Description Of "bigfoot"

[Hairy Man]

A large part of Parn's list are negatives - how do you have a report that affirms a negative? Parn states:

"9 feet tall, 500 lbs, runs 30 mph on two legs or 4, glowing eyes, conical head, covered with hair, non opposable thumbs, no fire or tools, midtarsal break, 4-6 toes, strangely shaped feet, no neck, no clothes, no shelters, non modern human proportions, etc"

Does someone not reporting clothing or fire or tools or shelter, etc. support lack of said items? (Please don't be confused with my personal belief that they don't wear clothes or have tools and fire). I have never heard of a report that describes a non opposable thumb - perhaps Parn can cite one. I'm not sure most general witnesses know what "non opposable" means. What exactly does "strangely shaped feet" even mean?

What I see is the need, by a few, to view EVERYTHING a witness says as an accurate description of what a bigfoot looks and behaves like. The BFF is not a scientific venue. Sighting reports are not scientific measures as they can not be replicated by a scientist. There is NO common description of a bigfoot other than large, bipedal, and hair covered. All this other stuff is fluff.

[Branco]

I have always looked at BF as being pretty much like Patty,(Gigantopithecus )cause that's the only species that would fit bigfoots description that has been identified recently, just a big upright walking ape that is strong and able to blend in with its surroundings very easily, it's an Omnivore and social, very humble and migrates somewhat, they live primarily in the forest and mountains.

Trying to describe a "Typical Bigfoot" would be akin to lining up one human from each of the racial, ethnic, and tribal groups in the world and trying to describe a "Typical Human".

There is one part of a BF's body that, as far as I know, has never been described except by two men from two well separated states in the Southeast. Both have had several, very close-up looks at both types, "Reds" and "Blacks". Overall, there are very noticeable differences between the two types; and distict differences between indivudals in each group, just like the differences in humans.

[Guest parnassus]

As I watch the anticipation of the release of the Ketchum Report and what may be revealed or claimed by the dna studies, I see that often people who expect the report to reveal nothing new or have nothing substantially supportive of something we like to call "Bigfoot" as existing, said people like to make somewhat fanciful descriptions of Bigfoot which (like a straw man argument) are exaggerated to easily be defeated as illogical.

For example, member parnassus wrote in the Ketchum Report thread, post #774, a description of bigfoot as follows:

*9 feet tall, 500 lbs, runs 30 mph on two legs or 4, glowing eyes, conical head, covered with hair, non opposable thumbs, no fire or tools, midtarsal break, 4-6 toes, strangely shaped feet, no neck, no clothes, no shelters, non modern human proportions, etc"

I have seen others as well speculate about how the DNA results may contridict the bigfoot descriptions or definitions of longstanding advocates the entity is real, such as the ape vs/human description.

But it seems that the people so intent on belittling the concept of Bigfoot like to embellish the description of bigfoot with a multitude of descriptive terms culled from the entire range of witness or researcher descriptions, all balled up into one super defintion that becomes utterly fanciful.

There also seems to be a tendency to attribute this super-fanciful definition to be subscribed by all who think there may be something real out there.

Over the four years I've been active on the BFF board (V1 and v2), I've actually seen a rich diversity in individual people's expectations or definitions of what they think this thing may be (if indeed proven to exist), and that doubters of the entity seem to ignore actual definitions provided by real proponents and instead invent the super-fanciful definitions precisely because they can then more easily ridicule the definition and in turn ridicule people who simply hold some support for the prospect such entities exist.

So maybe instead of people intent of ridiculing the prospect of Bigfoot existing, by inventing their super-fanciful definitions of what it is, we ho thing there's something real out there may go on record as defining what we actually think such an entity may be (if found and validated as biologically real).

I will be glad to go first.

My expectation is based entirely on the PGF film's subject, since that is the only case I've studied with some degree of thoroughness:

Bill Munns speculative description: "I would expect the revealed entity to be more humanistic than any affinity to the known great apes (Chimp, Gorilla, Orang) or to any fossil apes (Gigantopithecus). I base this on both it's body proportions and locomotion as seen in the film. I would expect it's skull to have some morphological similarity to the OH5 Boisei group of hominid. I would expect it's legs to have affinity to the Neanderthal crural index proportions. I would expect it to have normally 5 toes configured closer to the human foot that any opposable big toe like the great apes demonstrate. I have no opinion on a mid-tarsal break. I would expect it's size (as a species average) to be greater than human average, with similar range of varying potential (so if humans can grow to nearly 9' tall, this entiiy may also, in some exceptional examples), but the norm I would expect to be of lesser height. The heavy fur I would intrepret as an adaptation to a more cold northern climate and ecological niche, and more northern variations of a group of species would tend to show the more northern adapted ones as larger in average size, so I'd expect a species norn average as larger than human (but no estimation of how much larger, due to insufficient data).

I would not make any judgment on behavior, culture, speech capability (but certainly expect capacity for vocalization, because physical production of audible sounds from the throat is fairly common to animals)."

That's basically as much as I would venture to expect, if such an entity were to be proven to exist.

But this description: "*9 feet tall, 500 lbs, runs 30 mph on two legs or 4, glowing eyes, conical head, covered with hair, non opposable thumbs, no fire or tools, midtarsal break, 4-6 toes, strangely shaped feet, no neck, no clothes, no shelters, non modern human proportions, etc" I would regard as a straw man invention, and certainly would never endorse.

I would be curious to know what others here actually expect such a suspected entity to be, as much as you can confidently explain your expectation of an anatomical description.

Bill

Oh, Bill you are a hoot. Nothing to keep you occupied on the Patterson film? well, by all means start accusing me of all sorts of things, whatever brings you pleasure is great with me.

For example: the irony of accusing a skeptic of hyperfanciful descriptions of bigfoot has once again broken the meter.

But if you start boning up on the rest of the bigfoot legend, instead of shooting from the hip, you'll find that, for example, W. Henner Fahrenbach, Ph.D.,found:

The statistics suggest an average height for the population of 7'10"...

Then move on to the weight chart, where we see a 7 ft 11 inch bigfoot would likely weigh in at

670 lbs.

But don't let that bother you...proceed to try and make bigfoot into a modern human...just about the size of Bob Hieronimus. Use whatever data you can find. Apply your version of probability theory. Accuse me of whatever you like. I think it's hilarious to hear that I made bigfoot into an unbelievable creature.

p.

ps I think bigfoot genetics needs your expertise also.

Edited December 12, 2011 by parnassus

[Bill]

parnassus:

So you are going to blow smoke and not simply answer one question, which is "did you make that list of traits or were you quoting another person who formulated the list"?

That's all I'm asking. One simple answer to one simple question.

Bill

[Guest]

If Bigfoot does exist, I think it will not be what most folks have come to believe. Much smaller, less heavy and hairy.

One class of these creatures on our continent, was left out of this field guide ( which I own a copy of ) .

I think .. 6. Unknown Pongids -- 5 to 8 feet tall apes, is much too vague of a description.

9. Unknown thin Hominids or Pongids -- 4 to 6 feet tall. Can blend into trees, and run like the devil.. silently through dense forest. Reported for centuries, from New England to Appalachia.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Trying to describe a "Typical Bigfoot" would be akin to lining up one human from each of the racial, ethnic, and tribal groups in the world and trying to describe a "Typical Human".

My description is as plain as i could be, i think it is Giganto, i have no idea what they really do but since they are animals, in my mind i would think they do all the same things other animals do so i put a few animal related tid bits in there i believe they do.

Humble ~ Because they seem to be in the reports, they sure have had chances to tear people up but choose not too.

Omnivore ~ Cause of the large bulk and strength protein would be needed.

Migrate ~ Many large animals do and it has been suggested they do by a few of the PHD'S studying this subject.

Strong ~ Well that's kinda a given

Upright ~ Also a given

Blend In ~ Well anything that can turn and walk into a forest and vanish is blending in pretty well.

Social ~ Yup they have been seen in groups of young and old.

Well that about does it, please tune in for more exciting and helpful RRS post's "As The World Turns"

Tim ~

Edit : Hey you should be picking on BobZenor, look at the list of BF stuff he has going on ~

Edited December 12, 2011 by RedRatSnake

[Guest toejam]

This is a great descriptive class A involving a 15 minute observation.

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=29980

Edited December 12, 2011 by toejam

[Guest RayG]

Ray:

My only concern is who made the list Parnassus posted?

I have to say you've heightened my suspicion that you're not familiar with the variety of characteristics that witnesses report. Descriptions of bigfoot vary from state to state, province to province, and witness to witness, so it may be rather difficult to come up with a list that would satisfy you. And just which witness description should be used as the default description anyway? One from British Columbia? Or Ohio? Or California?

I suspect Parn may have made the list himself, based on characteristics described by witnesses, and chronicled by people such as John Green, Rene Dahinden, and others. No inventing by Parn required.

I ask again, which of those characteristics are you having an issue with? Or is it because Parn presented the list? I ask because if I were to come up with a description of bigfoot, it may very well closely resemble the one Parn has given. I can easily find reports that describe whatever it is you've not heard of before. Four toes, running as fast as a car, glowing eyes, conical head, etc. (Though I find it hard to believe you've never heard those characteristics mentioned before Parn's list.)

In fact, by implying that Parn's list is fanciful or invented, it sounds like you're the one engaging in a straw-man argument.

Have you read any of the books authored by John Green? They contain dozens, if not hundreds, of reports. Another good one for the sheer number of reports is the Bigfoot Casebook Updated.

I'd like to know how you think we can discern the difference between a 'straw man' description and a 'real' description of bigfoot anyway?

RayG

[Bill]

Excuse me, Ray, but I asked one simple question.

Did parnassus make the list or did he quote some other person who made the list. If the latter, please source for us.

What is so difficult about getting a straight answer for that question, from the man who posted the statement?

Everything else is just a smokescreen.

Bill

Edited December 12, 2011 by Bill

[Guest Primate]

The list Parn gives is not representitive of the majority of reports and I believe you both know that . In this case I believe a "straw man" is clearly a composite of less reported events assembled as a kind of caricature .

[Guest BuzzardEater]

I think that describing the species is complicated by the fact that this species is in a state of flux. It is my understanding that these creatures evolved to exploit a vanished ecological niche. North America's natural trees included some species now logged into extinction. These giants took hundreds of years to grow to great heights. A good sized tree in 1200 ad would be unimaginably tall by our standards. Hundreds of feet tall. High in the canopies of these groves existed a complete ecology now vanished. Specialized insect, birds and mosses, for example are now utterly gone.

On the forest floor large food species are completely gone. Woodland bison, the larger variant of the plains buffalo are utterly gone and cannot be resurrected. DNA studies of heirloom herds has revealed they are all hybrids.

Smaller food items like rodents are also gone as are entire ecologies like the long grass prairies.

The Sasquatch are a refugee species now and adapting at an accelerated rate. Giant hugely muscled males will be bred out, as they no longer prey on huge buffalo or climb hundreds of feet into the forest canopy.

Slender less bulky strains will be better adapted to smaller trees and game. This sort of change is going on right now, leading to apparent conflicts. In fact, I suggest that there are many variations as nature fires scattershot at the environment, hoping to hit a suitable match.

[Guest HucksterFoot]

Trying to describe a "Typical Bigfoot" would be akin to lining up one human from each of the racial, ethnic, and tribal groups in the world and trying to describe a "Typical Human".

Racial/Race is a cultural concept; not a biological reality.

We are all Homo sapiens sapiens. There is no such thing as racial groups in the human species. :]

[Guest HucksterFoot]

Giant hugely muscled males will be bred out, as they no longer prey on huge buffalo or climb hundreds of feet into the forest canopy. Slender less bulky strains will be better adapted to smaller trees and game.

Do you mean that the hugely muscled males will not be as successful in the changing environment and will die out? Are you suggesting a goal oriented process? Just not sure what you mean with "will be bred out".

[Guest BuzzardEater]

Do you mean that the hugely muscled males will not be as successful in the changing environment and will die out? Are you suggesting a goal oriented process? Just not sure what you mean with "will be bred out".

Right. I'm thinking only survivors breed. To be the leader of a family group you probably need to prove yourself. Poor hunters don't wed.

I might be evading a point you are making, are you suggesting they are bred? I have thought of that, too. They might be possessors of a gene that can be bred for. I never have heard any of the scientific people suggest that, though. It seems as possible as anything else, to me.

[Guest]

Nobody has mentioned the descriptions and sketches of Harvey Pratt. If any of you have read David Paulides' books and seen Harvey's sketches, you get a sense of just how human they are. No one has ever taken that approach to Bigfoot investigating to my knowledge. He IS a renowned sketch artist and each witness signed an affidavit and said without a doubt that is what they saw. I myself was sort of dissapointed when I saw those sketches compared to what I have always thought Bigfoot looked like. Especially the PGF. However, I believe they do not all share the same physical characteristics based on reading so many witness description. I believe there are several variations of Sasquatch. If some of the native lore about female abductions is true, that could have begun a Bigfoot/human hybrid line giving some way more human looks. Just my opinion.