Leaderboard

I'm, potentially, 12 feet tall. Where are the studies? There is no such thing as "unknown" animal dna, any report would list the animal(s) most closely related/associated with the dna. Unless the scat is properly collected and tested it's just....poop on your desk. I thought that was self evident but apparently I was wrong. I noticed that the link to the facebook page showed sasquatch scat purportedly gathered by cliff barackman back in 1999 - cliff is "pro" researcher; what happened to his sample? He should have had the contacts/resources to have the sample analyzed, no? By the way that last link was interesting but I can't see that Nelson's results were ever replicated or that Nelson ever published his results (using google scholar as the search engine). Hello all. I have popped by to set the record straight. The photo attributed to Joe Beelart and I from 1999 is not my own (see the Facebook link above). This is another excellent example of poor documentation by people putting out information to the public. I had not even met Joe Beelart at the time the photograph was taken back in 1999. As it turns out, the "Cliff" involved in this photograph of what is almost certainly bear scat is Cliff Olsen, long time researcher and friend of Beelart. (Cliff Olsen and Joe Beelart are also the co-authors of "The Oregon Bigfoot Highway," a great book on bigfoot encounters along the Clackamas River, their main research area.) Just because the guy who pieced together the video (again, see the Facebook link above) says it's me, doesn't actually mean that it is me. There are a lot of Cliffs in this world, and a surprising number of Cliffs in Bigfoot research (I can think of at least four off the top of my head). I have seen some big craps in the woods, but nothing that I would bet came from a sasquatch. This is an avenue of bigfoot research that doesn't much interest me, though if I actually saw the poop come out of a sasquatch, all that would change immediately. Until then, I'm not messing around with this kind of crap, so to speak. Cliff

We get it, DWA. Bigfoot is real because you read about it on the Internet. Good for you. It's rather humorous that you present a ridiculous scenario where believing scientists about the existence of black holes, despite evidence and consensus, is laughable and naive. Yet, it's okay to believe in bigfoot because thousands of anonymous strangers say so, despite any conclusive evidence. Er, ok.

I don't think you are one to lecture about what sounds are what in the woods. How did you describe the audio for the April Fools joke...something like " ...a sound no other animal in North America makes.." Sorry, but I'm not going to trust your sound identification skills. Furthermore, how could a scientific case ever be made by a single piece of non-testable, non falsifiable evidence? That is not very sciency, Mr.Science. ======================================================================================================================================= The case for Santa Claus, impeccably made, one report: Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse. The stockings were hung by the chimney with care, In hopes that St Nicholas soon would be there. The children were nestled all snug in their beds, While visions of sugar-plums danced in their heads. And mamma in her ‘kerchief, and I in my cap, Had just settled our brains for a long winter’s nap. When out on the lawn there arose such a clatter, I sprang from the bed to see what was the matter. Away to the window I flew like a flash, Tore open the shutters and threw up the sash. The moon on the breast of the new-fallen snow Gave the lustre of mid-day to objects below. When, what to my wondering eyes should appear, But a miniature sleigh, and eight tinny reindeer. With a little old driver, so lively and quick, I knew in a moment it must be St Nick. More rapid than eagles his coursers they came, And he whistled, and shouted, and called them by name! "Now Dasher! now, Dancer! now, Prancer and Vixen! On, Comet! On, Cupid! on, on Donner and Blitzen! To the top of the porch! to the top of the wall! Now dash away! Dash away! Dash away all!" As dry leaves that before the wild hurricane fly, When they meet with an obstacle, mount to the sky. So up to the house-top the coursers they flew, With the sleigh full of Toys, and St Nicholas too. And then, in a twinkling, I heard on the roof The prancing and pawing of each little hoof. As I drew in my head, and was turning around, Down the chimney St Nicholas came with a bound. He was dressed all in fur, from his head to his foot, And his clothes were all tarnished with ashes and soot. A bundle of Toys he had flung on his back, And he looked like a peddler, just opening his pack. His eyes-how they twinkled! his dimples how merry! His cheeks were like roses, his nose like a cherry! His droll little mouth was drawn up like a bow, And the beard of his chin was as white as the snow. The stump of a pipe he held tight in his teeth, And the smoke it encircled his head like a wreath. He had a broad face and a little round belly, That shook when he laughed, like a bowlful of jelly! He was chubby and plump, a right jolly old elf, And I laughed when I saw him, in spite of myself! A wink of his eye and a twist of his head, Soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread. He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work, And filled all the stockings, then turned with a jerk. And laying his finger aside of his nose, And giving a nod, up the chimney he rose! He sprang to his sleigh, to his team gave a whistle, And away they all flew like the down of a thistle. But I heard him exclaim, ‘ere he drove out of sight, "Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good-night!"

Yes, yes, we all know that you think you are on the cutting edge of science. Vroom! Vroom! Rev those engines, you're barely out of the parking lot. Get some new lines already, would ya? Yeah, but if sasquatch exists in the numbers people claim, then surely the prints we have seen are just a very small fraction, no? Would you expect to see such a high rate of abnormalities, across wide distances, in such a small sampling? That does not seem proportionate to me.

If it's a case of who cares, then why do you obsess over what skeptics have read? If no one cares, then stop harping on about it. Especially when you have been presented with lists of books that skeptics have read, yet persist in telling people to read. What you see here absolutely stems from my reading. I see nothing in Meldrum or Bindernagel to suggest that bigfoot is anything more than a myth.The bigfoot hypothesis is a decades old non starter. I find the available alternative explanations for alleged bigfoot evidence to be provisionally satisfactory. Until such time as a body or skeletal remains are presented, I see no reason to give bigfoot any serious scientific attention. For the record, I don't appreciate all caps warnings from you. I am doing fine staying on topic in other threads. You might want to heed your own warnings. I have seen more than once, outside of this thread recently, where you have attempted to derail a thread with your anti skeptic campaign.

Maybe put out a non-food item for them, to show you know (suspect) they're not a deer? A painted rock? A grass doll? A plastic cup? Always good to play "as if". Act as if you know they're there. If they're not, no big deal. If they are, you might have a new friendship in your life.

Well, I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'd like to comment. First, I'm kind of in the camp the numbers aren't as big as some may indicate, but rather we may be seeing a species with a very large range, possibly moving great distances for food sources (similar to what early humans did across the pond and the natives had done in NA). Second, the toe thing. For me to agree with your statement, I would need to assume that all the footprint finds that exhibit these traits are real, which I don't. Not saying that some aren't real, just not all of them......so I think there's too much noise along with the signal to really understand what's going on with the toes. But, it has been shown that breeding and environmental factors can indeed tweak toe counts on hominids.

I'm, potentially, 12 feet tall. Where are the studies? There is no such thing as "unknown" animal dna, any report would list the animal(s) most closely related/associated with the dna. Unless the scat is properly collected and tested it's just....poop on your desk. I thought that was self evident but apparently I was wrong. I noticed that the link to the facebook page showed sasquatch scat purportedly gathered by cliff barackman back in 1999 - cliff is "pro" researcher; what happened to his sample? He should have had the contacts/resources to have the sample analyzed, no? By the way that last link was interesting but I can't see that Nelson's results were ever replicated or that Nelson ever published his results (using google scholar as the search engine). Once again, I never said that there are studies. I said that there were analyses of scat that did not conform to that of any known animal or humans. I have provided links documenting this. Until bigfoot DNA is available to compare to a sample from the scat that does not conform to any known animal, confirmation is not possible. The point is that you or a buddy claimed that there was no scat or other physical evidence associated with tracks and sightings. Fact is that there is scat collected from sites where bigfoot have been seen and where tracks have been found, and when analyzed, it does not match that of any known animal. I suggest that you also read the following article by an archeologist who has analyzed bigfoot nests to inform yourself of the fact that there is yet more physical evidence. http://www.bfro.net/ref/fieldres/sasquatchnest.asp I am gratified that instead of claiming that such evidence does not exist you are now asking for replicable results. In the military, as one force retreats from one position to another when under pressure, we refer to it as a delaying action. Clearly we are making some headway. It still seems to me, though, that you are more interested in subjectively refuting evidence than in objectively considering it. The point, actually, is that I stated that in all of the trackways claimed by researchers, none of those trackways lead to a den, feeding site, or leave any hair, blood or scat as real animals do. Finding poop in the woods and deciding, apropos of nothing, that the poop is from sasquatch without running tests is just playing make-believe. Tests would NOT show an "unknown animal", that's not how it works. If the dna tested turned out to have come from an animal not listed in genbank the scientist would still be able to determine which animal(s) are most closely related. If the monster is some human hybrid the test would show how long ago the monster split from humans (just as dna can show you or I our lineages). Using the excuse that, because there is no holotype, dna cannot be used to confirm a novel animal in north america is wrong/false. So, no tested scat, blood, hair, teeth, etc. has been associated with trackways/casts. Look, I've stated repeatedly that I'd love to be 100% wrong on this. An undiscovered megafauna being hidden on this continent for this amount of time with the ranges reported would be so amazing that words fail me. That said, the community does itself no favors by making/accepting all these falsehoods/fantastical claims. I know believers get frustrated and that the "desire" for the monster to be real can cloud otherwise rational minds but the community as a whole needs to be on guard for this and needs to police these things so that time/energy/resources are not wasted repeatedly. Ok, I'll get off my soapbox now. Mopar, The PGF isn't even agreed upon by sasquatch believers to be real, never mind the general public. Heck, even "The Bigfoot Show" guys didn't agree that the PGF was the real deal and even the ones who thought the PGF was real didn't buy the idea that there were/was/is more than one animal shown. This is, again, the problem with this field. The believers out there can't BEGIN to agree on much of anything. How frustrating that must be I cannot imagine. I think I understand why most of the scientific community will not touch this stuff though.

^Again you're not following the conversation. The debate was about this comment made by JDL: I had already brought up anomalies and deformities in this post #421: Deformities do not add up to "a silhouette of an extant hominid"- they are not the standard. Why is that so hard to understand? You need specific consistencies across the board for that. There is no set of specifics that make up that standard. A bunch of different deformities and anomalies do not equal consistency. I am not mocking anything with the "3 toes" comment- that is a fact that exists in cast form. Are there many differences in human feet? Of course. Are they the golden standard for human feet? Absolutely not. Does your Ostrich People link represent the norm or standard of Africans? Absolutely not. Would it be considered "a silhouette of" African people's feet? Absolutely not. Again, what are we looking for here? "A silhouette of an extant hominid". Maybe if you would quit reading my posts with so much disdain and looking for flaws then you would understand what I'm debating about.

The lack of a fossil record is not good news for the bigfoot claim, but it's not the nail in the coffin. It is the lack of more contemporary remains that puzzles most I think. You have optimistic comments from people like Goodall that are almost always punctuated with a " but where is the body"? If a bone or tissue sample or something was produced, tested and found to directly support the bigfoot claim, and this was published in standard, respected journals and accepted outside of bigfoot circles, then I would be most interested. Take notice that I am not describing proof. An interesting DNA test result and/or bone fragment, or something ( I'd settle for clear, HD footage or photos that passed competent scrutiny ) that would raise the evidentiary bar higher than it currently sits would do wonders for drumming up scientific interest. Something compelling enough to demonstrate that all we need now is to find a specimen. Right now, that does not exist.

If your using a rigid foot it would make sense that every time you take a step the front of the rigid foot would dig in. I also do not like track ways that leave a parking lot area, go down to a beach, make a big circle and go back to the parking area. RED FLAG.

It's precisely a familiarity with the evidence (including the lack of evidence) that makes some of us skeptical. The evidence just does not hold up well to scrutiny. Unless, of course, like you, we put on our bigfoot glasses and ignore or toss out anything that doesn't fit our bigfoot wishes.

"One thing that makes me think some of Freeman's tracks may be genuine is that there's no way Freeman would have hoaxed something looking that much like an ape's foot." Why not?

Thanks for the all caps howling (serious someone needs to do a clinical study on the use of allcaps and fortean addiction), but it's the first line of my sig. The beginning of that sentence reads essentially "I chocolate Wednesday finger manager it kiwi." The thread is about where Bigfoot isn't. The suggestion of North Dakota was made. A North Dakota report which is obviously fabricated is shown. What specifically do you find authentic about the report?