Bigfoot: Is the Sasquatch real?

[Grim Reaper 6]

Most Bigfoot sightings occur in the Northwest, where the creature can be linked to Indigenous myths and legends. The word Sasquatch is derived from Sasq’ets, a word from the Halq’emeylem language used by some Salish First Nations peoples in southwestern British Columbia, according to the Oregon Encyclopedia. It means "wild man" or "hairy man." As early as 1884, the British Colonist newspaper in Victoria, Canada published an account of a “gorilla type” creature captured in the area. Other accounts, largely decried as hoaxes, followed, according to the Canadian Encyclopedia. Sasquatch book author John Green compiled a list of 1,340 sightings through the 19th and 20th centuries. But the modern Bigfoot or Sasquatch myth gained new life in the late 1950s.

There is no hard evidence for the existence of Bigfoot. Krantz, the anthropologist who investigated sound recordings, also discussed alleged Bigfoot hair, feces, skin scrapings and blood in his "Big Footprints" book. "The usual fate of these items is that they either receive no scientific study, or else the documentation of that study is either lost or unobtainable," he wrote. "In most cases where competent analyses have been made, the material turned out to be bogus or else no determination could be made."

https://www.livescience.com/24598-bigfoot.html

Closest Living Relative of Extinct 'Bigfoot' Found: https://www.livescience.com/gigantopithecus-bigfoot-orangutan-cousin.html

Bigfoot's FBI File Reveals Strange Story of a Monster Hunter and 15 Mysterious Hairs: https://www.livescience.com/65647-bigfoot-fbi-file.html

 

[stereologist]

20 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Most Bigfoot sightings occur in the Northwest, where the creature can be linked to Indigenous myths and legends. The word Sasquatch is derived from Sasq’ets, a word from the Halq’emeylem language used by some Salish First Nations peoples in southwestern British Columbia, according to the Oregon Encyclopedia. It means "wild man" or "hairy man." As early as 1884, the British Colonist newspaper in Victoria, Canada published an account of a “gorilla type” creature captured in the area. Other accounts, largely decried as hoaxes, followed, according to the Canadian Encyclopedia. Sasquatch book author John Green compiled a list of 1,340 sightings through the 19th and 20th centuries. But the modern Bigfoot or Sasquatch myth gained new life in the late 1950s.

There is no hard evidence for the existence of Bigfoot. Krantz, the anthropologist who investigated sound recordings, also discussed alleged Bigfoot hair, feces, skin scrapings and blood in his "Big Footprints" book. "The usual fate of these items is that they either receive no scientific study, or else the documentation of that study is either lost or unobtainable," he wrote. "In most cases where competent analyses have been made, the material turned out to be bogus or else no determination could be made."

https://www.livescience.com/24598-bigfoot.html

Closest Living Relative of Extinct 'Bigfoot' Found: https://www.livescience.com/gigantopithecus-bigfoot-orangutan-cousin.html

Bigfoot's FBI File Reveals Strange Story of a Monster Hunter and 15 Mysterious Hairs: https://www.livescience.com/65647-bigfoot-fbi-file.html

 

Nice set up for a thread.

You are aware that the 1884 newspaper article is a hoax right?

You are aware that the stories of man like creatures in North Amrreiican legends are not consisten and do not match the stories of BF right?

And the word sasquatch is Anglicized and sort of like a word from a Native American language right? And that word refers to something not consistent with bigfoot.

[Freez1]

Personally I don’t believe in Bigfoot. Its humerus if anything.  But then again until someone catches one we can’t go by photos or videos it’s to easy to fake it. All the foot prints are to perfect. Take your shoes off and hike through the snow or mud in some forest and look back at your foot prints they will be all out of wack.

Edited January 16, 2022 by Freez1

[Grim Reaper 6]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

Nice set up for a thread.

You are aware that the 1884 newspaper article is a hoax right?

You are aware that the stories of man like creatures in North Amrreiican legends are not consisten and do not match the stories of BF right?

And the word sasquatch is Anglicized and sort of like a word from a Native American language right? And that word refers to something not consistent with bigfoot.

No I did not know all the informations was from Hoaxed sources, I started the thread to give members from both sides of the issue the chance to participate, thats hard to do because most of threads on the topic are very Bias one way or the other. I did not know where the word sasquatch came from. I lived in Washington State from many years and I made a lot of Native American friends, I use to go to their Stomps, and thier sweats. In that region the English translation for Big Foot is the People of the Forest and they believe very strongly that they exist.

I made a number of excursions (2 to 6 day hikes)into the Cascade Mountain range with some of my friends and they would share some of their sacred places we with me man it was a wonderful history lesson. One night I heard a howl / yell that echoed through the Mountains it was like nothing I have ever heard concerning its intensity and the distance which I guess was maybe 3-5 miles away. I said what the Hell was that, they that they just smiled and said it was one of the People of the Forest calling its mate!

Now i am not a believer in Big Foot for the following reason, throughout the Ancient history of the Americas no and I mean zero fossils of any Great Apes have ever been discovered, so if it does exist what did it evolve from or where did it come from. Until someone produces DNA evidence of a completely unknown hominid or Great Ape species proven from the Americas I will never believ it!

Thank you very much for your comments, I appreciate the support of this thread my friend!!

[Trelane]

As far as the Giganto argument, I think @Carnoferoxhas completely and succinctly shut the door on that possibility (in my opinion).

[Grim Reaper 6]

5 hours ago, Trelane said:

As far as the Giganto argument, I think @Carnoferoxhas completely and succinctly shut the door on that possibility (in my opinion).

Thanks I also agree, and I doubt there is better authority on the forum concerning this subject than Carnoferox!

[Doug1066]

17 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Now i am not a believer in Big Foot for the following reason, throughout the Ancient history of the Americas no and I mean zero fossils of any Great Apes have ever been discovered, so if it does exist what did it evolve from or where did it come from. Until someone produces DNA evidence of a completely unknown hominid or Great Ape species proven from the Americas I will never believ it!

Most "bigfoot" sightings are consistent with bears, often seen in low-light or other conditions that make identification difficult.  Recovered DNA samples in North America are predominantly bears, but have included cattle, dogs and deer.  While I think we need a Bigfoot to keep us from thinking we know it all, I believe that Bigfoot sightings are either hoaxed or misidentified bear sightings.

Doug

[Carnoferox]

On 1/14/2022 at 10:49 PM, Manwon Lender said:

As early as 1884, the British Colonist newspaper in Victoria, Canada published an account of a “gorilla type” creature captured in the area. Other accounts, largely decried as hoaxes, followed, according to the Canadian Encyclopedia. Sasquatch book author John Green compiled a list of 1,340 sightings through the 19th and 20th centuries. But the modern Bigfoot or Sasquatch myth gained new life in the late 1950s.

The "Jacko" story was known to be a hoax as far back as 1975. Ironically, it was debunked by John Green himself.

https://cryptozoologicalreferencelibrary.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/green-sanderson-1975.pdf

[Doug1066]

https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1009620

Here is an article about an attempt to extract "Bigfoot" DNA from a collection of 30 samples.  All turned out to be something else.

The article does not refute "Bigfoot," but makes it clear that cryptozoology people have a lot of work to do to establish their field as a legitimate science, and now, with genetic sequencing available, they have the tools to do it.

Doug

[Carnoferox]

6 hours ago, Trelane said:

As far as the Giganto argument, I think @Carnoferoxhas completely and succinctly shut the door on that possibility (in my opinion).

It's hard to believe that I wrote that post 5 years ago! We've learned more about Gigantopithecus since then, with the most important discovery being the confirmation of its relationship to orangutans through tooth protein analysis. Additionally, a new analysis of tooth isotopes indicates its diet was more limited than most other primates.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1728-8?origin=app

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajpa.24300

[Grim Reaper 6]

49 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

The "Jacko" story was known to be a hoax as far back as 1975. Ironically, it was debunked by John Green himself.

https://cryptozoologicalreferencelibrary.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/green-sanderson-1975.pdf

Thank you, it’s always great when you join a thread like this your knowledge is bar none!

Peace my friend and please continue to contribute!

[Grim Reaper 6]

18 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

It's hard to believe that I wrote that post 5 years ago! We've learned more about Gigantopithecus since then, with the most important discovery being the confirmation of its relationship to orangutans through tooth protein analysis. Additionally, a new analysis of tooth isotopes indicates its diet was more limited than most other primates.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1728-8?origin=app

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajpa.24300

I also read it was the progenitor of the modern day Orangutans, it’s a pretty interesting topic! Do to Gigantopithecus geographic distribution it could not have ever been able to enter the America’s anyway, so there was never a chance it could have been Bigfoots progenitor in the first place. My Biggest problem with the entire Bigfoot story in the America’s is a complete lack of any fossil evidence of the Great Apes, so it’s a subject I have never believe in. Although my friends ( Native Americans ) in the Pacific Northwest - Washington State do have a oral history going back many hundreds of years, they call them The People of The Forest!

Peace

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Good stuff, @Manwon Lender

I give BF a chance to exist. the voice prints not being able to be matched to any known animal is a great evidence.

[the13bats]

7 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Good stuff, @Manwon Lender

I give BF a chance to exist. the voice prints not being able to be matched to any known animal is a great evidence.

Thats just your unproven unsupported opinion not at all based in fact or science.

[Myles]

I'm 99% sure it doesn't exist.   Too many known hoaxes and too large of an area where it is reported.   Almost every country on the planet has sightings.  

I was watching a show the other day where a police officers dashcam supposedly filmed a bigfoot crossing the road in front of him.  They were very confident it was not a bear.  A day or 2 later they found a gorilla suit in the front yard of a nearby house and 2 teens admitted they have been playing tricks on people.    

Edited January 17, 2022 by Myles

[+Liquid Gardens]

On 1/15/2022 at 9:32 PM, stereologist said:

And that word refers to something not consistent with bigfoot.

What is inconsistent?

On 1/15/2022 at 9:32 PM, stereologist said:

You are aware that the stories of man like creatures in North Amrreiican legends are not consisten and do not match the stories of BF right?

None of them?  There are many stories/myths of wild men, none are consistent with the attributes of BF?

On 1/15/2022 at 9:32 PM, stereologist said:

And the word sasquatch is Anglicized and sort of like a word from a Native American language right?

From what I can find it is related to the word "sasq-ets' from a Native American language (Halkomelem?), which essentially defines it below as meaning 'Bigfoot'.  Maybe this definition is incorrect though.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/zvrdVG44R-IC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA558

[stereologist]

On 1/15/2022 at 11:18 PM, Manwon Lender said:

No I did not know all the informations was from Hoaxed sources, I started the thread to give members from both sides of the issue the chance to participate, thats hard to do because most of threads on the topic are very Bias one way or the other. I did not know where the word sasquatch came from. I lived in Washington State from many years and I made a lot of Native American friends, I use to go to their Stomps, and thier sweats. In that region the English translation for Big Foot is the People of the Forest and they believe very strongly that they exist.

I made a number of excursions (2 to 6 day hikes)into the Cascade Mountain range with some of my friends and they would share some of their sacred places we with me man it was a wonderful history lesson. One night I heard a howl / yell that echoed through the Mountains it was like nothing I have ever heard concerning its intensity and the distance which I guess was maybe 3-5 miles away. I said what the Hell was that, they that they just smiled and said it was one of the People of the Forest calling its mate!

Now i am not a believer in Big Foot for the following reason, throughout the Ancient history of the Americas no and I mean zero fossils of any Great Apes have ever been discovered, so if it does exist what did it evolve from or where did it come from. Until someone produces DNA evidence of a completely unknown hominid or Great Ape species proven from the Americas I will never believ it!

Thank you very much for your comments, I appreciate the support of this thread my friend!!

Let me clarify about that 1884 newspaper article. There was a published story in the newspaper, but it was one of those fictional items inserted into newspapers at that time to sell newspapers.

The problems with BF promoters is that they would like us to believe that Native Americans have been aware of BF forever. But the creature they try to say are one and the same are not. For instance, in some places the creature is malevolent while in other areas the creature is so friendly it will move into a household for a while. Your experience relates to one description and should not be considered to be a continent wide description.

[stereologist]

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

What is inconsistent?

None of them?  There are many stories/myths of wild men, none are consistent with the attributes of BF?

From what I can find it is related to the word "sasq-ets' from a Native American language (Halkomelem?), which essentially defines it below as meaning 'Bigfoot'.  Maybe this definition is incorrect though.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/zvrdVG44R-IC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA558

The notion of a sasq'ets is something more like a spirit that can travel between our world a spiritual world.

The problem is that the stories or legends or myths (not sure what is the correct term if any of these are) told by Native Americans are all different and BF promoters lump them into a pan-American single story. Each culture has its own rich history that is being twisted to fit some BF narrative.

[+Liquid Gardens]

53 minutes ago, stereologist said:

The notion of a sasq'ets is something more like a spirit that can travel between our world a spiritual world.

That may be, although it sure seems to resemble a Bigfoot.  I'm not sure of the whole background of Native American idea of Sasquatch, but I suspect it's overladen with mythological concepts and might be able to tease out what is just a story and what is an encounter description.  That I think would be necessary in order for us to compare the two terms to see how alike they are.  I'd agree Bigfoot generates a good chunk of its interest from the idea that it is just another species of undiscovered animal and for a lot of people that would be part of their definition, which would set it apart from a being with supernatural/spiritual powers. 

In a way though I think your 'Sasquatch' definition above is better than the typical 'Bigfoot'-animal explanation; my understanding is that Bigfoot has been pretty much ruled out scientifically as a mere animal, if it exists there aren't any good explanations of how it can survive with an apparently very low number of individuals and how it manages to hide all physical evidence of its species.  To me if Sasquatch exists it must be supernatural or alien to explain that lack of evidence we should have.

[Resume]

30 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

That may be, although it sure seems to resemble a Bigfoot.  I'm not sure of the whole background of Native American idea of Sasquatch, but I suspect it's overladen with mythological concepts and might be able to tease out what is just a story and what is an encounter description.  That I think would be necessary in order for us to compare the two terms to see how alike they are.  I'd agree Bigfoot generates a good chunk of its interest from the idea that it is just another species of undiscovered animal and for a lot of people that would be part of their definition, which would set it apart from a being with supernatural/spiritual powers. 

In a way though I think your 'Sasquatch' definition above is better than the typical 'Bigfoot'-animal explanation; my understanding is that Bigfoot has been pretty much ruled out scientifically as a mere animal, if it exists there aren't any good explanations of how it can survive with an apparently very low number of individuals and how it manages to hide all physical evidence of its species.  To me if Sasquatch exists it must be supernatural or alien to explain that lack of evidence we should have.

Yeah, not really fond of using one unestablished phenomenon to explain another unestablished phenomenon.  It's really just an argument from personal incredulity e.g. "I can't see any other option so it must be Y"  It doesn't demonstrate anything and all the work is ahead of you.  First, one would have to establish the existence of the supernatural, then demonstrate how footie fits in.

Edited January 17, 2022 by Resume

[Grim Reaper 6]

2 hours ago, stereologist said:

Let me clarify about that 1884 newspaper article. There was a published story in the newspaper, but it was one of those fictional items inserted into newspapers at that time to sell newspapers.

The problems with BF promoters is that they would like us to believe that Native Americans have been aware of BF forever. But the creature they try to say are one and the same are not. For instance, in some places the creature is malevolent while in other areas the creature is so friendly it will move into a household for a while. Your experience relates to one description and should not be considered to be a continent wide description.

Don’t think I really had an experience just heard a noise, I am certainly not believer.

[+Liquid Gardens]

51 minutes ago, Resume said:

Yeah, not really fond of using one unestablished phenomenon to explain another unestablished phenomenon. It's really just an argument from personal incredulity e.g. "I can't see any other option so it must be Y"

Agreed to an extent but I don't see it as an argument from incredulity I see it as a deduction from the lack of evidence. I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out that we have established phenomena that requires that one unestablished phenomenon have attributes of another unestablished phenomenon in order to explain its existence.  It's not an argument for BF, the opposite actually; before even accounting for any evidence the proposition that BF is an unknown animal species is more realistic than BF is a supernatural being, and the evidence and zoology rules out the former.  It's not me saying 'BF can't be a regular animal species', it's science, so magic, etc, is essentially the only option left if it exists.

[stereologist]

40 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

Don’t think I really had an experience just heard a noise, I am certainly not believer.

The experience I was referring to was being in the Pacific Northwest and being told about the beliefs as well as receiving some confirmation that the sound was related to the beliefs. Experiencing something doesn't as you point out make someone a believer.

[stereologist]

12 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Agreed to an extent but I don't see it as an argument from incredulity I see it as a deduction from the lack of evidence. I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out that we have established phenomena that requires that one unestablished phenomenon have attributes of another unestablished phenomenon in order to explain its existence.  It's not an argument for BF, the opposite actually; before even accounting for any evidence the proposition that BF is an unknown animal species is more realistic than BF is a supernatural being, and the evidence and zoology rules out the former.  It's not me saying 'BF can't be a regular animal species', it's science, so magic, etc, is essentially the only option left if it exists.

I just wanted to say that the popular belief is that BF is an unknown hominid, yet the source of the term is for a creature that is not an unknown hominid.

[Grim Reaper 6]

4 minutes ago, stereologist said:

The experience I was referring to was being in the Pacific Northwest and being told about the beliefs as well as receiving some confirmation that the sound was related to the beliefs. Experiencing something doesn't as you point out make someone a believer.

That’s very true, like I have said before until DNA dvidence of a uniquely Unknown creature is discovered in the America’s I will never be a believer my friend!