Bigfoot: Does It Exist? Or Not?

[Guest DWA]

[napkin]

[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).

[dmaker]

[napkin]

Got a bit crow on your chin?

[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.

[Guest 67Mopar]

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. 

[dmaker]

I don't consider the BFRO to be a paragon of objectivity.

[Rockape]

Yeah, they tend to believe too easily. But I think they file these reports unless they are obviously of dubious source.

[dmaker]

Two subjects in the PGF?  Huh?

[JDL]

I will say that, given the subject matter, scientists are usually careful in their reporting.  Note that the nest article uses the term "alleged" to refer to the nests.  I can find nothing in it that is overtly subjective.  If the fact that it was posted on the BFRO disqualifies it, as opposed to examining its content objectively, then there's not much I can say.

 

Personally, I don't agree with everything the BFRO puts forth, but I do try to look at each thing they offer objectively.

[norseman]

Then there is that pesky double ball thingy.  Arron posted  Dr. Jeff holding one of his favorite casts and it's a  single ball foot.  Double ball is known to be an invention of hoaxer deluxe Raymond Wallace sooooo why and how can some folks accept double ball foot at all?  BTW this is a great view as well as a wake up call..

 

 

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.

[JDL]

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. 

 

 

I'm unfamiliar with a second subject in the film.  National Geographic aired a modern biomechanical analysis of the subject in the film a couple of years ago and did conclude that it was not a person in a suit.

[Rockape]

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?

 

 

No

[Guest DWA]

 

 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

 

This, pretty much.  Fact is that every kind of evidence animals leave has been found in compelling conjunction with sasquatch encounters.  Whether it has been tested is irrelevant.  If one insists upon "that encounter is anecdotal and probably did not happen," well that is the kind of attitude that keeps science stuck in the mud, and that no true scientist would tolerate.

 

 

 

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. 

 

The Patterson-Gimlin film leaves no one fully cognizant of the evidence supporting it as genuinely capable of compellingly arguing that sasquatch don't exist, particularly in conjunction with the rest of the evidence, with which the film could not in any conceivable universe dovetail more neatly than it does, and done.

 

I will say that, given the subject matter, scientists are usually careful in their reporting.  Note that the nest article uses the term "alleged" to refer to the nests.  I can find nothing in it that is overtly subjective.  If the fact that it was posted on the BFRO disqualifies it, as opposed to examining its content objectively, then there's not much I can say.

 

Personally, I don't agree with everything the BFRO puts forth, but I do try to look at each thing they offer objectively.

This is the only way to look at it.  Only people incapable of truly critical thought habitually toss babies with bathwater.  There is no possible reason for anyone to discount reports made on the BFRO website as a whole.  None.  

 

Reading those reports, in the main, and NAWAC's before I started in on the proponent scientists, I was struck by how closely my conclusions aligned with theirs...particularly when much of their discussion centered on the John Green database, of which I had not read many at that time.  One cannot find a better authenticity marker than that one.

Edited September 17, 2015 by DWA

[dmaker]

A body would be a better authenticity marker.

[norseman]

Better? BEST.

 

But I'd settle for a fossilized tooth or finger bone.

 

And what about those Denisovians! It's been determined that native Americans have Denisovian DNA in them along with Australians and Melanasians. They bushy hominoid tree is getting bushier AND closer!