Bigfoot: Does It Exist? Or Not?

[dmaker]

We get it, DWA. Bigfoot is real because you read about it on the Internet.  Good for you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's rather humorous that you present a ridiculous scenario where believing scientists about the existence of black holes, despite evidence and consensus, is laughable and naive. Yet, it's okay to believe in bigfoot because thousands of anonymous strangers say so, despite any conclusive evidence. 

 

Er, ok. 

Edited September 18, 2015 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

No.  It's real because of what you could read.  And think about.  Which are, clearly...not options, eh.

[dmaker]

How many times do you need to be corrected about what I have read? At this point you can only be deliberately presenting this falsehood in attempt to troll. Pretty sure that is frowned upon around here.

Edited September 18, 2015 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

DUDE!  Zero credible attempts to critically assess what you have read = WHO.THE.FREAK.CARES?

Ah, it's like old times, isn't it?  I'm doing it here because BETTER NOT HAPPEN ON ANOTHER THREAD.

[Guest DWA]

Are you honestly telling me that what I see here stems directly from your reading ...and that this does not speak for itself?

[dmaker]

DUDE!  Zero credible attempts to critically assess what you have read = WHO.THE.FREAK.CARES?

Ah, it's like old times, isn't it?  I'm doing it here because BETTER NOT HAPPEN ON ANOTHER THREAD.

If it's a case of who cares, then why do you obsess over what skeptics have read? If no one cares, then stop harping on about it. Especially when you have been presented with lists of books that skeptics have read, yet persist in telling people to read.

 

 

What you see here absolutely stems from my reading. I see nothing in Meldrum or Bindernagel to suggest that bigfoot is anything more than a myth.The bigfoot hypothesis is a decades old non starter. I find the available alternative explanations for alleged bigfoot evidence to be provisionally satisfactory. Until such time as a body or skeletal remains are presented, I see no reason to give bigfoot any serious scientific attention.

 

 

 

 

For the record, I don't appreciate all caps warnings from you. I am doing fine staying on topic in other threads. You might want to heed your own warnings. I have seen more than once, outside of this thread recently, where you have attempted to derail a thread with your anti skeptic campaign. 

Edited September 18, 2015 by dmaker

[Guest Crowlogic]

Rather than quote a single poster about the print'track argument I'll offer this a a yardstick of sorts.. I spent about a minute downloading random photos of human feet .  I don't know where these feet were photographed, who they belong to or what they do in the day to day.  However it is reasonable to say that these feet came from a decent cross section of people.  Take a look and yes you'll find differences.  But what you won't find is the huge discrepancies that show up in bigfoot feet.  You can ask your 5 year old what those are photos of and the 5 year old will tell you what they are.  I doubt there is any species that shows the morph variety that bigfoot exhibits. This nonsense about single ball foot, double ball foot, three toe, five toe, four toe, morph age changing, mid tarsal break etc is indicative of there not being a real biological entity out there making the tracks.  It is indicative of a human using their imagination and ideas on what they percieve as a bigfoot track making a bigfoot track.  Do yourself a favor find some photos of wolf tracks or .......gasp human tracks and reacquaint yourselves with the way nature tends to sculpt the details of species and the consistency with which nature does it.

 

  

No.  It's real because of what you could read.  And think about.  Which are, clearly...not options, eh.

And it's unreal by what YOU could read!

[Guest DWA]

The case for sasquatch, impeccably made, one guy, one report.

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=26750

 

You know that when he says he is a scientist, he is (and not just some blinkered techie with a science degree); this report could not show better how a scientist thinks about stuff. 

 

(Oh, yeah, the calls.  Sure, could have been sasquatch.  I'd trust this guy more than most.  No, they weren't people; you have never heard people in the woods if you disagree.)

(Oh yeah, could be something else.  See, how you do this science thing is:  you rule out possibilities by assessing *probabilities.*  Then you assess against what you know.  See, this is how you know they weren't people.  And probably not anything else we know about.)

(No, it's not proof.  Not sure how many times I am gonna have to go over how to think about stuff with some folk.  But learn, and you will have more fun with this than many of you are having.  And know more, too, and always be on the right track when thinking about this.)

(Thank you.)

[Rockape]

The last bit of that report could have been written by someone we all know, except they are only a self-appointed scientist. .

 

 

 

I am a scientist. I have a Chemical Engineering degree, and I have been actively practicing the profession for 24 years in the plastics and chemical industries. For those readers of this story who approach nearly every aspect of your life with a strong scientific bent like I do, you already know that Sasquatch exists. You have seen the Patterson/Gimlin film from the late 1960’s near the California/Oregon border, and you know it could not have been a hoax. The animal videoed was a real, in-the-flesh adult female Sasquatch. You have further educated yourself with the stories from thousands of people over the decades and centuries who have described seeing a creature with a remarkably consistent set of features – large, tall, hairy, muscular, wide shoulders, no neck, cone head, long arms, big feet, smelly. Your knowledge of the fundamentals (or the entire science) of statistics tells you plainly that the probability that all of these thousands of people are wrong is essentially nil.

And then you think more about the multitude of reports. One person is not reporting seeing a white elephant here, another a purple tiger there, and yet another a green velociraptor somewhere else.

They are all seeing a Sasquatch – a large, tall, hairy, muscular, … creature.

[dmaker]

The case for sasquatch, impeccably made, one guy, one report.

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=26750

 

You know that when he says he is a scientist, he is (and not just some blinkered techie with a science degree); this report could not show better how a scientist thinks about stuff. 

 

(Oh, yeah, the calls.  Sure, could have been sasquatch.  I'd trust this guy more than most.  No, they weren't people; you have never heard people in the woods if you disagree.)

(Oh yeah, could be something else.  See, how you do this science thing is:  you rule out possibilities by assessing *probabilities.*  Then you assess against what you know.  See, this is how you know they weren't people.  And probably not anything else we know about.)

(No, it's not proof.  Not sure how many times I am gonna have to go over how to think about stuff with some folk.  But learn, and you will have more fun with this than many of you are having.  And know more, too, and always be on the right track when thinking about this.)

(Thank you.)

I don't think you are one to lecture about what sounds are what in the woods. How did you describe the audio for the April Fools joke...something like " ...a sound no other animal in North America makes.."  

 

Sorry, but I'm not going to trust your sound identification skills.

 

Furthermore, how could a scientific case ever be made by a single piece of non-testable, non falsifiable evidence?  That is not very sciency, Mr.Science.

 

 

=======================================================================================================================================

The case for Santa Claus, impeccably made, one report:

 

 

Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house

Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse.

The stockings were hung by the chimney with care,

In hopes that St Nicholas soon would be there.

 

The children were nestled all snug in their beds,

While visions of sugar-plums danced in their heads.

And mamma in her ‘kerchief, and I in my cap,

Had just settled our brains for a long winter’s nap.

 

When out on the lawn there arose such a clatter,

I sprang from the bed to see what was the matter.

Away to the window I flew like a flash,

Tore open the shutters and threw up the sash.

 

The moon on the breast of the new-fallen snow

Gave the lustre of mid-day to objects below.

When, what to my wondering eyes should appear,

But a miniature sleigh, and eight tinny reindeer.

 

With a little old driver, so lively and quick,

I knew in a moment it must be St Nick.

More rapid than eagles his coursers they came,

And he whistled, and shouted, and called them by name!

 

"Now Dasher! now, Dancer! now, Prancer and Vixen!

On, Comet! On, Cupid! on, on Donner and Blitzen!

To the top of the porch! to the top of the wall!

Now dash away! Dash away! Dash away all!"

 

As dry leaves that before the wild hurricane fly,

When they meet with an obstacle, mount to the sky.

So up to the house-top the coursers they flew,

With the sleigh full of Toys, and St Nicholas too.

 

And then, in a twinkling, I heard on the roof

The prancing and pawing of each little hoof.

As I drew in my head, and was turning around,

Down the chimney St Nicholas came with a bound.

 

He was dressed all in fur, from his head to his foot,

And his clothes were all tarnished with ashes and soot.

A bundle of Toys he had flung on his back,

And he looked like a peddler, just opening his pack.

 

His eyes-how they twinkled! his dimples how merry!

His cheeks were like roses, his nose like a cherry!

His droll little mouth was drawn up like a bow,

And the beard of his chin was as white as the snow.

 

The stump of a pipe he held tight in his teeth,

And the smoke it encircled his head like a wreath.

He had a broad face and a little round belly,

That shook when he laughed, like a bowlful of jelly!

 

He was chubby and plump, a right jolly old elf,

And I laughed when I saw him, in spite of myself!

A wink of his eye and a twist of his head,

Soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread.

 

He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work,

And filled all the stockings, then turned with a jerk.

And laying his finger aside of his nose,

And giving a nod, up the chimney he rose!

 

He sprang to his sleigh, to his team gave a whistle,

And away they all flew like the down of a thistle.

But I heard him exclaim, ‘ere he drove out of sight,

"Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good-night!"

Edited September 18, 2015 by dmaker

[Cotter]

Rather than quote a single poster about the print'track argument I'll offer this a a yardstick of sorts.. I spent about a minute downloading random photos of human feet .  I don't know where these feet were photographed, who they belong to or what they do in the day to day.  However it is reasonable to say that these feet came from a decent cross section of people.  Take a look and yes you'll find differences.  But what you won't find is the huge discrepancies that show up in bigfoot feet.  You can ask your 5 year old what those are photos of and the 5 year old will tell you what they are.  I doubt there is any species that shows the morph variety that bigfoot exhibits. This nonsense about single ball foot, double ball foot, three toe, five toe, four toe, morph age changing, mid tarsal break etc is indicative of there not being a real biological entity out there making the tracks.  It is indicative of a human using their imagination and ideas on what they percieve as a bigfoot track making a bigfoot track.  Do yourself a favor find some photos of wolf tracks or .......gasp human tracks and reacquaint yourselves with the way nature tends to sculpt the details of species and the consistency with which nature does it.

 

  

 

Though I would agree that these folks have normal, pretty much the same looking feet, I see no pics of webbed toes (1 in 2000 or 150k people in the US), or polydactyly (1 in 500 or 600k people).  That doesn't include folks that were born with less than 10 toes either.

 

So, I would recommend you increase your random sampling to include common toe defects.

 

NOW, as this pertains to BF....well....we have yet to decipher what tracks are real, which are faked, and which are mis-ID'd before we can confidently form any opinions.

 

I know 2 people with webbed toes, 1 person with 9 toes, and 1 person whose child was born with 6 fingers on each hand.....it happens.

 

Edit - OMG!  Did Santa just get brought into the conversation?  LOL!  Too funny dmaker!

Edited September 18, 2015 by Cotter

[Guest DWA]

I'm not reading them.  But it wouldn't surprise me if dmaker has finally confused himself to the extent that he thinks he *is* Santa Claus.

 

I wonder if some people here are compiling a "stuff I'll have to walk back and God only knows how I'll work that" for when this is confirmed.

 

No problem.  I guess the BFF is kind of a QFT database, isn't it.

[dmaker]

"I'm not reading them".  LOL, yeah right..

[Cliff Barackman]

 

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).

 

 

Hello all.

 

I have popped by to set the record straight. 

 

The photo attributed to Joe Beelart and I from 1999 is not my own (see the Facebook link above).  This is another excellent example of poor documentation by people putting out information to the public.  

 

I had not even met Joe Beelart at the time the photograph was taken back in 1999.  As it turns out, the "Cliff" involved in this photograph of what is almost certainly bear scat is Cliff Olsen, long time researcher and friend of Beelart.  (Cliff Olsen and Joe Beelart are also the co-authors of "The Oregon Bigfoot Highway," a great book on bigfoot encounters along the Clackamas River, their main research area.)  Just because the guy who pieced together the video (again, see the Facebook link above) says it's me, doesn't actually mean that it is me.  There are a lot of Cliffs in this world, and a surprising number of Cliffs in Bigfoot research (I can think of at least four off the top of my head).  

 

I have seen some big craps in the woods, but nothing that I would bet came from a sasquatch.  This is an avenue of bigfoot research that doesn't much interest me, though if I actually saw the poop come out of a sasquatch, all that would change immediately.  Until then, I'm not messing around with this kind of crap, so to speak.  

 

Cliff

[Guest DWA]

Hey Cliff, while you're here.  Brown Thermal, from Florida.  I considered your analysis pretty impressive.  Anything come to your attention since that might affect your thinking on that one?