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 -
Still Waters

Man says the footprints he found aren't human

145 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

stereologist
1 hour ago, ocpaul20 said:

Yes, it is not my idea, I heard it on Midnight-in-the-Desert. I just think it is a good idea and since not that many people know about it, I thought it was worth repeating. Does that make it any the less useful ? I dont know about the results - how do you know there are zero results? I suppose because you have not heard any results which are positive. Maybe the DNA test for these things is expensive.

I think this hanging CD method may be more likely to catch evidence of Bigfoot than the trailcam suggestions, but it is only a hunch.

Steralizing a barbed wire bear hair trap is pretty useless if you still leave your human smell there. Dont ask me why the bears dont mind human stink, but I still do not believe all the evidence we have for Bigfoot points to hoaxers or misidentifications.  I cannot explain why we do not have more positive proof.

I know there are many on here who believe Bigfoot does not exist. However, there are probably also many who believe the evidence is enough and money should be available to investigate the phenomena properly. You would have thought the money would have been available for funding if it such a big deal to find a new hominid.

I bolded part of your post.

What evidence are you taking about? There is zero evidence for BF unless you fell for the rubber suit in the freezer hoax.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
ocpaul20
6 minutes ago, stereologist said:

 

There are many reasons to not believe in BF:

  • The fossil record has no apes in NA
  • There are no bones or teeth of apes in NA
  • There is no hair, or tissue or DNA evidence
  • There is nothing but stories and stories mean little

 

You do not appear to appreciate how rare it is for the right conditions to be found which produce fossils. In order for a fossil to be created you need a dead body and sediment which covers the body so that this sediment can be made into rock. That means animals need to die near water and not be carried off by predators before the body sinks into the mud. How rare do you think that is in woods?

We do not know if there is no DNA evidence but we do know we have not found any yet or it cannot be extracted from the sample.

I just wonder why you are continuing to dispute the idea that Bigfoot exists? Why bother? If I and others want to believe, what difference does it make to you? Why all this effort to deny and  discredit ?

Science should be open minded as to the possibility of existence and then it should go out and get proof, evidence to prove one way or the other. However, you cannot prove it does not exist - because you cannot prove a negative. All you are doing is keep telling us there is no credible evidence which means YOU dont believe it. Well, I do. What's the big deal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThereWeAreThen
On 11/10/2019 at 5:13 AM, ocpaul20 said:

You do not appear to appreciate how rare it is for the right conditions to be found which produce fossils. In order for a fossil to be created you need a dead body and sediment which covers the body so that this sediment can be made into rock. That means animals need to die near water and not be carried off by predators before the body sinks into the mud. How rare do you think that is in woods?

We do not know if there is no DNA evidence but we do know we have not found any yet or it cannot be extracted from the sample.

I just wonder why you are continuing to dispute the idea that Bigfoot exists? Why bother? If I and others want to believe, what difference does it make to you? Why all this effort to deny and  discredit ?

Science should be open minded as to the possibility of existence and then it should go out and get proof, evidence to prove one way or the other. However, you cannot prove it does not exist - because you cannot prove a negative. All you are doing is keep telling us there is no credible evidence which means YOU dont believe it. Well, I do. What's the big deal?

Science is open to the idea of bigfoot. In fact several scientists have said it's possible they might exist. But at the moment they don't until actual evidence exists.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom1200
11 hours ago, ThereWeAreThen said:

Science is open to the idea of bigfoot. In fact several scientists have said it's possible they might exist. But at the moment they don't until actual evidence exists.

So... it's possible they both don't exist and do exist?  Like Schrodinger's "Sasquatch hunter" experiment?  Put the hunter in a sealed room with a dozen hungry Sasquatch and don't look.  After ten minutes take bets from your friends: is the hunter alive or dead?  Then explain that - based on quantum mechanics maths nobody understands - the hunter is both alive and dead, therefore neither and both.  Pocket all the cash and run away before everyone realises they've been conned and those weren't real Sasquatch in the room, just vegan Yetis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
2 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

So... it's possible they both don't exist and do exist?  Like Schrodinger's "Sasquatch hunter" experiment?  Put the hunter in a sealed room with a dozen hungry Sasquatch and don't look.  After ten minutes take bets from your friends: is the hunter alive or dead?  Then explain that - based on quantum mechanics maths nobody understands - the hunter is both alive and dead, therefore neither and both.  Pocket all the cash and run away before everyone realises they've been conned and those weren't real Sasquatch in the room, just vegan Yetis.

More simply put, science doesn't deal in absolutes. Like most beliefs, scientifically there's no reason to believe that the reports of a large unknown primate exists in many countries without producing a scrap of real evidence. 

More importantly :

How can a massive primate exist in so many countries, and maintain a minimum viable population (MVP) without leaving any real evidence? 

People crawl the Pacific Northwest cataloging snails. How can such meticulous searches in biff country continually come up with no evidence of primates? 

How can such a population survive with no notable ecological impact in so many places? What does biff eat? 

How can biff escape every single natural disaster ever without leaving a single body behind? 

How did biff cross the Wallace Line? There's no evidence of primates following human migration, but our signs are there. 

Where would biff fit into the fossil record? 

How is every man made hazard avoided like land clearing and traffic when every other animal in the vicinity succumbs to such? 

Really, there's no good reason to believe biff exists. If new information comes along, that will change. But so far, nothing. 

And that's aside from the obvious arguments like why only blurry photos? Why no bodies? Which are relevant too. 

Did you know some people had a biff trap in 1974? Abandoned and dilapidated now, but apparently still there. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot_trap

Jeff Meldrum actually visited here once as a member. Very underwhelming to say the least. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

giphy-downsized.gif?rid=giphy-downsized.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThereWeAreThen
3 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

So... it's possible they both don't exist and do exist?  Like Schrodinger's "Sasquatch hunter" experiment?  Put the hunter in a sealed room with a dozen hungry Sasquatch and don't look.  After ten minutes take bets from your friends: is the hunter alive or dead?  Then explain that - based on quantum mechanics maths nobody understands - the hunter is both alive and dead, therefore neither and both.  Pocket all the cash and run away before everyone realises they've been conned and those weren't real Sasquatch in the room, just vegan Yetis.

Nah something either exists or it doesn't.

Put it this way, if a scientist came across a lump of fur/hair on a tree, analysed it and determined it was of primate origin but not a primate known to science.

In a way that could be evidence that bigfoot or something like bigfoot exists. I'd like to reiterate....COULD doesn't me it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
On 11/10/2019 at 12:13 AM, ocpaul20 said:

You do not appear to appreciate how rare it is for the right conditions to be found which produce fossils. In order for a fossil to be created you need a dead body and sediment which covers the body so that this sediment can be made into rock. That means animals need to die near water and not be carried off by predators before the body sinks into the mud. How rare do you think that is in woods?

We do not know if there is no DNA evidence but we do know we have not found any yet or it cannot be extracted from the sample.

I just wonder why you are continuing to dispute the idea that Bigfoot exists? Why bother? If I and others want to believe, what difference does it make to you? Why all this effort to deny and  discredit ?

Science should be open minded as to the possibility of existence and then it should go out and get proof, evidence to prove one way or the other. However, you cannot prove it does not exist - because you cannot prove a negative. All you are doing is keep telling us there is no credible evidence which means YOU dont believe it. Well, I do. What's the big deal?

There are many reasons to not believe in BF:

  • The fossil record has no apes in NA
  • There are no bones or teeth of apes in NA
  • There is no hair, or tissue or DNA evidence
  • There is nothing but stories and stories mean little

Here are huge mistakes on your part: "That means animals need to die near water" .  There are plenty of fossils that did not die near water. 

Another mistake: "How rare do you think that is in woods?" Can you explain why there are plenty of tree fossils found worldwide that were in wet areas?

There is no DNA evidence. We know that. There is none.

You have all of the ability to state your position on why you think BF exists. I am free to explain why BF does not exist. I gave reasons. I also pointed out errors in your response.

The fact is that we find the fossils of all sorts of now extinct mammals in NA. Apes is not one of them.

BTW, science never gets proof. It gets evidence.

I can't prove BF does not exist just as you cannot prove there is no purple dragon in my garage. I can certainly point out that the existence of BF is highly questionable.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Matt221
4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

giphy-downsized.gif?rid=giphy-downsized.

Please don't insult biggie like that no wonder he's hiding 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ocpaul20

Psyche101:
 

How can a massive primate exist in so many countries, and maintain a minimum viable population (MVP) without leaving any real evidence?

I dont know, but it deserves some kind of proper scientific examination rather than none.

People crawl the Pacific Northwest cataloging snails. How can such meticulous searches in biff country continually come up with no evidence of primates?

Scientists are often very focused people and are interested in their own section of science. How come snail hunting scientists get funding and Bigfoot hunting researchers do not?

How can such a population survive with no notable ecological impact in so many places? What does biff eat?

I dont know, but it deserves some kind of proper scientific examination rather than none.

How can biff escape every single natural disaster ever without leaving a single body behind?

Maybe they can run faster than other animals, who knows?

How did biff cross the Wallace Line? There's no evidence of primates following human migration, but our signs are there.

Far more humans than Bigfoots perhaps?

Where would biff fit into the fossil record?

I dont know, but it deserves some kind of proper scientific examination rather than none.

How is every man made hazard avoided like land clearing and traffic when every other animal in the vicinity succumbs to such?

Maybe they can run faster than other animals, who knows?

Really, there's no good reason to believe biff exists. If new information comes along, that will change. But so far, nothing.

This is your opinion based on no proper scientific investigation with proper funding. Why is there no proper funding for investigations?

Jeff Meldrum actually visited here once as a member. Very underwhelming to say the least.

So, what do we have here, a personality assessment? I suspect what you mean is he did not agree with your point of view. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThereWeAreThen
1 hour ago, ocpaul20 said:

Psyche101:
 

I dont know, but it deserves some kind of proper scientific examination rather than none.

 

Scientists are often very focused people and are interested in their own section of science. How come snail hunting scientists get funding and Bigfoot hunting researchers do not?

 

I dont know, but it deserves some kind of proper scientific examination rather than none.

 

Maybe they can run faster than other animals, who knows?

 

Far more humans than Bigfoots perhaps?

 

I dont know, but it deserves some kind of proper scientific examination rather than none.

 

Maybe they can run faster than other animals, who knows?

 

This is your opinion based on no proper scientific investigation with proper funding. Why is there no proper funding for investigations?

 

So, what do we have here, a personality assessment? I suspect what you mean is he did not agree with your point of view. 

Pardon me if I'm wrong, but haven't scientists searched for bigfoot before? If numerous people tend to see a unknown creature and report it scientists tend to chase it up.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

The claim that science has not done a "proper scientific examination" is certainly wrong. Science has investigated the claims of the BF hunter and seen that there is nothing there that suggests a large primate.

When it comes to BF we enter the world of excuses as to why there is no evidence. The world of excuses is more properly called special pleading.

  • Animals are caught all of the time by trail cams but not BF. What's the excuse for that? We've all heard it many times.
  • Animals are found all of the time with baited traps but not BF. What's the excuse for that? We've all heard it many times.
  • DNA testing has not found an unknown ape. What's the excuse for that? We've all heard it many times.
  • The fossil record does not show apes in North America. What's the excuse for that? We've all heard it many times.

The special pleading does not avoid the fact that there is no evidence. Until there is evidence there cannot be a scientific investigation. Turning this into a paranormal situation changes nothing.

 

And let's be clear here, searching for evidence is not science. Science comes after the evidence is found. That is when the evidence is evaluated to determine facts. Those facts are used to create theories and then the theories are tested. Searching for evidence may involve high tech, lead to scientific work, require extensive knowledge, but it is not necessarily a scientific process. Certainly these mindless TV shows looking for monsters in the woods are not scientific in any way or form. One of the ways of looking at this is the falsifiability of the process. Is it an open ended process no matter how long it takes? Yes. That makes it lack the ability to falsify the process and thus it is not science.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
ocpaul20
15 hours ago, stereologist said:

Science has investigated the claims of the BF hunter and seen that there is nothing there that suggests a large primate.

I would be interested to read the results. Do you have any links?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

The most obvious excuse Is that bigfoot is actually human. Or close enough that hair and DNA simple comparisons wouldnt tell a difference.

I've read of primitive camps out on Federal Lands where poop is all over the place. It isnt collected and analyzed because it is "obviously" just homeless human poop. Usually they just say homeless or hunters, but.... ??

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 11/13/2019 at 5:51 PM, ocpaul20 said:

Psyche101:
 

:st

On 11/13/2019 at 5:51 PM, ocpaul20 said:

I dont know, but it deserves some kind of proper scientific examination rather than none.

That is a perfectly valid scientific question proposed. A MVP requires around 4,000 individuals. That's in each location so they are close enough breed. That's tens of thousands across the globe at a conservative guess. It's not possible for a species to number that high and have zero ecological impact, as I'll go into further below. 

On 11/13/2019 at 5:51 PM, ocpaul20 said:

Scientists are often very focused people and are interested in their own section of science.

They are crawling the forrest floors searching inch by inch. If a biff skull was spotted, it would most likely spark a murder investigation which would result in the proof required to validate the myth. 

On 11/13/2019 at 5:51 PM, ocpaul20 said:

How come snail hunting scientists get funding and Bigfoot hunting researchers do not?

What about the aforementioned Jeff Meldrum? He gets funding year after year and has come up with zilch. All talk, nothing to show for it. 

On 11/13/2019 at 5:51 PM, ocpaul20 said:

I dont know, but it deserves some kind of proper scientific examination rather than none.

Again, that is scientific examination. Scientists do study ecology. There is no impact. No holes in any populations that would sustain a population of Biffs. Unless biff eats like a handful of leaves and only a little water when it rains. That's not at all possible if any of the reports of size are true. There's no unaccounted for impact in the animal kingdom to indicate that Biff exists. 

On 11/13/2019 at 5:51 PM, ocpaul20 said:

Maybe they can run faster than other animals, who knows?

Impossible. Biff is an alleged bipedal primate. What proof is there that Biff could outrun a quadruped? Alleged descriptions do not describe that capability. At best, claims have stretched to 40 mph, for a 6-8 foot human shaped biped to run 40+ mph, the stride length would have to be absolutely enormous. That's not apparent in alleged tracks. Greyhounds run at around 37mph so there's no huge difference even if the unlikely stories, according to alleged physiology, were correct. 

On 11/13/2019 at 5:51 PM, ocpaul20 said:

Far more humans than Bigfoots perhaps?

There is no evidence at all. That's the point. It's not scant evidence, it's zero evidence. That's incredibly unlikely. 

On 11/13/2019 at 5:51 PM, ocpaul20 said:

I dont know, but it deserves some kind of proper scientific examination rather than none.

Science really isn't your 'thing' is it. 

Yet again, that is scientific evidence. 

Here is the fossil record. 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTOmdsrtjT_CQMIDPK-cMJ

Now again. <_<

 

Where does biff fit into the fossil record? 

On 11/13/2019 at 5:51 PM, ocpaul20 said:

Maybe they can run faster than other animals, who knows?

No, they can't. Primate physiology doesn't lend itself to that. Can you imagine Patty doing 40 mph? I sure can't. 

On 11/13/2019 at 5:51 PM, ocpaul20 said:

This is your opinion based on no proper scientific investigation with proper funding.

No it's not. As noted above, these are genuine reasons, not opinion, to recognise biff is a myth and does not actually exist. 

On 11/13/2019 at 5:51 PM, ocpaul20 said:

Why is there no proper funding for investigations?

There is, as noted above. Its not extended because year after year there is absolutely no progress, no evidence, nothing. Its a public money hole. 

On 11/13/2019 at 5:51 PM, ocpaul20 said:

So, what do we have here, a personality assessment? I suspect what you mean is he did not agree with your point of view. 

No, he had little to say to anyone. When he wasn't treated like a celebrity, he turned his nose up and left. Pretty sure he ignored everyone, supportive or not. Said little, was not convincing. Meldrum was hohum. Pretty sure most agreed on that much. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
Trelane

Definitely not a plesiosaur…….oh wait wrong thread.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hankenhunter

I still maintain that a large majority of sightings are gillie suit related. More and more are being used. Especially by poachers. They are one of the most effective hunting tools Ive ever used. Most animals have no idea how to react an ambulatory scentless bush. I've scared the bejesus out of people who've walked right past me at close range and said good morning to them. Almost all of them said that at first glance, they thought I was a sasquatch. This is in daylight. How much more magnified would this be at night, when a poacher does his best work? I've thrown in a yeti gillie for fun. Many make their own, far better gillies that are adapted to the local flora. The foot prints may have been done to scare people from the area. Only that seemed to backfire and curiosity brought more people instead. This would force the poachers to move. Banging sticks against trees would be another method to freak people out.

Heres the kicker. Men have been making gillies since the first cave man strapped on a large animal hide to get closer to a herd. This, I think is where the legend came from.

 

5-Piece--Woodland-Standing__34254.1559074479.1280.1280.jpg

MSsnowsm__82151.1302214036.jpg

Edited by Hankenhunter
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma

ridiculous crap- as usual:sleepy:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
On 11/13/2019 at 7:51 AM, ocpaul20 said:

I dont know, but it deserves some kind of proper scientific examination rather than none.

no it does not! Scientists are clever, that's why they are scientists... They know looking into/ spending time & money on the bigfoot phenomenon would be a waste.
If bigfoot were real, we would know of it's existence by now-- why do people like your good self have difficulty understanding the basics of good ol' logic & rational thinking? Fascinating

  • Like 1

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.