Anyone seen bigfoot?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by mrsimperless

No I will not eat bigfoot poop.

Not even if it were deep fried?

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I'm at a loss.

I know it's de rigueur to accept the skeptical viewpoint as the baseline, but in fact it is not intellectually rigorous.

And we should stop using the UFO analogy because its not a one-to-one analogue.

Here's the why for both statements above.

For the existence of bigfoot we have these categories of evidence, all of them well attested:

1. Thousands of sightings from eyewitnesses. One would be wrong to throw these out, even as a skeptic. No one case proves anything, but the sheer number of people should alert one to something unexplained going on. And the consistency of detail is astounding if one wishes to believe these are all misidentifications and hallucinations. We have years of reports that correspond with each other, many with details researchers didn't appreciate well enough until recently.

2. Tracks that show anatomical details no hoaxer would have bothered to create (at least until they became a "feature" of what is considered a legit track). The number and distribution of tracks suggests, as author and researcher John Green pointed out years ago, that if it is a hoax, there is a worldwide organization committed to creating and sustaining the hoax. These tracks are often found in places people are very unlikely to go, suggesting that there are many more hoaxed tracks never found. How do skeptics explain this?

3. Hair samples. There is a collection of hairs now that show internal consistencies but also they do not come from any known animal. The most interesting feature of the hair samples is that they appear to be human in most respects, but they do not have the toxins our hairs do as a result of our living in our toxin rich society.

4. Fecal samples. Some as large as coke cans. (I've seen one of these in a picture with the coke can next to it.) They are from no known animal, and when tested for DNA come back as "likely human".

5. Photographic evidence. By itself it isn't much, but it does support the other evidence.

6. The Patterson/Gimlin film. If one spends the time to analyze the film, especially if you have one of the stabilized images you can get from other boards, you will notice many features that argue against the subject being a man in a suit. As a whole, these features simply overwhelm the contradictory evidence.

7. Secondary evidence arising from analysis of the evidence we now have; for instance, the foot size distribution comes out as a bell curve, suggesting a real population of animals, not a hoax (since one assumes hoaxers wouldn't know each other and wouldn't make enough prints of different sizes to create the impression of a population -- unless you accept the worldwide hoaxing organization theory, which is absurd!).

Simply apply Occam's Razor -- what is the simplest theory that can account for the conglomeration of evidence without creating more unaccounted for features? That there is a real creature out there producing the evidence.

Though not many really know about it, the case for bigfoot does not rest on a couple of guys telling stories that may be tall tales. We have thousands of reports. The fact that we have physical evidence in the abundance that we have it goes far beyond the case for the UFO.

I'm not saying anything about what I think about the UFO phenomena by saying that, just that it's apples to oranges comparing them to bigfoot.

The reason the authorities don't tell you what they suspect is out there, from my conversation with several National Park Rangers, is they've been told not to, and they'd lose their jobs if they did. We have asked ourselves why this would be for some time, and have a couple of answers.

1. Admitting a large, potentially dangerous, creature is living in the woods would create a panic and the government would be forced to do something about it. They have done the cost/benefit analysis and regard the bigfoot as harmless enough to want to avoid this scenario altogether.

2. Some bright spark in the defense industry one day had a thought about training bigfoot for defense purposes (they do it with dolphins!) Once someone proposed this idea, the very existence of bigfoot would be classified, and studies show that once the government classifies something it tends not to unclassify it unless forced to.

3. The existence of bigfoot is a scary thought if you aren't prepared for it. The human mind may simply reject the notion altogether until it comes face to face with one, which created a culture in which the folks in the field learn something which the folks in the office reject out of hand. Over time, the field workers have learned the best thing to do when you learn about bigfoot is shut up about it.

Since many Rangers have been only too glad to tell us what they know, I suspect that number 3 is the main reason, though all three could be in operation at once.

I've seen enough to know that bigfoot is out there. If it is *not* a flesh and blood creature that lives and dies in our woods, then we really do live in a strange strange world.

Someone asked where to find a good resolution copy of the Patterson/Gimlin film. The entire film is appended to the video "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science", which you can buy from the BFRO on this page:

hxxps://secure19.activehost.com/legendmeetsscience/ProductDetails.aspx?productID=2

In that video you can see more about the evidence I was talking about, and even some scientists who come right out and say what they believe.

[Dutch]

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Just want to point out that you accept the theory "there are legions and legions of perfectly sane and rational people who have said much the same thing after seeing barn owls, the planet Venus, heat mirages, weather balloons, bear cubs, hobos, and all manner of perfectly explainable stuff" without the same kind of proof that this is indeed the case as you expect for the theory you regard as less likely.

What you probably meant is that you have read that there are legions of these easily deluded folk. But do you know whose interpretation of events you've gotten?

I don't bother with that anymore.. I go out and look for evidence myself.

No. . . I believe that MANY of them can be explained by basic psychology. I'm not talking about all of them, but many of them.

Go out and look at a tree. See all the pretty leaves? Realize that many of the leaves you see are made up images in your mind. The ones you aren't focusing on directly are filled in by your mind the way it thinks it should be.

So a lot of them can be explained.

That said, good for you. Fight the fight and get the proof. I hope you prove the existence of Bigfoot. I'll be first in line to buy a copy of your book as to how you broke the story.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Dutch

awww, see those hairy man-boobs, that's just Subby.

[Ryche]

A body is needed, pure and simple. I personally think there might be something out there, although I think there is a much better chance of finding a new primate in Central Asia.

The environmentalists will go nuts if we ever do find Bigfoot though. Look what they did for some spotted owls. I think they'd shut down the forests in a 100 mile radius of the finding.

Clearly it's Bush's fault, he's maintaining a coverup to benefit the timber industry

[Ryche]

Oh yeah, one thing I wanted to ask Sidhe, since he has been keeping up with this more than I have. Have they found any more Gigantepithecus bones yet? Last I heard when I was studying anthropology, all that had been found was a mandible and three teeth. I always had trouble with projections of Gigantepithecus size and morphology based upon so little material.

[Chas in Cinti]

Wow.... this was actually very refreshing to read. I don't really have an opinion on Bigfoot, not being an outdoorsman in the least... but I find this discussion fascinating and plan to look through some of the provided links. Kudos (improper noun, not the alien) to all of those on both sides for an actual discussion on this and not a "Let's make fun of the trailer park dwellers" discussion.

Regards,
Chas

[Butter]

I also think Sidhe is doing a great job arguing his side here without being condescending or snide. I can't say I've ever given the issue much thought, but this has been a very interesting discussion.

[GreenMonster]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

I also think Sidhe is doing a great job arguing his side here without being condescending or snide. I can't say I've ever given the issue much thought, but this has been a very interesting discussion.

Agreed.. Thanx for the Links to the Websites Sidhe, I found some good reading there.. I hadn't given this topic much thought until I saw a show on TV recently and then read this thread. Your posts have made me think deeper..

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

For the existence of bigfoot we have these categories of evidence, all of them well attested:

1. Thousands of sightings from eyewitnesses. One would be wrong to throw these out, even as a skeptic. No one case proves anything, but the sheer number of people should alert one to something unexplained going on. And the consistency of detail is astounding if one wishes to believe these are all misidentifications and hallucinations. We have years of reports that correspond with each other, many with details researchers didn't appreciate well enough until recently.

2. Tracks that show anatomical details no hoaxer would have bothered to create (at least until they became a "feature" of what is considered a legit track). The number and distribution of tracks suggests, as author and researcher John Green pointed out years ago, that if it is a hoax, there is a worldwide organization committed to creating and sustaining the hoax. These tracks are often found in places people are very unlikely to go, suggesting that there are many more hoaxed tracks never found. How do skeptics explain this?

3. Hair samples. There is a collection of hairs now that show internal consistencies but also they do not come from any known animal. The most interesting feature of the hair samples is that they appear to be human in most respects, but they do not have the toxins our hairs do as a result of our living in our toxin rich society.

4. Fecal samples. Some as large as coke cans. (I've seen one of these in a picture with the coke can next to it.) They are from no known animal, and when tested for DNA come back as "likely human".

5. Photographic evidence. By itself it isn't much, but it does support the other evidence.

6. The Patterson/Gimlin film. If one spends the time to analyze the film, especially if you have one of the stabilized images you can get from other boards, you will notice many features that argue against the subject being a man in a suit. As a whole, these features simply overwhelm the contradictory evidence.

7. Secondary evidence arising from analysis of the evidence we now have; for instance, the foot size distribution comes out as a bell curve, suggesting a real population of animals, not a hoax (since one assumes hoaxers wouldn't know each other and wouldn't make enough prints of different sizes to create the impression of a population -- unless you accept the worldwide hoaxing organization theory, which is absurd!).

Okay, I appreciate your attempt to be logical about this. I don't claim to have anywhere near the knowledge base on this subject that you do, so I can't exactly engage in any debate about the varacity of any of the supposed evidence and whether it is truly "well attested." I have, admittedly, never heard the "bell curve" argument about footprints before... but I don't add it to my list of compelling arguments quite yet.

Anyway -- what needs to be part of this discussion, if you want to really be all-inclusive about it -- are the bits of evidence that work against the existence of Bigfoot (or whatever).

Without having the background to cite studies and research, I'll just frame it in one simple item:

1. If there are indeed giant, bipedal, mammalian creatures that spend time in woods all across our continent (and perhaps others), and are so widespread and numerous as to maintain independent populations in practically every corner of the country (after all, we do have eyewitnesses and footprints from here in Maryland, not just the Oregon and California woodlands), then it seems staggeringly unlikely that we, a civilization that ravages virgin timberlands at an alraming rate and either temporarily or permanently inhabits such a wide range of climates and settings, would have spent all these years or development and exploration without ever coming across one bit of uncontested physical evidence of their existence.


With that statement, phrased as fairly as I am able, I am very comfortable in feeling that Occam's Razor is at the very least up for grabs.


Again -- I bring no particular expertise to the subject, but that is, quite obviously, what you're up against. Just confirm that one hair sample, one fecal sample, or one bit of anything is demonstrably from a heretofore unidentified large mammalian species, and I think you'll have a great big foot in the door. Until then, it's going to be hard for any "academic" work coming from a group of dedicated believers to convince much of anyone.

[Sidhe]

Well the footprints and the hairs are physical evidence, QS. So is the poop, and also tooth impressions, handprints (including the fingerprints, which we call dermal ridges, showing that whatever made the finger or footprint, it wasn't any ordinary human). These are categories of physical evidence.

And it is not the case that people who go out in the woods never see them! They do, it's just that folks who haven't aren't inclined to believe it.

Even a pretty good film of one walking across a sandbar didn't convince many folk.


Thanks to all involved in this debate. I don't consider it an open and shut case that bigfoot physically exists, but if it doesn't, then we have a whole other problem on our hands.. and I am not prepared to think in terms of the paranormal when the possibilities of the normal haven't been exhausted.

I'm sure QS will find that ironic.. but you've got to explain the physical evidence we do have. It isn't fair to raise the bar every time something new comes in.

Incidentally, I am myself intimately involved in the discovery of a new category of evidence, but we don't have it open and shut yet so I have left it off my list. Soon, though.. very soon.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by Ryche

Oh yeah, one thing I wanted to ask Sidhe, since he has been keeping up with this more than I have. Have they found any more Gigantepithecus bones yet? Last I heard when I was studying anthropology, all that had been found was a mandible and three teeth. I always had trouble with projections of Gigantepithecus size and morphology based upon so little material.

You aren't the only one, however, it's fairly common practice.

Recently more material was found in a Chinese market, and some scientists are trying to run down where it was originally found.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Recently more material was found in a Chinese market, and some scientists are trying to run down where it was originally found.

How much did they want for it?

[Calis]

Harry and the Hendersons is a guilty pleasure of mine, not sure if that counts.

I'm holding out more hope for there being Yetis than a Bigfoot.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

uncontested physical evidence

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Well the footprints and the hairs are physical evidence, QS. So is the poop, and also tooth impressions, handprints (including the fingerprints, which we call dermal ridges, showing that whatever made the finger or footprint, it wasn't any ordinary human). These are categories of physical evidence.

There's the rub. You have physical evidence that something lost a hair, and that something took a shit. So far, the simplest explanation for this is a mountain man recluse (human) who hasn't been exposed to many worldly toxins.

I don't mean this as a slam... but this clearly remains the weak spot in the whole argument. If this stuff is demonstrably from a non-human, un-identified creature... then run a lab test or a DNA test of some sort and prove it. If it isn't, or if the labs all say that it looks like human stuff... then it's not really uncontested physical evidence of bigfoot, it's just stuff that may have come from a human or from something else.

One body. One bone. On piece of matter of any sort that can be clerly shown to be non-human and from nothing else we know of. That is, presumably, all it would take.

[wade moore]

I'll have to be another that contributes nothing to this thread rather than "great thread"... It's very rare that I've seen such good, "logical" discussion about a serious topic.

Bravo Team, Bravo!

[MJ4H]

Yeah same here. I've lived in an area that has a well-known legendary bigfoot that roams the area. It is talked about quite frequently and I have heard many, many stories about encounters with it (it is, strangely to me, assumed to be just one). The stories are quite credible and from what I consider credible sources. I've always thought there was more to this than people really thought. I have never seen any direct evidence of the creatures, though.

That said, I would be more interested if we could have this sort of discussion on the UFO phenomenon. That is a subject that has always fascinated me. I have actually had some encounters in this area in my life (several, in fact) and wouldn't mind discussing them.

[Neuqua]

In somewhat of a coincidence, I came across this story in the Chicago Tribune today..

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...l=chi-news-hed

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

I'm sure QS will find that ironic.. but you've got to explain the physical evidence we do have. It isn't fair to raise the bar every time something new comes in.

This is what me and QS were talking about before. The burden of proof. "We" (the general skeptic and unbeliever population) don't have to prove or explain anything. "You" (the general collectors of evidence and the claiments) are the ones who hold the burden of proof.

You have a bunch of evidence that suggests "something" is out there. Whether it be Bigfoot, "mountain men", hoaxers, something more "animal" than Bigfoot, etc. (or any combination of the above). You have evidence. What that evidence is of is undetermined. You even say it yourself. The hair comes back human, uncut and free of toxins. The crap has human and animal DNA in it. The footprints are of a large animal (possibly bipedal). You have video and photos but many people who have taken video and photos of bigfoot have admitted that they were hoaxes. Even if you don't believe they are telling the truth that they were hoaxes, they are saying as much. So it leaves that evidence as unreliable. (You'd be suprised. I've seen hoaxers do some pretty amazing things.)

It is all, at the very best, circumstantial evidence. Until there is a body, or some bones are found, and they are independantly verified, or certain technologies allow us to take the DNA and reconstruct the animal in a simulation or some thing like (pretty far off I'd imagine. ), all of the evidence still pretty much remains evidence of just "something".

[Zippo]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

There have been anomalous finds over the short history of the US including bodies up to twelve feet tall. At the time of their being reported (all of these finds are from the 19th century) they were considered to be a race of giant Indians. These specimen have all been lost over the course of time. The interest in them lapsed for about a hundred years so this is not too difficult to understand.

Europeans and their decendants have many stories about Hairy Wild Men. One tale you probably had to read in high school was Beowulf. What's Grendel? A large, bipedal, hairy humanoid. And there are many historical reports of people having encounters with Wild Men of the Woods. At the time it was thought that these were people who had gotten lost in the woods and who had completely reverted to animal behavior. And grown a lot of body hair.

So there is a historical basis for creatures akin to what we are talking about speaking from the European side of America's anscestors. There continue to be some contemporary reports from Eastern Europe. Russian science, in particular, takes the question seriously enough, a little more so than we do in the West.

If you look to the far east, there are contemporary reports of strange bipedal creatures. The most interesting of these is probably the Orang Pendek. This is a creature that walks in the woods of Sumatra. It was long historically attested by the natives. When zoologists would ask them about Orangutans, they would answer, "Which ones do you mean? The small ones with the puffed out faces, the larger ones, or the really big ones who walk like men?"

Oftentimes what we consider to be mythical is well known to native inhabitants.

Which brings me to native North Americans. The belief in bigfoot as a real living creature was widespread and crossed the continent. They've tried to tell us, but we haven't listened. Many of them considered bigfoot to be a race of large hairy Indians who have language and culture and who can be reasoned with, but who were too unpredictable and strong to be trusted.

If we do have bigfoot here, it didn't come from Europe with us. It probably travelled across the bering strait with many of the first human inhabitants of this continent. Bigfoot does share some similarities with a known extinct primate, gigantopithecus. There are physical remains of this ancient relative of the orangutan -- a creature that could stand 8' or more tall, and is nearly universally thought to have been bipedal.

Ok, that's enough of that. I don't need to change anyone's mind -- it doesn't matter whether people believe or not after all, it will either be found, or it will turn out to be something other than a real animal. I only wanted a good survey of belief here. And I did wonder if anyone would admit to having seen one..

I learned a little bit about the large ones you mentioned in my primatology class and they are not "bigfoots", they are a known large primate species that had been hunted to extinction. And I beleive my prof mentioned that they were not bipedal.

[Raiders Army]

Doesn't Shaq have big feet?

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by Zippo

I learned a little bit about the large ones you mentioned in my primatology class and they are not "bigfoots", they are a known large primate species that had been hunted to extinction. And I beleive my prof mentioned that they were not bipedal.

Well, I think your prof was exaggerating a bit. Those are the theories, but what is actually know about the ape is pretty minimal. All we have for evidence for the species is a few teeth and a jawbone (unless more has been found in the last 10 years). Anthropologists have filled in the rest, theorizing that they lived similar to pandas because of where the bones were found and because of the size of the molars and jaw found, which would be suitable for chewing bamboo. And because its thought they went extinct 50K-100K years ago, as man was coming to the forefront, that man caused their extinction.

If bigfoot exists, it's likely a close relative of Gigantepithecus given its physical similarities and proximity to the Bering Land Bridge.

(Not often my anthropology degree helps me in a discussion )

[SFL Cat]

I must confess, I have a fondness for all things Fortean.

[Godzilla Blitz]

For those that are intersted, I found Carl Sagan's book, The Demon-Haunted World, to be an excellent read regarding topics such as this.

[Sidhe]

An anthropologist speculating based on the scant evidence to hand is alright, so long as nothing unexpected results..

We've got enough evidence in the case of bigfoot that the burden of proof has shifted. The fact that you haven't seen that proof well enough to understand that this is the case could also use explaining. But that's for the sociologists or anthropologists, not me.

Here's something that's analogous -- though well known to native people and a few Westerners for centuries, science finally catches up only when remains are found. Because natives and explorers cannot be relied upon in the matter of something that is manlike. It has always been this way:

http://www.nature.com/news/specials/flores/index.html

The first Dutch explorers to the Island learned that the natives knew of a small race of hairy people. A few of the explorers may even have seen them. This back in the late 17th century. Now we read that they did indeed exist and perhaps even persisted into historical times..

Who would have figured?

Bigfoot is different from all the paranormal things it is often cast away with. You can touch it, you can see it, you can smell it, you can film it, you can take a picture of it, you can get a recording of its voice, you can watch it walking, eating, bathing, swimming, hunting, sleeping and doing many many other things besides -- there is no facet of a bigfoot's life that is closed to observation. It's just that bigfoot would rather not be in the same place you are, for good reason, so the observations have come from many different people in glimpses.

Had bigfoot not adopted a strategy of extreme aversion to human contact, it would have been hunted to extinction just like all the other megafauna have been. Its elusiveness is hardwired, honed to brilliance by plain old evolution. Our history is replete with stories of hunting parties who "chased the Wild Man of the Woods." We haven't found any that speak of catching one, though..

It helps that bigfoot has been clocked at 35mph, and faster.

I think one reason people automatically reject what evidence there is already is because of fear. I like to pass along this particular set of tales to help folks understand that we aren't talking about a raving gorilla in the woods. Far from it.

There are several cases where a bigfoot helps a hurt or trapped human. In one, a logger, working alone pretty far from help, gets trapped under the tree he fells. It would be quite some tme before his workmates would be back and he was in a lot of pain under the tree.

A bigfoot happens by. That alone was pretty shocking to the fellow, I'm sure, but he couldn't have been prepared for what happened next: he said the bigfoot stopped and looked at him, then at the tree, and seeming to pause only a moment to make a decision, stooped to lift the tree off the fellow, and then continued on its way witout looking back.

In another story a young boy of four or five was lost playing in the woods near his home. A large searching party was organized but it got too dark before they found him. The next morning his parents found him on the front porch. They were overjoyed of course, but he told everyone that "the big hairy monkey" had brought him home after it sat with him all night to keep him warm.

I've seen at least three reports of folks who have fallen while running from a bigfoot, who they thought was chasing them. In each case, they looked back expecting the worst only to find the creature paitently waiting for them to get up and start running again.

And this trio of reports is born out by all the others -- bigfoot may chase you but it never catches you.

Of course many of you will say that's because it doesn't exist. But now you'll have some basis for not freaking out when it turns out that it does.

Which is not to say bigfoot is entirely harmless either. When they want you gone they'll try to intimidate you, and one way they do this is by throwing things. Sometimes the things they throw are quite large. I don't think their aim is good enough to miss you even if they aren't aiming right at you..

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

It helps that bigfoot has been clocked at 35mph, and faster.

So, the hikers thought to pack a JUGS gun, but not a camera?

Oh, well, this thread is entertaining, if nothing else.

[QuikSand]

As colorful and interesting as they are, there is simply no point in injecting "eyewitness accounts" into a debate intended to convince a skeptic of anything. The fact that you say that this is someone's account... or that you read someone who wrote about this being someone else's account... or whatever... doesn't make it something that I can invest any particular weight into. Understandably.

Of course, I do agree with the subtext of the believers' argument -- which often comes down to if these things aren't out there, how can so many people claim to have seen them? I don't have a particularly good answer to that -- other than the long-standing myth of the ape-man having somehow just become such a part of folklore and legend as to be a part of the human unconscious (possibly something along the lines of the "bright light" you experience upon death, which many people explain away the same way).

Interesting stuff - I have read about lots of accounts of bigfoot sightings and encounters, including the guy under the tree (I assume it's the same guy, or else it's the same legend by different branches of the same telling tree) -- and while I'm not necessarily casting apsersions, I also am not inclined to accept them as evidence of anything but myth and perhaps odd human behavior.

You can touch it, you can see it, you can smell it, you can film it, you can take a picture of it, you can get a recording of its voice, you can watch it walking, eating, bathing, swimming, hunting, sleeping and doing many many other things besides -- there is no facet of a bigfoot's life that is closed to observation.

But, apparently, you can't actually get a piece of it for conclusive investigation, or stick a dart in it, or take a picture that convinces skeptics, or anything else of that nature. I applaud your sincerity, but there's a credibility concern, I think, when you suggest these matters are so one-sided.

[SFL Cat]

Well, considering they have suspected the existance of giant squids for decades and only now (maybe) have gotten some photographic evidence ....

[Godzilla Blitz]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

In another story a young boy of four or five was lost playing in the woods near his home. A large searching party was organized but it got too dark before they found him. The next morning his parents found him on the front porch. They were overjoyed of course, but he told everyone that "the big hairy monkey" had brought him home after it sat with him all night to keep him warm.

I have no idea if this is connected, but last winter, as I carried my 3-year-old son back from the car to the house, I saw some rabbit tracks in the snow in front of our house. I asked my son, "Hey, look! Tracks! What do you think made them?"

My son looks around at the tracks going all over the place in the snow. "A big monster!"

"Look at the tracks, son. Aren't they a bit small?"

My son looks down at the tiny tracks. Thinks for a second. Looks back at me.

"A big monster with reeeeeally small feet."

[Raiders Army]

Wouldn't Bigfoot hang out near a Big and Tall Men instead of the woods?

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

So, the hikers thought to pack a JUGS gun, but not a camera?

Oh, well, this thread is entertaining, if nothing else.

Don't be silly. No need to do that, especially if you watched "The Six Million Dollar Man," back in the 70s. Besides bigfoot could match Steve Austin's speed, and Steve could run 60 mph easy!!!

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

\

Don't be silly. No need to do that, especially if you watched "The Six Million Dollar Man," back in the 70s. Besides the bionic bigfoot could match Steve Austin's speed, and Steve could run 60 mph easy!!!

Could he outrun Wonder Woman?

[sabotai]

Just a couple of comments...

Originally Posted by Sidhe

We've got enough evidence in the case of bigfoot that the burden of proof has shifted.

The burden of proof never shifts. It's always on the one making the claim.

I think one reason people automatically reject what evidence there is already is because of fear.

No one is rejecting the evidence. Just saying that it is just circumstantial and not enough. You may be right in that these things do exist but that does not mean you have enough evidence. Just because we say we need more evidence does not mean we are rejecting the evidence that's there.

[Dutch]

I guess like everything else, the more people "suggest" something is true, the more believable it becomes, regardless of the facts.

And for what it's worth, I also don't believe anybody here "fears" bigfoot. Personally, I would love nothing more than for any legend/myth to become fact and not fiction.

Speaking of which, what is the last legend/myth that was proven to be true? That the earth is round, perhaps?

[Anthony]

last myth to be proven true:

Subby uses a penis pump.

[GrantDawg]

(Having not read a single post in the thread, and not knowing if the jokes been told)...


Why? Is he missing?

[Sidhe]

Items we know based on circumstantial evidence:

Black holes exist
Dark Matter and Dark Energy exist

Item I suggest is in the same category:

Bigfoot exists

Theory: Black Holes Exist
Hypothesis: If Black Holes exist, they should leave physical evidence
Experiment: Observation of such evidence

Note that the case for the black hole is circumstantial.

Theory: There is an enormous amount of unseen energy that makes up the bulk of the universe
Hypothesis: This unseen energy (some of it in the form of matter) makes the universe behave in a certain manner.
Experiment: observe the behavior of the universe

From this we infer that dark matter and dark energy do exist. We come to this from the circumference, not from the center of direct observation of the thing itself.

These are scientific analogues of the bigfoot problem. We first noticed that things didn’t add up, then we inferred that there must be an unseen (or unacknowledged) entity to account for it.

There is a body of non-testable evidence in use here in both cases. And we have not (and never will have) observed a Black Hole. We have not observed Dark Matter/Energy, though if the theory is correct, we will. Even if the theory is incorrect, it will have led us to investigate the matter more deeply.

In Biology, the standard of specimen collection has failed over time; ie., species reported extinct when in fact they were only very rare; accounts of surviving groups of small men-like apes (like the recently discovered Hom Floresienses) ignored for centuries until now, with the discovery of a relatively recent skeleton. Scientists seem much more willing to use these anecdotes to entertain the idea that Floresienses may still live now that they've seen a skeleton than they were to entertain the idea of their existence at all before.

The standard seems to be that you can’t trust experience (ie, anecdotal evidence), but that standard is absurd if you dig into it. What is experiment but a rigorously controlled experience?

Taking scientific method’s insistence on repeatability, if something is periodic and largely unpredictable as, for instance, certain particals of matter at the sub-atomic level, and as an elusive creature would be also, the standard can’t apply in the regular sense. No physicist expects to find two electrons in exactly the same place at exactly the same time during two experiments. They know the matter rests on probabilities. Yet no one would be so foolish as to say what they were doing wasn’t science. But it seems to matter to the skeptics that you can’t produce a body of a large bipedal North American Ape right where and when you want it. Do you know how vastly improbable it is that you'll find a bear carcase in the woods? And we have good reason to suspect that there are many more bear in the woods than bigfoot.

Only the body will suffice. But we have the example of Homo Floresienses, and a myriad of others too, to show why this standard doesn’t put one in the best position to say what exists and what doesn’t.

In recent months, I have seen at least two articles about animals thought extinct in an area being found in that area again.

Extreme scarcity does not equal absence. I suppose when I drop my contact lens on the ground and then I can't find it again, it never existed?

And then lets come at this from the other direction and demonstrate that bigfoot is not so susceptible to debunking as some of you have said it to be.

Proposed: the phenomenon known as rods is completely debunked.

RODS- supposedly small flying things that are so quick as to be invisible to the naked eye, but visible on a video camera. A phenomenon only discovered by digital camcorders with zoom. Never seen by cameras with film, never seen with optical zoom, never seen with naked eye.

Explanation -- the digital zoom creates the artifact out of the wings of bugs and birds. On experimentation this is confirmed to happen.

This explanation leaves *nothing* unexplained, and we created nothing new to explain it, following Occam's Razor.

Now try debunking BF.. you simply cannot fully debunk it without creating something new. Because I've already taken up enough of your time, I'll just use one example: the footprints. To explain them all, you have to postulate that there is a significant population of hoaxers, all in communication with each other, willing to do the most physically demanding, even dangerous things, such as put on monkey costumes and run around risking a bullet or two; such as walk up to several miles with fake feet strapped to your feet, something heavy on your back, with an incredibly exaggerated stride, all these things in places people might not even *find* what you hoaxed.. This is a brand new form of human behavior postulated by skeptics! They ask you to believe this on no other authority than their word, rather than entertain the simplest explanation. Occam's Razor has indeed cut against the skeptic in this case!

And you will notice no doubt that most skeptics are quite willing to jump in and say "nyet!" without being all that conversant on the subject they are nay-saying. I think that's an imporant point.

I was interested in this topic for years, but I didn't think bigfoot existed until I had investigated the matter for myself.

The comments about the radar gun weilding witnesses given just above prove that some skeptics don't even bother to read a whole thread before giving their comment..

But maybe my posts are just too long. My bad.

I'll let this stand as the final one. No need to go over it all again and again..

Except I did want to add this, which I consider a perfectly reasonable stance for science to take re: bigfoot:

Bigfoot -- a creature that may exist, but no specimen has ever been collected. Many credible people have reported seeing it, including scientists, doctors, policemen, etc., but the fact that no body has ever been collected makes its existence hard to prove. Some physical signs have been collected, including footprints, scat, hair samples, and body prints, but these alone do not prove the existence of a creature since all of these categories of evidence are susceptible to hoaxing. Statistical analyses of some of the evidence are suggestive of a real population of creatures, however, so further study is warranted.

[Raiders Army]

Untrue, Disney made a movie about The Black Hole. Not too shabby for back then either.

I saw it in a movie theater = it must be true.

Just like we owe all of our lives to Bruce Willis.

[Solecismic]

I have size 13 1/2 feet. I also inherited all the hairy Russian genes known to mankind. But I'm not much of a mountain climber, so it isn't me.

Comparing this to astronomical exploration is interesting, but incorrect. In your case, your evidence comes mostly from anecdotes. Attempts to recreate the observations fail, supposedly because, you theorize, these creatures consciously avoid being seen.

In astronomy, theories develop from repeatable observation. Theories change over time, as observation improves.

Your theory that Big Foot exists doesn't change. In that way, it's like a religion.

Occam's Razor doesn't really work for you. The simplest explanation is that it is a hoax, with people working together, unknown to you, to create and "find" footprints and other "evidence."

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Only the body will suffice. But we have the example of Homo Floresienses, and a myriad of others too, to show why this standard doesn’t put one in the best position to say what exists and what doesn’t.

In recent months, I have seen at least two articles about animals thought extinct in an area being found in that area again.

Extreme scarcity does not equal absence.

See, this quote says a whole lot. It shows that you don't seem to get the whole idea of burden of proof. Are you saying that because some animals thought to have been extinct were found, all animals rumored to exist do exist? Are you coming from a position of they exist until proven otherwise?

This quote seems to suggest that you think:

1) An animal thought to not exist was found to exist
2) Bigfoot is thought to not exist
3) Therefore, Bigfoot exist.

Each case is 100% seperate. It does not matter how many animals thought to not exist are shown to exist. That is irrelevant to whether or not bigfoot exists.

The best position to say what exists and what doesn't is if you had god-like abilities and can see everything in the universe at once. Short of that, "until we have at least some bones contemporarily dated" is the best we've got. I don't suppose something exists and then try to prove it, I add up the evidence that's there and then form an idea. Right now, the evidence says "something", but it's far from conclusive that it's bigfoot. It could any number of things.

Now try debunking BF

Are you seriously suggesting that someone prove a negative?

To explain them all, you have to postulate that there is a significant population of hoaxers, all in communication with each other, willing to do the most physically demanding, even dangerous things, such as put on monkey costumes and run around risking a bullet or two; such as walk up to several miles with fake feet strapped to your feet, something heavy on your back, with an incredibly exaggerated stride, all these things in places people might not even *find* what you hoaxed.. This is a brand new form of human behavior postulated by skeptics! They ask you to believe this on no other authority than their word, rather than entertain the simplest explanation. Occam's Razor has indeed cut against the skeptic in this case!

Heard the same thing about crop circles (long winded explainations about how it would be nearly impossible to hoax). Look what happened there.

Bigfoot -- a creature that may exist, but no specimen has ever been collected. Many credible people have reported seeing it, including scientists, doctors, policemen, etc., but the fact that no body has ever been collected makes its existence hard to prove. Some physical signs have been collected, including footprints, scat, hair samples, and body prints, but these alone do not prove the existence of a creature since all of these categories of evidence are susceptible to hoaxing. Statistical analyses of some of the evidence are suggestive of a real population of creatures, however, so further study is warranted.

And how is this so different from what we've been saying the entire thread?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

In that way, it's like a religion.

I'm surprised this didn't come up earlier. The similarities between our quest to prove higher beings and bigfoot are uncanny.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I read this (a couple of times), and I understand what you're saying.

I find it quite intriguing -- I don't think I have ever heard the argument of "gullibility" used by the believers rather than the skeptics. Ordinarily, I'd expect someone to be arguing against the existence of [insert supposedly unexplained phenomenon here] to be pointing toward human weakness in believing stories without airtight or even compelling evidence. Instead, I see you criticizing me (and others) for being too willing to believe the "alternative explanations" that offer a more ordinary source for the phenomenon.

I'm at a loss.

I disagree with your conclusion that his statement hinted at gullibility at all. It sounds like he's simply saying that a species has adapted a pattern that relies on a trait of it's enemy ( so to speak ) for it's safety.

The human mind is generally set up to look for the simplest, most logical answer to a situation and can go quite to extremes to do it.

I was in Pasadena when I first experienced an earthquake. I was at home and I heard a low rumbling noise and a few seconds later the building started shaking.

My first thought was "a truck is hitting my apartment building."

Now, this would be a trick considering the complex layout but it's all I could think of that would explain what I was experiencing and I knew through reading that earthquakes existed. I'd never experienced one.

When I had my first experience my mind raced through the things it knew and had experienced ( it's reality so to speak ) and came up with the most logical answer it could come up with, impossible though it was as an explanation.

Interestingly enough it was the clattering of dishes that finally clued me in seconds later. I remembered hearing that in the movie Earthquake and boom, my mind thought earthquake and I could deal with the reality.

Well, relatively deal. It was at this point I panicked btw and I remember saying to the cat "don't look at me, you're from here. You tell me what to do."

Now, if I'm a hiker and I see a shape moving in the distance, at a pretty good clip and quickly getting to cover, I'm not thinking bigfoot. I'm thinking bear and my mind goes about it's business as does the bigfoot. No matter my opinion on the existence of bigfeet, if they do exist, I have no problem seeing this as an explanation on how they use human nature instinctively to remain safe.

Now, some people might see the bigfoot and think bigfoot before bear but frankly I wouldn't rely on those peoples observations too much because we can just as easily turn a bear into bigfoot in our minds as vice versa. That again, would work in the creatures favor as the person would be hesitant to share his experiences or be disbelieved if he did, either way further protecting the creature from human intervention.

That is, if the species exists of course and I voted C in the poll ( for reference ).

[st.cronin]

What is the relationship of bigfoot/yeti/sasquatch? Are they all the same thing, or different?

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

I have a friend who is a wildlife artist who is also into cryptozoology. A few years ago, he was investigating a bigfoot type creature that has been seen in Eastern Oklahoma near the Arkansas border. He talked to a lot of people who claimed to have seen it, but none of them said they would go public because they didn't want to be be labeled as kooks. He also talked to a pair of good 'ol boy brothers who lived with their families out in the woods. They say they have seen several different creatures while hunting. They also claim to have shot one, but were driven away from the carcass by the others, who they said made God-awful noises and threw large stones at them. When they returned later, they said the body of the thing was gone. They said for several weeks following the incident, the things would come during the night and throw large rocks at their houses and one apparently threw a large tree branch through the windshield of their pickup truck. They would grab their guns and run out on the porch with flashlights, and the things would disappear into the woods. Things would settle down, but a few hours later they would return and begin the harrassment again. Needless to say, they didn't get much sleep during that time. After a few weeks, they say the incidents stopped and they say they haven't seen any of the things since. However, they can still hear them "hooting" in the deep woods every now and then.

No offense but this story is patently absurd. I'm not saying it's not true but it fails on so many levels.

The obvious though is that two good ole boy hunters, with the chance to bag the most legendary creature next to the loch ness monster, let these things mill around their property for several weeks and all they thought to do was run out on to the porch with guns and flashlights?

For weeks?

Come on, they'd have set up an ambush or set traps or something. They'd have brought down a creature.

But wait. Lets think deeper. They know that they have killed a rather large unknown and unidentified primate and it's equally unknown friends are extremely pissed off about it and attacking their homes and they are that nonchalant about it?

There's no way to know what such a creature would be capable of and it's already damaging your property. Who's to say that they dont come in at night quietly ( they are faster and quiter than us you know ) and kill them. No one is to say because no one has ever seen one and has no clue what it'd do.

Would you live for weeks with this threat literally out your backdoor?

There's more but I can't see any of this as being plausable. I think it was the local boys taking the educated city slicker on a snipe hunt. Sorry.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

What is the relationship of bigfoot/yeti/sasquatch? Are they all the same thing, or different?

Bigfoot lives in North America, Yeti live in the arctic and Sasquatch is Eddie Murphy's aunt.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Bigfoot lives in North America, Yeti live in the arctic and Sasquatch is Eddie Murphy's aunt.

Good ole Aunt Bunny from Puerto Rico. Shave that 'stache!

Oh, and Aunt Bunny is a Bigfoot.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Good ole Aunt Bunny from Puerto Rico. Shave that 'stache!

Oh, and Aunt Bunny is a Bigfoot.

Right, Sasquatch lives in North America, Yeti live in the arctic and Bigfoot is Eddie Murphy's aunt.

Guess my memory isn't what it used to be.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Right, Sasquatch lives in North America, Yeti live in the arctic and Bigfoot is Eddie Murphy's aunt.

Guess my memory isn't what it used to be.

Don't get me wrong, my memory is shot. I just happened to watch that about 6 months ago.

[Ksyrup]

Anyone see the show Bigfootville last night? Not sure what channel it was on - one of those specialty channels on DirecTV between 260 and 285. It was somewhat interesting. It focused on an area in SE Oklahoma (Ada was one of the towns). I couldn't tell how much of a true "documentary"-type show it was supposed to be, since they went out searching the woods/river basins and the show ended up taking on a Most Haunted quality, with people giving night vision testimonials, Blair Witch style, about hearing grunts, seeing movements, and having rocks thrown at them, none of which was visible or audible on the tape. Still, it was decent viewing for a Friday night with absolutely nothing else on.