99% Sure Sasquatches Do Not Exist

[Guest]

I find it amusing that people who live in States with very few bigfoot sightings are so often the ones who cannot understand why the evidence proving bigfoot hasn't been obtained, These same folks then will find a reason to state any evidence presented is either fake or inconclusive. I wonder if these people have ever interviewed a witness, found evidence, or even tagged along with field researchers?

edited for clarity

Edited December 19, 2011 by John T

[Guest]

Using this logic I guess Trolls and Fairies are real since the natives of Norway and Iceland have reported seeing them for thousands of years.....

I think you have your facts confused. Show me 1 reference to a Scandinavian troll dating back thousands of years. And I think you missed my point. This isn't about indigenous people confirming bigfoot, this is about the fact that bigfoot is present in indigenous culture at all. If bigfoot wasn't there then he would most assuredly be a myth. It's supportive anyway you slice it.

[Guest StankApe]

According to some people who have seen it, the Erickson footage is very good. For reasons that have been covered a billion times, it's release is on hold. Since it does indeed exist, does it not count because it hasn't been seen by the public or Bigfooters at large? Are you at least willing to give someone like John Bindernagel the benefit of the doubt when he claims the footage does exist? It just seems a bit premature to declare Bigfoot as never before filmed and therefore nonexistent.

http://www.albertasasquatchsightingreports.com/Read_this.html

Dude, noone is more stoked to see the Erickson footage more than I am. I like looking at Bigfoot pics (even the silly fake ones) more than just about anything else mentionable on this forum!

Ah. I congratulate you on singlehandedly debunking the PGF. I'll let everyone else know, we'll be turning out the lights on this forum in the next week or two. Thank you and drive around.

I will say this: without PGF, this field is dead. All the way, graveyard dead.

It boils down to this: yes there are many reasons for skepticism. But there is enough that can't simply be dismissed to continue the inquiry. And the fact that we can't imagine the reasons why the answer is so elusive means nothing except to our own will to continue searching. If you cannot bear the burden of suspending your cognitive dissonance for the long haul, you're really better off letting it go, because if there's one thing I'm sure of it's that this field holds no easy answers.

I didn't debunk it, the funny thing is the "supporters" of it convinced me with all of the blown up gifs and such. There's a distinctive waistline that moves in two different directions as only a two piece top and bottom of a suit would do.... (that and the butt, the leg joint wrinkling up like a suit, the weird boobs...etc)

I think you have your facts confused. Show me 1 reference to a Scandinavian troll dating back thousands of years. And I think you missed my point. This isn't about indigenous people confirming bigfoot, this is about the fact that bigfoot is present in indigenous culture at all. If bigfoot wasn't there then he would most assuredly be a myth. It's supportive anyway you slice it.

Umm thats an easy one, trolls are all over Norse mythology and it dates back a good long way....

I don't buy into Indian folklore proving anything. and I'm not some scofftic who dismisses everything. I've just gotten a bit frustrated lately with all this talk and no pictures, no body... it's irritating. Then people claim habituations but refuse to show us evidence... that's just wrong... it's like buying a lobster dinner and two tickets to the bolshoi for yer GF and she has a headache when you get home! lol

[Guest]

"I didn't debunk it, the funny thing is the "supporters" of it convinced me with all of the blown up gifs and such. There's a distinctive waistline that moves in two different directions as only a two piece top and bottom of a suit would do.... (that and the butt, the leg joint wrinkling up like a suit, the weird boobs...etc)"

I seem to recall female humans walking away exhibiting a waistline that moves in two directions!

[Guest StankApe]

Not laterally, seriously if you look at Romano's avatar , right at the waistline the top goes left in a lateral straight line while the bottom goes right in a lateral straight line. Just like a two piece suit would be expected to move....

[Guest exnihilo]

Trolls and faries are a red herring, though I confess I am not above conjecture that humanoid mythological creatures might have relic hominins as their inspiration. Setting that aside, it's clear enough that the 'wildman' is a ubiquitous folkloric motif worldwide. Where's the cultural anthropologist when you need one?

Not laterally, seriously if you look at Romano's avatar , right at the waistline the top goes left in a lateral straight line while the bottom goes right in a lateral straight line. Just like a two piece suit would be expected to move....

Do you mind linking that gif?

[Guest RedRatSnake]

I find it amusing that people who live in States with very few bigfoot sightings are so often the ones who cannot understand why the evidence proving bigfoot hasn't been obtained, These same folks then will find a reason to state any evidence presented is either fake or inconclusive. I wonder if these people have ever interviewed a witness, found evidence, or even tagged along with field researchers?

We all talk about this in a kinda balled up way, we got threads going on the " Yowie " but like what we got maybe 4 folks from down under ? and not to jump on ya but every time i say there is no BF in Massachusetts i get at least 3 posts right back correcting me and showing reports that are completely impossible, ( and i will talk with anyone about reports in my area) i don't know why it is taken so seriously here cause this is an internet community open to the entire world, it is not a BF believer only kinda forum.

I do not need to interview a witness or go out and find evidence, i have a computer that can bring me to what has been found cause folks that find it post it ~ Arm chair researcher yup 100% with no evidence to prove BF what so ever, Active BF researchers with evidence that proves BF 0%, I don't see my ass getting kicked at all.

Tim

[Guest StankApe]

Trolls and faries are a red herring, though I confess I am not above conjecture that humanoid mythological creatures might have relic hominins as their inspiration. Setting that aside, it's clear enough that the 'wildman' is a ubiquitous folkloric motif worldwide. Where's the cultural anthropologist when you need one?

Do you mind linking that gif?

ummm, I don't know how If you go look in the PGF threads, there are a ton of gifs there.

[Guest COGrizzly]

Your best bet is to just walk away and never think of this "nonsense and misidentification" again... Why waste any more time and energy when you just don't believe anything, anyone, or any evidence... Just walk away and put your time into something you do believe in....

A couple of questions/points for you TooRisky...

1. Where and when did I say this is "nonsense and misidentifications"? To the contrary, and moreso, to the quoted post, I DO BELIEVE many of the folks I have spoke with that have seen one...as stated. This is NOT "nonsense" to me. I do think it is possible for some of the reports to be misidentifaction...but certainly not all.

2. I don't believe anything, onyone or any evidence? Reading helps. Do it. Stop assuming and read...unless you want to sound like an uninformed poster, which you did, in my opinion.

3. RSS and Ace were both trying to point this out to you, yet you snapped at them. Again, helps to read the thread.

4. I believe in sex. It's been keeping us alive as a species for as long as we have been around. Perhaps I'll walk right on into some awesome sex soon.

To be clear, I don't know what made the tracks I saw, nor did several others. I believe many people are truthful and did not misidentify what they saw. However, some have misidentified what they saw. I think the sheer amount of reports is part of my 1% of believing. Native American reports play into my 1% of believing.

Your input seems to be a knee jerk reaction to some assumptions you conjured up without reading.

[Guest BFSleuth]

We all talk about this in a kinda balled up way, we got threads going on the " Yowie " but like what we got maybe 4 folks from down under ? and not to jump on ya but every time i say there is no BF in Massachusetts i get at least 3 posts right back correcting me and showing reports that are completely impossible, ( and i will talk with anyone about reports in my area) i don't know why it is taken so seriously here cause this is an internet community open to the entire world, it is not a BF believer only kinda forum.

I do not need to interview a witness or go out and find evidence, i have a computer that can bring me to what has been found cause folks that find it post it ~ Arm chair researcher yup 100% with no evidence to prove BF what so ever, Active BF researchers with evidence that proves BF 0%, I don't see my ass getting kicked at all.

Yep, absolutely no evidence here....

[Guest Strick]

I think you have your facts confused. Show me 1 reference to a Scandinavian troll dating back thousands of years.

Er, Gilgamesh, Beowulf, anyone??

I think American folklorists are on the shakiest of ground if they believe their source material to have a more ancient historical provenance than the Norse/Northern European variety.

Next you'll be telling us that Thor learned all there is to know about swordsmanship from a close reading of the book of Mormon..

[Guest]

Sorry I'm a bit late returning to the party. I had to climb out of my armchair and leave my snifter and smoking jacket at home whilst I spent the weekend in the field. I was, in fact, doing a bit of "squatching" over the weekend, which involved both nocturnal survey work in an area where I had a potential bigfoot encounter earlier this year and scouring some eroded streambanks to search for fossils. Now that I'm back in the comfort of my ivory tower, I can see that this thread has provided much amusement in my absence, yet still NOT ONE decent example of a cryptid. For those wanting to catch up, here's a synopsis of just one conversation in this thread, and you can decide on your own who has been open to a mature discussion of ideas and who has been interested only in obfuscation and word games. Enjoy!

In post #112 of this thread, Exnihilo wrote “There are . . . examples of discovered cryptids that were assumed to be either extinct or completely mythological.â€

In post #117, I asked for a definition of "cryptid" and examples of these cryptids that have been discovered.

In post #120, Exnihilo provided this definition of “cryptidâ€:

“ . . . a reported creature that has not been described by science, whose existence seems so improbable to the scientific community that there is no consensus that the matter is worthy of studyâ€

(Bolding mine.) I found this definition a bit odd (and ambiguous) because it seemed to stress a presumed attitude of the scientific community rather than stick the simplicity of the part I bolded.

Exnihilo then offered giant squid as a potential example of a cryptid he was willing to discuss.

In post #127, I offered a definition of cryptid, with relevant examples:

“To me, a cryptid is like bigfoot, i.e., a species long-reported, a species that continues to be reported, and a species that scientists have repeatedly looked for but failed to find. With bigfoot (and yeti, yeren, almas, orang pendek, etc.) I would include in this category lake monsters, mokele-mbembe, thunderbirds, modern pterosaurs, etc. I also think the term can apply to previously described but extinct species that continue to spawn reports but for which our best efforts cannot confirm they still exist, e.g., thylacines, Ivory-billed Woodpecker, etc.â€

Note how the bolded portion aligns quite well with the bolded portion of Exnihilo’s definition. Note as well the underlined examples of multiple cryptids that meet this definition.

Post 127 continues with my specific explanation as to why several species now known to science should not be considered cryptids. I also offered a detailed explanation for why giant squid fails the cryptid test:

“Giant squid have spawned mariner's tales for centuries, but some people mistakenly think they were finally discovered by science a few years ago - not so. Steenstrup appears to have published the first description of giant squid in 1857, and there have been literally hundreds of specimens examined since then. What's more, Aristotle wrote of giant squid in the 4th Century B.C., and Pliny the Elder provides a description of a specimen examined in the 1st Century. Wikipedia provides the references for those last items as follows:

• ^ Aristotle. N.d. Historia animalium.
• ^ Pliny. N.d. Naturalis historia.

When Aristotle and Pliny are the references for something, then "science" has known about that something for a long time. The thing that was a recent discovery related to giant squid is that a live one was photographed in the wild for the first time in 2004. Very cool - yes. Cryptid - no.â€

By Exnihilo’s own definition (“a reported creature that has not been described by scienceâ€), giant squid is not a cryptid because it had already been described by science before “science†even really existed.

Apparently, that all made too much sense for Exnihilo, and it was dissatisfactory because it didn’t disparage us lazy scientists. So in post #130, he responded with some kind of semantics game in which he decried the ostracism levied against those brave souls who risk it all to publicly express their interest in cryptids. I replied in post #131 that I was willing to discuss even that with him, and asked for examples of species that, prior to discovery, had caused those scientists who attempted to study them to have been ostracized.

In post #137, Exnihilo chided me for playing his own game. He did not provide an example cryptid.

In post #138, I asked again for an example.

Exnihilo replied in the thread in posts #153 and 155 with more verbal posturing, but still did not provide an example of a cryptid that would qualify under his own defintion.

In post #157, Exnihilo backpedaled even further, not wishing to be subject to a “cross examination.†Apparently, asking him to provide a single example of a cryptid that meets his own definition was too much rhetorical dodging and parrying from me. Note that he took great pleasure in disparaging me as part of what is clearly wrong with “science.†(I guess this is because I show no interest in cryptids.)

But wait – he does kind of provide an example of a cryptid in #157: “giant / colossal squidâ€. This is apparently what makes him think that the big squid qualify as cryptids:

“Yes, there have been reports of things washing up on the beach for a long time. But science has been completely unable to get so much as a glimpse of a live one despite numerous apparent opportunities and a number of efforts -- until recently. “

Did you see the problem? We don’t know if Aristotle summarized anecdotal reports in the 4^th Century BC, but it’s clear that Pliny actually examined a specimen in the 1^st Century. At the very least, Steenstrup’s 1857 description was based on examination of physical remains. So the “reports†of big squid washing up “for a long time†need to be qualified: They weren’t just reports, they were collected and examined physical evidence. The “long time†in this case is actually something on the order of 19 centuries. That’s how long ago science had described giant squid. This is centuries before the New World was discovered by European colonial powers, centuries before Linnaeus was born. There are few examples of species that are poorer fits for Exnihilo’s own definition of “cryptid†than giant squid.

Whether or not science had a chance to get “a glimpse of a live one†is immaterial: “a reported creature that has not been described by science†implies nothing about observing the animal in the wild. Giant squid had been described by science – a really long time ago, too.

It's really rather odd. There are plenty of examples of species thought to be extinct that have recently been "rediscovered." While they might not be in any meaningful way analogous to bigfoot, we could at least be discussing them to see if they could legitimately be considered cryptids. We could be having a really cool discussion about Ivory-billed Woodpeckers right now. That species meets my definition of "cryptid" (and I assume Exnihilo's too) and, with great fanfare, it's rediscovery was trumpeted in Science a few years ago.

Critical thinking is not some rhetorical game. A huge part of it is just having some verifiable, factual information to support your statements. If you lack the former, simply qualify the latter.

~Saskeptic

(edited for formatting)

Edited December 19, 2011 by Saskeptic

[Guest]

Er, Gilgamesh, Beowulf, anyone??

Gilgamesh was Sumerian & Beowulf (the poem) doesn't have the word troll in it. Unless you assume Grendal was a troll.

I think American folklorists are on the shakiest of ground if they believe their source material to have a more ancient historical provenance than the Norse/Northern European variety.

Who claimed this?

Next you'll be telling us that Thor learned all there is to know about swordsmanship from a close reading of the book of Mormon..

[Guest exnihilo]

Saskeptic, I congratulate you on your foray into the field, though I trust that the Promethean hearth has been well tended in your absence.

Yes, I was aware that the squid was described in 1857, to the great consternation of many skeptical scientists of that era. That may seem like a long time ago until one considers the length of time prior to that for which reports are known, and you have been kind enough to point this out for me already. Although Aristotle may be regarded as the father of science, much as Herodotus may be regarded as the father of history, I don't think we can pretend that Aristotle was "scientific" in any contemporary sense -- in many ways he was quite unscientific, as Galileo Galilei proved for all time at a certain famous tower in Pisa, to the great consternation of the contemporary ecclesiastical authorities. And if we are to begin accepting hoary ancient reports of natural knowledge as equivalent to modern science, then we need only extend back into the past to 1758, when good ol' Carolus Linnaeus was kind enough to include Homo troglodytes in his tenth edition of Systema Naturae, to find a precedent for our favorite cryptic primate, BF.

I won't go as far as to compare the modern scientific establishment to the former ecclesiastical authorities that so menaced Galileo's scientific efforts, but I think it is naive to presume that human institutions have transcended history -- and history suggests strongly that any venerable institution eventually becomes ossified and resistant to change. To the degree this is a natural or healthy part of science, I cannot say, but I do think it has impacted the potential investigation into Bigfoot.

Edited December 19, 2011 by exnihilo

[Guest VaBigfoot]

Just a quick reply..

Saw one of the creatures while metal detecting with two FBI Agents back in 1995. Didn't see a man in a suit or bear. Was a flesh and blood Bigfoot/Sasquatch creature. Everyone's journey through life is different, mine changed that day in 1995. 16 years and tens of thousands of dollars later that sighting is still fresh in my mind, the creatures do exist and I'll keep looking for evidence until my last breath. Searching for evidence of existence has been fun and educational, plus you learn a lot about yourself along the way. Whatever your true journey is, go after it with all you've got!

I have learned that these creatures are elusive and there's not many of them, but they do exist! 100%