Bigfoot: Does It Exist? Or Not?

[AaronD]

Thanks, Cliff, for clearing that up

[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).

 

 

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

 

My apologies for assuming that the Cliff mentioned was you. I am surprised by the number of Cliff's in the field.

[Guest 67Mopar]

Two subjects in the PGF?  Huh?

If you look closely at the footage, you can follow the first subject (which I refer to as "Bobby") all the way to the edge of the wood line. At no point does the camera switch-off during this 0:57 segment. The extreme camera movement is a result of RP's horse reacted to the presence of the female "Patty", who was much closer to RP than the male. I believe Roger lost sight of the male through the viewfinder when his horse reacted, then reacquired what he thought was the same subject... It was not. 

 

I uploaded the video for frame-by-frame analysis: The time stamps at the bottom of each image are separated by less than 200ms. 

 

Image #1 "Bobby" (time stamp 0:18)

 

Image #2 "Patty" (time stamp 0:19) 

 

The full video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOxuRIfFs

 

If you have a keen eye, you don't need video software to see both subjects. Keep looping the video between time markers 0:03 - 0:20 seconds... I sampled the time stamped photos for presentation purposes. The camera was not stopped, only re-positioned. By looking at their locations, they appear to be approximately 25 yards away from each other. The male "Bobby" appears typically larger than the female "Patty". It is my belief that these animals did not travel far without coverage by another... They are militant in their behavior. 

 

When asked why they did not pursue the creature, Mr Gimlin responded; "We found footprints ranging is size. We didn't know where the other ones where, so we did not feel comfortable with pursuing it..." Without stating it, Mr. Gimlin has confirmed that there was more then one in the area. 

[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.?

Edited September 18, 2015 by JDL

[Guest DWA]

Um...um....OK, kinda JDL's last sentence there.^^^

 

Sorry, folks, but this ain't how scientists are operating unless they're celebrating Timothy Leary's birthday, y'know?  They follow evidence which may not ....listen gang... MAY NOT BE PROOF! in the direction it might be headed, which they determine by going, um, OK, what are the chances that (1) Ray Wallace is still alive?  (2) Everybody wanting to spring a hoax makes double dam sure that there is close to a zero likelihood anyone will stumble across it? (3) Hoaxers are assiduously doing this continent-wide, using technology that nobody seems to have even a whiff exists, even the Pentagon?  (4) They've been doing this since before Columbus?  Etc.

 

(If you don't think that you are flat *arguing for* those four and other whackier propositions...than you really are not paying attention, at all.)

 

See, this is a quarantine thread.  This stuff can't show up anywhere else.  It is getting called, abruptly, when it does.

 

Read our posts and do your homework...and maybe I'll take y'all off Ignore.

[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).

 

 

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

 

 

I misread "popped by".

[Rockape]

This would be so much better if Cervelo was still here to post his poo picture.

[dmaker]

I remember that picture. 

[Guest DWA]

But of course somebody else will have to quote your posts to me so I can check.

[Rockape]

He said you're full of bigfoot poo.

[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.

 

  

 

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!

 

The photos were grabbed without scrutinizing so as to be as random as possible.  I was not cherry picking the photos.  Indeed webbed appendages exist but are not indicative of the typical population.  Apparently there is no typical bigfoot population and that is a major red herring.

[dmaker]

But of course somebody else will have to quote your posts to me so I can check.

Why do you pretend that you don't know how to click to open a post from someone on your ignore list? We just had a conversation earlier. Remember? The one about you not caring what I read while you harp on about what I read? Now, how could that conversation have occurred if you don't know how to read my posts? 

 

I don't understand why you pretend otherwise.  It's very odd.

[norseman]

Aaahhh yes.... the band is back together.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?ebc=ANyPxKpcrErEJI7MTCaDfRY6zjNI_miauRPrhhCbnJAXhU8oRcgMLPQ_ntDZSrOTsBDzJHJDYJDX&v=yA_OOAOYm8g

[Rockape]

[Incorrigible1]

He said you're full of bigfoot poo.

QFT