the absence of Bigfoot hides is indeed the obvious one - they don't exist.  Other possible solutions include:

• their hide is so tough they are effectively bulletproof
• they are smart enough to hide from humans
• they are smart enough to actively protect themselves
• they have been trapped and skinned, but misidentified as bears
• they explode when they die like some kinds of ants¹
• they kill all the humans they meet

I don't present these as sensible solutions, but - as I pointed out earlier - I haven't seen any evidence disproving any of these.  Of course the reason for that is that nobody has looked for evidence because they aren't very plausible suggestions, but that alone doesn't disprove them.  The reason is simple: if something exists it ought to be possible to prove it exists.  If something doesn't exist it can be extremely difficult to prove so.  However it's the responsibility of the advocates to prove existence, rather than the sceptics to prove non-existence.

Thanks and best wishes to everyone I upset with my posts, and don't take things you read so literally!

¹ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/04/animals-ants-borneo-exploding-defense/

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

7 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

if something exists it ought to be possible to prove it exists. 

Good objective post.

It took many years to prove some of Einstein's theories to be true and nobody has yet been able to prove Einstein's General Relativity theory that claims that Einstein-Rosen Bridges (wormholes) exist. It took many years to prove the existence of the Higgs Bosin, and so forth.

Anyway, it is clear to me that if BF exists, it has some kind of defense/survival mechanism like we've never seen before in animal creatures. IMO, anyway

[stereologist]

The Higgs boson was a predicted particle. How to find it was also part of the prediction. The time it took to find it was mainly in building a device that could create a high enough energy situation to detect the particle. The search for the particle with that sufficiently powerful detector did not take much time.

BF on the other hand does not require waiting for a detector to be built.

I like this list of ideas:

Quote

• their hide is so tough they are effectively bulletproof
• they are smart enough to hide from humans
• they are smart enough to actively protect themselves
• they have been trapped and skinned, but misidentified as bears
• they explode when they die like some kinds of ants¹
• they kill all the humans they meet

If the hide is extremely tough then why aren't they found?

If they are smart enough to hide from humans then why are they reported in heavily tracked areas? Why do we not find their excrement?

If they are killing all humans they meet then how was the pg film made?

If they are trapped and skinned and misidentified as bears, then why do people think they are primates? A bear has a face pointing in the same direction as their spine, but primates have faces at 90 degrees to their spine.

If they explode when they die why don't we find pieces of their skin and hair scattered in the woods? Why hasn't this behavior been reported before?

It seems to me that there has been plenty of time to find a BF killed by old age, a car, a fire, a flood, a fall, a bullet. Unlike many of the animals cryptozoologists mention such as the okapi, where is the hunk of animal that is already found?

[docyabut2]

On ‎10‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 6:04 PM, docyabut2 said:

,its not possible  there is no evidence of footprints or bones of  big foots and or homo sapiens found crossed the Atlantic ocean in history  to America. early then 13,000 years ago

the oldest bones found

Bones in Submerged Cave May Be Earliest Native American

https://www.seeker.com/bones-in-submerged-cave-may-be-earliest-native-american-1768580996.html

  

gee all get over it there were`nt any footprints or bones found in the Americas of  homo sapiens or Gigantopithecus; before 13,000 years ago

 

 

Edited October 15, 2019 by docyabut2

[onlookerofmayhem]

32 minutes ago, docyabut2 said:

gee all get over it there were`nt any footprints or bones found in the Americas of  homo sapiens or Gigantopithecus; before 13,000 years ago

 

 

Have any gigantopithecus fossils and/or bones ever been found in the Americas?

From what I can find the answer is no. 

[Myles]

2 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Have any gigantopithecus fossils and/or bones ever been found in the Americas?

From what I can find the answer is no. 

You are correct, the answer is no.

You know things look bleak for its existence when bulletproof skin and exploding bodies are put forth as options.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

LOL @Myles I hear ya,, bullet proof skin. the problem is, how many people actually claim to have shot a BF?

 

[the13bats]

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

LOL @Myles I hear ya,, bullet proof skin. the problem is, how many people actually claim to have shot a BF?

 

That semja guy claimed he shot two, killed the young one, presented the "meat" for DNA testing, bummer it was a bear, wait, so he mistook a bear for a bigfoot so his case furthers the idea bf are bullet proof.

[freetoroam]

Look for the pooh. Anything with feet that size has got to have a good appetite.

[Tom1200]

9 hours ago, stereologist said:

If the hide is extremely tough then why aren't they found?

If they are smart enough to hide from humans then why are they reported in heavily tracked areas? Why do we not find their excrement?

If they are killing all humans they meet then how was the pg film made?

If they are trapped and skinned and misidentified as bears, then why do people think they are primates? A bear has a face pointing in the same direction as their spine, but primates have faces at 90 degrees to their spine.

If they explode when they die why don't we find pieces of their skin and hair scattered in the woods? Why hasn't this behavior been reported before?

It seems to me that there has been plenty of time to find a BF killed by old age, a car, a fire, a flood, a fall, a bullet. Unlike many of the animals cryptozoologists mention such as the okapi, where is the hunk of animal that is already found?

Please remember that I'm not proposing any of those arguments as credible!  I'm just reiterating my original point - just because nobody has proven Bigfoot exists, it's false to conclude "Bigfoot doesn't exist".  I have never seen proof that God, Allah or Yahweh exist, yet billions of people 'know' he/she exists.  

Each of your perfectly sensible suggestions could be argued away by ever-more convoluted theories.  This approach works in some fields - physics is one that I know a bit about.  When physicists meet new and awkward situations they might have to invent / devise equally imaginative solutions.  Dark matter is a perfect example - no one has yet proven its existence but scientists 'know' it's there because it's the only explanation for a whole range of mysterious observations.  You cite the Higgs boson; this was the only credible explanation for the existence of mass, so it's discovery was both astonishing and mathematically inevitable. 

I don't think this approach has as much credibility in cryptozoology, but I can imagine a creature with cobweb-like proteins in its hairs; incredibly tough for short periods of time but they biodegrade quickly so there's no lasting evidence for this.  In fact these proteins have permeated every aspect of its body, so after death the whole corpse breaks down chemically long before bacteria and fungi are needed to render it unrecognisable.  While alive this creature buries its faeces like a cat does (or most humans - some of us just leave their sh!t lying anywhere).  They are smart enough to recognise humans as a danger and take all appropriate measures to avoid contact.  I don't have any evidence for any of this, but - as I quoted previously - the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  Ask anyone who believes in a god.  XxX

[the13bats]

Sounds like we are comparing the belief in "God" to the belief in bigfoot, sure, blind belief is blind belief, be it God, aliens, ghosts or bigfoot its not for me an arguement past the subject of "blind faith".

But I'm not on a religious thread, ghosts or aliens im on a thread about a guy who claims a track he found isnt human, that somehow spring boarded to "it must be bigfoot" and if a person wants to blindly believe in bigfoot thats fine,

his burden is to prove he didnt fake it or its not the print of some other creature, that still doesn't prove its bigfoot it just proves what it's not...

[freetoroam]

2 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

I have never seen proof that God, Allah or Yahweh exist, yet billions of people 'know' he/she exists.  

No they do not. They hope and believe there is a god. Big difference from "knowing". 

If someone knows a god exists it would be great if they could show the world. How they personally feel and their personal beliefs are not proof.

 

[stereologist]

3 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

Please remember that I'm not proposing any of those arguments as credible!  I'm just reiterating my original point - just because nobody has proven Bigfoot exists, it's false to conclude "Bigfoot doesn't exist".  I have never seen proof that God, Allah or Yahweh exist, yet billions of people 'know' he/she exists.  

Each of your perfectly sensible suggestions could be argued away by ever-more convoluted theories.  This approach works in some fields - physics is one that I know a bit about.  When physicists meet new and awkward situations they might have to invent / devise equally imaginative solutions.  Dark matter is a perfect example - no one has yet proven its existence but scientists 'know' it's there because it's the only explanation for a whole range of mysterious observations.  You cite the Higgs boson; this was the only credible explanation for the existence of mass, so it's discovery was both astonishing and mathematically inevitable. 

I don't think this approach has as much credibility in cryptozoology, but I can imagine a creature with cobweb-like proteins in its hairs; incredibly tough for short periods of time but they biodegrade quickly so there's no lasting evidence for this.  In fact these proteins have permeated every aspect of its body, so after death the whole corpse breaks down chemically long before bacteria and fungi are needed to render it unrecognisable.  While alive this creature buries its faeces like a cat does (or most humans - some of us just leave their sh!t lying anywhere).  They are smart enough to recognise humans as a danger and take all appropriate measures to avoid contact.  I don't have any evidence for any of this, but - as I quoted previously - the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  Ask anyone who believes in a god.  XxX

All I was showing is that there are always complications to each proposal. The reason I believe that there are complications is that over time the chance of BF being real goes down to nearly zero.

The idea that BF exists is more a belief as a belief in a god. Believing in the existence of a god does not require any sort of proof. By definition a god is external to our natural world. BF on the other hand is supposed to be part of our natural world. 

Moving to physics the existence of dark matter is proposed as you point out due to observations that might be explained by dark matter. Currently our solar system is passing through a stream of dark matter if it exists. Testing is being done to see if dark matter can be detected and if it can what is its nature. The existence of the Higgs boson was not mathematically inevitable. It was inevitable if one particular "flavor" of the standard model was correct. Take astronomy. The proposed planet Vulcan turned out not to exist. Take chemistry. Phlogiston turns out not to exist. Take physics. The Pioneer anomaly did not reveal a 5th force or a revision to an understanding of gravity.

Let's consider a proposal for how BF has managed to elude us for decades. I suggest another search and that was for the seven cities of gold. Spanish explorers that came to the Americas searched for cities of gold in Texas. They found nothing. Do you think it is reasonable today to continue that search today?  Maybe we know enough about Texas to decide that those cities do not exist. What about a search for a sunken land bridge in the Indian Ocean called Lemuria? Is the geological and bathymetric data detailed enough to exclude a sunken land bridge in the Indian Ocean or should  we continue to look?

When it comes to BF, the suggestions as to why an intensive search has not turned up BF after 60 years of searching are increasingly more and more complex. Devising a new protein, the cobweb protein, not seen in other mammals seems to be a typical complex suggestion for the lack of evidence. No DNA. No hairs. No bones. No fossils. No teeth. There is nothing but stories. These stories often come from areas with many people in them, the sort of place a smart creature would avoid if they were smart.

When do people accept that BF does not exist because the search has been intense enough? Or, do we suppose there are still cities of gold waiting to be found in Texas?

 

[Horta]

4 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

it's false to conclude "Bigfoot doesn't exist". 

It's quite reasonable to conclude that bigfoot doesn't exist. That would be the personal opinion of many (probably most) relevant scientists, though it isn't a scientific statement in itself. Within academia in general it's accepted as folklore. Explained by mistake, hoax and delusion...the foibles of human nature. Scientifically there is no real reason to consider it's existence or otherwise as yet.

The logic of "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" isn't necessarily good without context. A lack of verifiable bigfoot evidence over centuries is exactly what we would expect and is entirely consistent with a creature doesn't exist and at a certain point a lack of evidence becomes compelling evidence itself. Bigfoot is way beyond this point.

Given that it's claimed range extends the entirety of continental NA, with the majority of sightings in the eastern half, and especially given how easy things can be hoaxed/misinterpreted it is very understandable that things like claimed footprints are not really that interesting. In fact it sounds completely unreasonable that we don't have an actual bigfoot itself if they really exist as purported. 

Quote

 When physicists meet new and awkward situations they might have to invent / devise equally imaginative solutions.  Dark matter is a perfect example - no one has yet proven its existence but scientists 'know' it's there because it's the only explanation for a whole range of mysterious observations.  You cite the Higgs boson; this was the only credible explanation for the existence of mass, so it's discovery was both astonishing and mathematically inevitable. 

That's not really analogous to breeding populations of massive ape men existing across the entirety of the US for centuries without being scientifically verified though. There is already a solution to this. It's folklore. It's a cultural, social and psychological human based phenomenon. IMO, that makes it far more fascinating.

Quote

I don't think this approach has as much credibility in cryptozoology

I agree.

Quote

They are smart enough to recognise humans as a danger and take all appropriate measures to avoid contact. 

They're not though. There are literally thousands of modern reports, some in urban environments and even around busy commercial areas.  They've been shot, run over...Yet just like the monster in any good B grade flick, they always manage to get away lol.

Quote

Ask anyone who believes in a god.  XxX

I heard a palaeontologist comment once re cryptids that "we are not talking about the existence of god here, all we ask is for genuine evidence to be presented...and so far it isn't forthcoming".

So I don't think the analogy with god works either (though at least bigfoot is plausible lol).

Edited October 16, 2019 by Horta

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

10 hours ago, the13bats said:

That semja guy claimed he shot two, killed the young one, presented the "meat" for DNA testing, bummer it was a bear, wait, so he mistook a bear for a bigfoot so his case furthers the idea bf are bullet proof.

he's just a bullskipper, IMO lol. "shot a BF" my ****. He knew it was bear. He was just being an idiot.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Here is my opinion on BF not being provable.

If one proposes that a flying pink elephant exists because a person saw one, or two people saw it, it shows nothing. Truly. and just because one cannot disprove the existence of said flying pink elephant does not mean we should all allow for its existence.

BigFoot/Yeti/Yowie are different. Not only are prints found but sometimes found in locations that humans have no easy access, and I can think of several examples of this.

I once read an article about a mountain climber in the Himalayas that photo'd yeti tracks (or so we think)  from a mountain path above a ravine that had no access. Now one can claim that *somebody* went to extraordinary lengths to spoof unknown people, however one must consider that one would be spoofing people that clearly were never expected to be on said mountain in the days that these prints might last and be visible from high above.

That has to give one pause for thought. Not impossible but ridiculous to think that a spoofer laid those tracks down. 

Anyway, I feel that the existence of BF et al is certainly not a given, but it is amazing how long people have witnessed these creatures and yet the claims keep coming - especially in known hot spots. And the claim of "man in a monkey suit" can only go back just so far in history. That's what keeps me alert to the phenomena.

 

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Here is my opinion on BF not being provable.

If one proposes that a flying pink elephant exists because a person saw one, or two people saw it, it shows nothing. Truly. and just because one cannot disprove the existence of said flying pink elephant does not mean we should all allow for its existence.

BigFoot/Yeti/Yowie are different. Not only are prints found but sometimes found in locations that humans have no easy access, and I can think of several examples of this.

I once read an article about a mountain climber in the Himalayas that photo'd yeti tracks (or so we think)  from a mountain path above a ravine that had no access. Now one can claim that *somebody* went to extraordinary lengths to spoof unknown people, however one must consider that one would be spoofing people that clearly were never expected to be on said mountain in the days that these prints might last and be visible from high above.

That has to give one pause for thought. Not impossible but ridiculous to think that a spoofer laid those tracks down. 

Anyway, I feel that the existence of BF et al is certainly not a given, but it is amazing how long people have witnessed these creatures and yet the claims keep coming - especially in known hot spots. And the claim of "man in a monkey suit" can only go back just so far in history. That's what keeps me alert to the phenomena.

 

The mountain climber you are referring o is Shipton. Shipton took photos of tracks at a time when expeditions to the Himalayas were being funded by yeti hunts and not peak bagging.

Curiously there is one photo up close of a single print. The word of the expedition was that Shipton sculpted that print for a photo for the newspaper. Shipton was a well known college prankster and this was just consider to be another of his pranks.

One day Reinhold Messner was called out of his tent by excited sherpas who told him there was a yeti nearby. Of all the things he wanted to see was a yeti. He rushed to the viewing spot and the excited sherpas pointed to a bear. He asked yeti? They all pointed to the bear and said yeti.

The question of course is why do people interpret what they see as a hairy ape man? Is there something about the way our brains are wired that leads us to think we saw a hairy ape man? Do we reduce a person to a sub-human hairy ape man instinctually? The fact that we have no evidence at all for an ape man despite decades of searching suggests they do not exist other than in our imaginations. 

 

[the13bats]

12 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

he's just a bullskipper, IMO lol. "shot a BF" my ****. He knew it was bear. He was just being an idiot.

Yeah, he pretty much proved that with the evidence he provided, the only thing I can come up with is he had no idea his bs story would go viral so quickly, that happened to the two guys who claimed to have a bf body in a cooler ( yeti cooler ? Idk ) when it started blowing up they admitted hoax. for whatever reason semja just couldn't admit it, Last i saw he was arrested for poaching....seems it was bears.

[the13bats]

12 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I once read an article about a mountain climber in the Himalayas that photo'd yeti tracks (or so we think)  from a mountain path above a ravine that had no access. Now one can claim that *somebody* went to extraordinary lengths to spoof unknown people, however one must consider that one would be spoofing people that clearly were never expected to be on said mountain in the days that these prints might last and be visible from high above.

 

12 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I can think of several examples of this

But you shared one.

For 100s of years monks said yeti was type of bear, and all the samples given to Sykes to DNA test came back bear,  these were samples that people were adamant were "yeti" and in some cases the person said not a bear, but it tested bear, type of bear came into dispute, who cares, Pepsi and coke are both cola soft drinks.

Not sure if your track wave is from the shipton expedition or another one but shiptons famous track has been called "bear" or fraud.

Reinhold messner who climbed Everest without oxygen and is a very respected climber had a yeti sighting that bothered him and he questioned, he decided to solve it what he learned asking different indigenous peoples is yeti or whatever word that tribe used always translated to type of bear,  what the monks said for centuries, as with what stereo posted about the tribesmen showing messner a bear,

So was the track wave you are speaking of faked? perhaps not we will never know for sure but it wasn't left by a hair covered bi pedal hominid either but rather a rare different species of bear, the evidence is too heavy to dispute.

My gut feeling on the shipton print, it started as a melted morphed bear track wave, shipton knowing bears dont sell ape men do perhap enhanced the track he took that famous pic of, its not large, the size of his boot, bear experts still say it looks like a double step bear print, bears have their big toe on the outside.

 

Yowie:

Several Australian members here call it a myth one even has met the big name yowie hunter and my impression was he wasnt impressed.

Pretty much the hold out is north Americas bigfoot, lots of money is being made off it some people find it very cool to band wagon and say they saw it, while i have seen people get very upset over close minded thinking the track they saw just had to be bigfoot, nothing else period, because of location , or its appearence or whatever, a track or two really isn't very good evidence, we dont have the foot that made it.

It's Akin to finding peanut shells and insisting the only explanation is earls flying pink elephant was hungry.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

10 hours ago, the13bats said:

It's Akin to finding peanut shells and insisting the only explanation is earls flying pink elephant was hungry.

Or... It's akin to finding peanut shells and insisting the only explanation is that the shells once had peanuts in them 

I looked for info on a show I once saw on discovery ( I think) where a team that had gone to Bhutan and found Yeti tracks went back there, this time with an expert in eDNA (e= environmental) from Grenoble University. The idea was to find tracks and test them for DNA. They never found any tracks that time.

However, they took samples of the water in a pond. The test came back with the presence of a creature that is 99% human.

What is "proof"? Well, eDNA *could* be wrong, I don't know. But this has to be viewed as strong evidence. 

Maybe that episode is on youtube, I never checked. But I'd love to see it again.

[the13bats]

5 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Or... It's akin to finding peanut shells and insisting the only explanation is that the shells once had peanuts in them 

I looked for info on a show I once saw on discovery ( I think) where a team that had gone to Bhutan and found Yeti tracks went back there, this time with an expert in eDNA (e= environmental) from Grenoble University. The idea was to find tracks and test them for DNA. They never found any tracks that time.

However, they took samples of the water in a pond. The test came back with the presence of a creature that is 99% human.

What is "proof"? Well, eDNA *could* be wrong, I don't know. But this has to be viewed as strong evidence. 

Maybe that episode is on youtube, I never checked. But I'd love to see it again.

Yeti is a bear, DNA tests on a lot of samples proved it to me as did monks saying it was a bear for 100s of years,

99% human doesnt really prove it disprove anything, I realize you are likely going for it being non human, but that not what 99% human tells us

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

4 hours ago, the13bats said:

Yeti is a bear, DNA tests on a lot of samples proved it to me as did monks saying it was a bear for 100s of years,

99% human doesnt really prove it disprove anything, I realize you are likely going for it being non human, but that not what 99% human tells us

99% exactly tells us It is not human, yes. Closely related but still not human.

Researchers determined back in 2005 that chimpanzees share somewhere between 98.6 and 99 percent of our DNA. They're closer to humans than they are to gorillas!