Bigfoot: Does It Exist? Or Not?

[bfriendly]

^^^I know that this is a logical argument but it's not the one I prefer.

 

Of the ones I have read, here are the possibilities:  major drug experience; major mental malfunction; major big fat lie...or what the witness says they saw.

 

A lifetime spent around animals and humans and wilderness tells me that not even a significant percentage of the reports are the first three things.

 

Not sure why it needs to be so complicated...........it is complicated enough for me merely because there is no Body in possession for all to see and touch. However, it is such a simple idea I see no reason to NOT believe its real. or at least put my "I think so' odds in the highest of the ninety percentiles.

As far as differences? Same as humans with many variables. No two look exactly alike kind of features. My thoughts are leaning towards Gigantopithicus decendant. Again, we have a perfect statue of Giganto, but if there were 3 or 4 REAL ones standing next to each other, you could certainly tell major differences. Especially with a creature so immense.

I'm a simple man.  I totally believe simply due to it being possible/probable.........its such a simple notion a Caveman could believe it

[dmaker]

The statue of Giganto is far from perfect. The reconstruction is based on a partial jaw bone and a couple of teeth. The actual animal could have looked much different. 

[AaronD]

^^ Agreed! I'm still waiting for evidence to convince me T-rex wasn't just a giant kangaroo...

[Guest DWA]

 

^^^I know that this is a logical argument but it's not the one I prefer.

 

Of the ones I have read, here are the possibilities:  major drug experience; major mental malfunction; major big fat lie...or what the witness says they saw.

 

A lifetime spent around animals and humans and wilderness tells me that not even a significant percentage of the reports are the first three things.

 

Not sure why it needs to be so complicated...........it is complicated enough for me merely because there is no Body in possession for all to see and touch. However, it is such a simple idea I see no reason to NOT believe its real. or at least put my "I think so' odds in the highest of the ninety percentiles.

As far as differences? Same as humans with many variables. No two look exactly alike kind of features. My thoughts are leaning towards Gigantopithicus decendant. Again, we have a perfect statue of Giganto, but if there were 3 or 4 REAL ones standing next to each other, you could certainly tell major differences. Especially with a creature so immense.

I'm a simple man.  I totally believe simply due to it being possible/probable.........its such a simple notion a Caveman could believe it

 

It amounts to a bedrock scientific principle that if there is no reason to believe something...there is no reason to believe it.

 

For anyone acquainted with the evidence there is much reason to believe there's an animal - at least one - that has evaded our cataloging process.  There is absolutely no reason to believe otherwise, and note that I said "for anyone acquainted with the evidence."

 

It is thus no mystery that no one who is so informed comes down on the negative side of this discussion.

[Bodhi]

 

 

 

 

Sigh:  I hope this puts to rest the myth that no potential sasquatch scat exists.  There's plenty of scat out there that is found in association with sightings and tracks that does not conform to known animals, as I said earlier.

 

http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/html/more_evidence_that_bigfoot_exi.html short version of Ivan Sanderson description of analysis, 1968.  Other Photos.

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/scat.htm comparative photos

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=22358  Someone with a similar experience to mine, though he didn't see or interact with it.

 

https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=168451576528987 A comparative video, 5 plus minutes.

 

https://bigfoothistory.wordpress.com/tag/bigfoot-scat/ second account on the page is about a published and tenured anthropologist with a collection of bigfoot scat, just to establish here that there are actual scientists collecting this stuff.

 

https://bigfoothistory.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/1998-marble-mountain-wilderness-california-man-collects-bigfoot-scat/ weird scat-related account.  I consider the credibility of this marginal.

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=8259  An account from a PhD. Physiologist also witnessed by a veterinarian.  The Physiologist gives his credentials for your verification.

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/argosy.htm  a longer version of Sanderson's analysis.

 

http://www.alamas.ru/eng/publicat/DNA_of_Bigfoot_e.htm  A rollup of various DNA finding predating the Ketchum analysis.  Note that the conclusion here is that bigfoot DNA is part human.

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.

I won't try to convince anyone of my encounter, but does the Patterson-Gimlin film not seal-the-deal in terms of its existence? There is no-way the anatomy of what we see on the film matches that of any human being, not to mention there are not one, but two "Sasquatch" subject viewable in the film. 

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.

 

 

You know, Bodhi, you've gone around the bend ridiculous.  First you guys claim that there are no scat, nests, hair samples or other physical evidence associated with either sightings or tracks.  Then we provide documentation of scat, nests, hair samples found in association with sightings and tracks that when analyzed do not match any known animal, but are consistently determined to be most closely identifiable to human or primate samples​,  then you claim that the scat and hair tested and found to not be that of any known animal, but still most closely related to human or primate samples, is just random scat and hair with no link to the sightings or footprints.

 

DWA and Norseman are right.  You apparently do not read the material that is posted.  I can only assume that your goal is to disrupt rather than to debate.

 

I heartily encourage you try to add more value to this forum that you are currently offering.

 

A real actual black hole - something no one has ever seen for something we all accept - would be a coooooool authenticity marker, too.

 

dmaker.

 

Sheesh.  Some people.

'Course now this is the difference between those of us on the thrilling cutting edge of science...and people who seem to be nothing but frustrated by the whole thing.

 

I'll take my position, thanks.

Well, black holes haven't been directly photographed yet but we can see the lensing affect they create as they bend light. That is science. It was an effect predicted by Einstein and further studies proved the theory to be correct. What predictive theories from the sasquatch community have proved to be correct? range/habitat? migration? diet? how many animals in shown in the PGF? What have all those casts that meldrum owns led to; how has whatever information he's gleaned been used to help in the search?

 

You used black holes to make a flippant and disparaging commen,t and I know you aren't to be taken seriously, but still it's a silly comment. The lensing observed as the gravity of supermassive objects been light is far more empirical evidence than has ever been associated with the monster.

 

 

So black holes are something that we haven't seen, but define based on the secondary evidence that they generate.  Perhaps they are a silhouette of something defined by the available evidence too.  Why is this logic valid for black holes, but not bigfoot.?

 

Black holes, affect the light which passes in front of them. Black holes "interact" with other matter, sasquatches don't. No scat, no hair, no blood, no bone, no fossils.

 

And - Claiming you have scat that you think is sasquatch may be sufficient evidence for you, it doesn't even approach evidence for me. IF someone ever produces a sample which legit science states is from a primate, even if they find some from a modern primate here in the u.s., that would be interesting.

And lastly, thanks for your suggestions. I promise you I will give them all the attention they deserve.

[JDL]

 

 

 

 

 

Sigh:  I hope this puts to rest the myth that no potential sasquatch scat exists.  There's plenty of scat out there that is found in association with sightings and tracks that does not conform to known animals, as I said earlier.

 

http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/html/more_evidence_that_bigfoot_exi.html short version of Ivan Sanderson description of analysis, 1968.  Other Photos.

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/scat.htm comparative photos

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=22358  Someone with a similar experience to mine, though he didn't see or interact with it.

 

https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=168451576528987 A comparative video, 5 plus minutes.

 

https://bigfoothistory.wordpress.com/tag/bigfoot-scat/ second account on the page is about a published and tenured anthropologist with a collection of bigfoot scat, just to establish here that there are actual scientists collecting this stuff.

 

https://bigfoothistory.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/1998-marble-mountain-wilderness-california-man-collects-bigfoot-scat/ weird scat-related account.  I consider the credibility of this marginal.

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=8259  An account from a PhD. Physiologist also witnessed by a veterinarian.  The Physiologist gives his credentials for your verification.

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/argosy.htm  a longer version of Sanderson's analysis.

 

http://www.alamas.ru/eng/publicat/DNA_of_Bigfoot_e.htm  A rollup of various DNA finding predating the Ketchum analysis.  Note that the conclusion here is that bigfoot DNA is part human.

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.

I won't try to convince anyone of my encounter, but does the Patterson-Gimlin film not seal-the-deal in terms of its existence? There is no-way the anatomy of what we see on the film matches that of any human being, not to mention there are not one, but two "Sasquatch" subject viewable in the film. 

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.

 

 

You know, Bodhi, you've gone around the bend ridiculous.  First you guys claim that there are no scat, nests, hair samples or other physical evidence associated with either sightings or tracks.  Then we provide documentation of scat, nests, hair samples found in association with sightings and tracks that when analyzed do not match any known animal, but are consistently determined to be most closely identifiable to human or primate samples​,  then you claim that the scat and hair tested and found to not be that of any known animal, but still most closely related to human or primate samples, is just random scat and hair with no link to the sightings or footprints.

 

DWA and Norseman are right.  You apparently do not read the material that is posted.  I can only assume that your goal is to disrupt rather than to debate.

 

I heartily encourage you try to add more value to this forum that you are currently offering.

 

A real actual black hole - something no one has ever seen for something we all accept - would be a coooooool authenticity marker, too.

 

dmaker.

 

Sheesh.  Some people.

'Course now this is the difference between those of us on the thrilling cutting edge of science...and people who seem to be nothing but frustrated by the whole thing.

 

I'll take my position, thanks.

Well, black holes haven't been directly photographed yet but we can see the lensing affect they create as they bend light. That is science. It was an effect predicted by Einstein and further studies proved the theory to be correct. What predictive theories from the sasquatch community have proved to be correct? range/habitat? migration? diet? how many animals in shown in the PGF? What have all those casts that meldrum owns led to; how has whatever information he's gleaned been used to help in the search?

 

You used black holes to make a flippant and disparaging commen,t and I know you aren't to be taken seriously, but still it's a silly comment. The lensing observed as the gravity of supermassive objects been light is far more empirical evidence than has ever been associated with the monster.

 

 

So black holes are something that we haven't seen, but define based on the secondary evidence that they generate.  Perhaps they are a silhouette of something defined by the available evidence too.  Why is this logic valid for black holes, but not bigfoot.?

 

Black holes, affect the light which passes in front of them. Black holes "interact" with other matter, sasquatches don't. No scat, no hair, no blood, no bone, no fossils.

 

And - Claiming you have scat that you think is sasquatch may be sufficient evidence for you, it doesn't even approach evidence for me. IF someone ever produces a sample which legit science states is from a primate, even if they find some from a modern primate here in the u.s., that would be interesting.

And lastly, thanks for your suggestions. I promise you I will give them all the attention they deserve.

 

 

Dude, your last statements here have no validity whatsoever.  You believe bigfoot doesn't exist, so you state these things as if they are fact.  They are nothing more than your own opinion, and happen to once again disclose both your bias and lack of objectivity.

[Guest DWA]

"Black holes, affect the light which passes in front of them. Black holes "interact" with other matter, sasquatches don't. No scat, no hair, no blood, no bone, no fossils.

 

We don't know what is affecting the light that "passes in front of black holes" because *no one has ever seen one.*  I think it's God sucking from our universe through a straw.  Prove me wrong.

 

Black holes are a picture people have derived from something they cannot see...but lots of cool equations!  *Footprints* are *footprints.*  What experts say they are means:  them over you.

 

And - Claiming you have scat that you think is sasquatch may be sufficient evidence for you, it doesn't even approach evidence for me.

 

But don't we see much reason that stuff that, you know, *science* counts as evidence doesn't even approach evidence *for you.*  No worries...*for us.*

[Faenor]

As far as black holes go not everyone believes they exist. I think there are even some physicists working to prove they don't exist. The idea for black holes was born from working within einsteins relativity theory. What is known or suspected is mostly theoretical.

The difference between black holes and Bigfoot is there is no real reason to think black holes don't exist at the moment. Any one acquainted with the evidence for Bigfoot or the giant "black hole" of lack of evidence has lots of reasons to suspect Bigfoot does not exist. It's why most people reject the idea of bigfoots existence.

Also Bigfoot is supposedly bumbling around our backyards digging in dumpsters, porposing in the ocean, throwing rocks at cabins while black holes are light years away in outer space. If people lived in outer space and there was supposed encounters and flimsy evidence but no actual black holes to be found then I'm sure most would reject black holes as well.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Black holes were predicted and the are confirmed events taking place in our Galaxy to confirm their existence.  Turns out they are rather common too.  Furthermore the events they precipitate can only be attributed to a massive gravitational field of such and object.  Bigfoot OTOH Bigfoot leaves virtually no signs of it's presence aside from the occasional track or photo (which can be easily faked) or arcane things like stick structures and rock stacking which humans can easily undertake.  Tree breaks and branch breaks are again something other animals can do or whether conditions and human activity.  When people find tracks out in the boonies and claim that they must be real because nobody would be out there well to that I say the person who found the tracks was "out there" so that defeats the nobody would go out there. Why make bigfoot tracks in the middle of nowhere?  For the same reason people put messages in bottles and set them adrift at sea.  It's fun and makes the folks wonder upon discovery.  Is there any unique thing a bigfoot does that confirms it's existence?  

Edited September 21, 2015 by Crowlogic

[Incorrigible1]

If only DWA had read as many black hole reports, he'd know they must exist.

[Guest Crowlogic]

"Black holes, affect the light which passes in front of them. Black holes "interact" with other matter, sasquatches don't. No scat, no hair, no blood, no bone, no fossils.

 

We don't know what is affecting the light that "passes in front of black holes" because *no one has ever seen one.*  I think it's God sucking from our universe through a straw.  Prove me wrong.

 

Black holes are a picture people have derived from something they cannot see...but lots of cool equations!  *Footprints* are *footprints.*  What experts say they are means:  them over you.

 

And - Claiming you have scat that you think is sasquatch may be sufficient evidence for you, it doesn't even approach evidence for me.

 

But don't we see much reason that stuff that, you know, *science* counts as evidence doesn't even approach evidence *for you.*  No worries...*for us.*

Ahhhh we do know how light is effected by a black hole.  We also know that a black hole cannot be directly seen.  What can be seen, measured and studied is the event horizon around a black hole.    

[Old Dog]

I think this whole argument is a giant black hole.  Some people believe, some don't, neither one will ever convince the other of their position.  Think for yourself and believe the way you wish and let others do the same.

[Guest DWA]

Yep, pretty much that.

 

(If you dispute the experts?  and the thousands who have seen one?  Them over you.)

 

It's real.  Science and I say so.  I'm more important to me, obviously.  And the only thing that will move me is the only thing that matters:  evidence.

 

OK.  Next!

Edited September 22, 2015 by DWA

[Guest 67Mopar]

I don't know what these things are, but I suspect they have been (covertly) studied with great precision. When one considers the era it was filmed, if the PGF is a hoax, it is the most amazing display of special-effects ever perpetrated on the public! I will postulate that "Sasquatch" is a logical extension, or remnants of prehistoric man, which is not extinct, but survives to this very day. This presents a huge problem for "evolutionists" who dictate what is, and what is not considered "acceptable science" by the intelligentsia. 

 

If governments are keeping information regarding these creatures suppressed, I would not necessarily disagree with such a policy. Imagine the public reaction to the confirmed existence of Sasquatch... Pandemonium! Not only would it cause mass panic, it would ruin the mystery. I don't think there's anything for me to add to this forum, that hasn't already been said.

 

I don't know who was at the door of our trailer? Whoever it was, had a lot of nerve to walk onto the property of a hunting lodge at 4:00 am  attempting to open the door. He must have been carrying a foot-stool with him, since that's what it would take to completely cover a window 9 feet off the ground! 

 

"It was weather balloons, Ian. Weather balloons..." 

Edited September 22, 2015 by 67Mopar
to bring to compliance with rules

[Faenor]

! I will postulate that "Sasquatch" is a logical extension, or remnants of prehistoric man, which is not extinct, but survives to this very day. This presents a huge problem for "evolutionists" who dictate what is, and what is not considered "acceptable science" by the intelligentsia. 

 

 

This would create no problems and scientists or the "evolutionists" as you call them would be chomping at the bit to figure out exactly where this prehistoric man fits into the general scheme of things.  If cthulhu rose from the briny depths and declared, and was in fact, the master of the universe and mankind this would not be a problem.  Scientists would realign their theories and world views and begin to study the new age of cthulhu and whatever that entails.