Bigfoot: Does It Exist? Or Not?

[Guest DWA]

^^^That is gonna keep on happening.  It may be that fossil finds will convince the mainstream that sasquatch is inevitable before an actual body convinces them it's real.

[dmaker]

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. 

Edited September 17, 2015 by dmaker

[AaronD]

A body would be a better authenticity marker.

 

I agree--BUT, if you did get lucky and get a body (either by dropping it yourself or find a carcass), what might happen if you called the authorities? Would you call them? Or who would you call? If they resembled a human, might you be afraid of prosecution if, say, you shot it or smacked it with your vehicle? Just like the giant skeletons, might "authorities" come and confiscate the body and tell you to say nothing or else? Perhaps this very thing has happened--some people fear ridicule after just a sighting, how much more would they fear if the "law" told them to shuddup or else??? We wouldn't know, now would we? Sure, pictures might be snapped with a phone and sent to FB or Twitter but of the ones we do see how many do we take seriously?

[Guest DWA]

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.

[roguefooter]

 

^It says in the article that it's a genetic defect that only effects a portion of the tribe. They're not feet that are shaped by the environment. Like I said before there are always anomalies within a species, but those are not the standard of the species. Bigfoot tracks are so varied that there doesn't seem to be a group of specific details that would be the definitive standard, aside from that they're big and most have 5 toes.

Hold on here..... your not squirming out of this one. A good percentage of this tribe displays abnormalities with their feet, because of inbreeding. You said nothing about the environment you simply stated you do not see three toed cajuns running around.

It is entirely plausible that pockets of Sasquatch cut off from the rest of the gene pool are losing digits based on the fact they are forced to inbreed. It could be the whole population or a good portion thereof.

I disagree that Bigfoot tracks are varied outside the norm of a single species other than tracks that display three toes. And I think I've given a reasonable explanation for why those are found as well.

 

 

Squirming out? Yes we were talking about environmental changes- you need to start reading the comments that I'm responding to (post 435). I was debating with JDL and that's what we were talking about when you came into the conversation.

Edited September 18, 2015 by roguefooter

[norseman]

No I'm reading things just fine.

 

JDL said this in the quote you responded too.

 

Another group may be inbred to a large degree and have genetic deformities.

 

The fact of the matter is JDL made a perfectly rational post and you slandered it as preposterous with your three toed Cajun comment. Well guess what? HE IS RIGHT.

 

Evidently to you every specimen of every species on the planet has to have cookie cutter look alike feet or you smell a hoax. I've pointed out to you that there are many different variations of human feet in a normal condition........let alone inbreeding or skew foot or other abnormalities.

 

And yet you still continue with this line of reasoning? It's befuddling to say the least.

 

[roguefooter]

^Again you're not following the conversation.

 

The debate was about this comment made by JDL:

 

There's plenty of evidence out there, and when assembled it doesn't add up to a body, but it sure enough adds up to a silhouette of an extant hominid where one is indicated to be.

 

 

I had already brought up anomalies and deformities in this post #421:

 

Sure there are anomalies within species, but unless you want to count every single Squatch as being an anomaly then it doesn't make much sense.

 

 

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.

Edited September 18, 2015 by roguefooter

[JDL]

We are looking for a type specimen that fits within the silhouette defined by the available evidence.

[norseman]

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.

 

I think that is the first thing that you have said that has made sense in quite sometime.....

[dmaker]

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.

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? 

No I'm reading things just fine.

 

JDL said this in the quote you responded too.

 

Another group may be inbred to a large degree and have genetic deformities.

 

The fact of the matter is JDL made a perfectly rational post and you slandered it as preposterous with your three toed Cajun comment. Well guess what? HE IS RIGHT.

 

Evidently to you every specimen of every species on the planet has to have cookie cutter look alike feet or you smell a hoax. I've pointed out to you that there are many different variations of human feet in a normal condition........let alone inbreeding or skew foot or other abnormalities.

 

And yet you still continue with this line of reasoning? It's befuddling to say the least.

 

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.

Edited September 18, 2015 by dmaker

[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.

[Cotter]

 

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.

 

 

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.

[norseman]

Dmaker,

Well? Are they worried about populations of Grizzly Bear and other species and how fragmented they have become? Absolutely.

This is why we see them proposing things like Y to Y.

http://y2y.net

We have no idea if fragmented populations of Sasquatch would have foot abnormalities, but we do know that this could be the case with Human inbreeding. It's my understanding that three toed tracks and such are mostly documented in the deep south from Texas to Florida.

But the part that really blows me away is when skeptics look at normal Sasquatch casts and discuss how toes can be different and that is somehow indicative of a hoax? Really? Look at the human foot!!! I have an Egyptian foot and I think I look pretty normal compare to my best friends feet which are Greek and he is a size 14 and his second toe sticks out there like a finger. Way way above his big toe. Someone else posted pictures of human feet that were barefoot all their life, in which the toes are much more splayed.

And lastly I've posted pictures of my own sons feet that change from footprint to footprint based on his action at the time and the interactions with the ground.

I think in this particular case the skeptics protest too much. We are not seeing anything outside the parameter of Biology. But too be fair Biology can be a pretty strange place at times......

As a hunter I'm not nearly as interest in the tracks as what the tracks do.

Edited September 18, 2015 by norseman

[Bodhi]

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.

[Guest DWA]

 

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.

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? 

 

Pot Meet Kettle, Type Specimen.^^^  Can you imagine an older line than "no proof" ...5,000 times?  "No one here has posted but me and here's me...AGAIN" ...FIVE.THOUSAND.TIMES?

 

Just sayin' there.

 

While we're on black holes and [mirror!] top-grade intellectuals, black holes are probably huge aliens sipping from our universe with straws, n'est-ce pas?  *Maybe* not.  *Maybe.*  But we're all relying on people who wear sandals with socks they can't get to match who have put up a whole buncha equations that no one but they understand, telling us about something no human is ever likely to see and ...and...and...wait for it...WAIT FOR IT ...AND [LAUGHS SO HARD ALL HIS WINDOWS BREAK OH THIS IS GONNA BE SOME MONEY...]

 

.......NO HUMAN CAN EVER SEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  [sHOOT MY LAUGHTER JUST DISLODGED SOME BRICKS gotta call an engineer on this one]

 

meanwhile an animal thousands are seeing is leaving tracks that all evidence - examined by primate and footprint specialists mind - says are being left by, yup, that animal.

 

in other words...evidence for sasquatch is far better than that for black holes.

 

[let's see if he reads this]

 

 

No I'm reading things just fine.

 

JDL said this in the quote you responded too.

 

Another group may be inbred to a large degree and have genetic deformities.

 

The fact of the matter is JDL made a perfectly rational post and you slandered it as preposterous with your three toed Cajun comment. Well guess what? HE IS RIGHT.

 

Never mind that most of the variation is explained by *what we know right now about the tracks primates' feet leave right now, as in all known ones.*

 

Evidently to you every specimen of every species on the planet has to have cookie cutter look alike feet or you smell a hoax. I've pointed out to you that there are many different variations of human feet in a normal condition........let alone inbreeding or skew foot or other abnormalities.

 

There is nothing relevant to this topic that bigfoot skeptics seem to understand a thing about...but tracks may be the worst.  No...wait a minute...

 

And yet you still continue with this line of reasoning? It's befuddling to say the least.

 

Five.Thousand.POSTS...