10 Reasons Why Bigfoot's A Bust

[Guest]

But there really is no standard to compare too when it comes to BF, don't ya got to have one to know what one is first.

Tim

No, because a good dna sample can be compared with known genetic samples and precisely place the subject as to classification no body required.

[Guest]

Key is they had bones to use, some thing that was very real and familiar that pointed to a human like being, so far there has only been hair and a few other samples brought in to identify it as a BF, i think it will have to be a body or parts of before BF can be identified as a real creature, in that case i am sure the DNA will just be a second confirmation.

Tim

DNA does not spontaneously generate itself. If you have DNA, there MUST be a creature from whence the DNA came.

[Guest]

As to point number 7 - The wood bison was declared extinct in 1940. In 1957 a herd of 200 of the extinct animals that can reach a weight of 1 ton were discovered by accident by wildlife officials in Canada. Bison aren't that stealthy. If they can hide from the human population, I'm willing to bet a nonhuman bipedal hominid would be even more successful at it.

This is another great example of why the where of bigfoot really matters. Those wood bison - and the nesting grounds of Whooping Cranes which was a mystery until an aerial fire crew discovered them in 1954 - occurred in an area that was (and still is) extremely difficult for humans to access. The landscape is vast and dominated by muskeg bogs, so it's really tough going up there from the ground. It wasn't until aircraft could be efficiently and reliably used for surveys that the wood bison - and the nesting cranes - were found.

Now if bigfoots were restricted to places like Wood Buffalo Park, then I'd agree that stories like these would make compelling analogies. This is why it's so important for these discussions to start from an agreed-upon position, such as "do bigfoots live in Ohio or not?" If they don't, then how do we explain all the reports from there? If they do, then we should admit that bigfoots are nothing like wood bison or whooping cranes in terms of only existing in remote places where humans rarely access.

Examples like these actually work against bigfoot plausibility: 15 Whooping Cranes - the only ones in the world - were discovered by accident in Alberta in 1954 by people who weren't even biologists. Wow.

[georgerm]

Then it is incumbent on proponents to be clear about where bigfoot does live. Without any physical evidence, are we not forced to assume that bigfoots occur in places that produce anecdotal evidence? Please enlighten me on which of these states lack bigfoots:

Florida

Ohio

Oklahoma

Texas

Pennsylvania

California

All have markedly different habitats from which bigfoots are reported. Moreover, bigfoots are reported from Australia, Sumatra, Nepal, China, and Russia, and again, in markedly different habitats. Assuming bigfoots dispersed across Beringia from the Old World into the New, they must have occurred for generations in varied habitats ranging from temperate and coniferous forests to grassland and tundra. This is why the "no fossils because they live in forests with acidic soils" excuse is not supported. If bigfoots were only reported from such places, it would be a perfectly viable explanation for the lack of a fossil record, but they're not, so it isn't.

How many undiscovered animals are there still buried in the earth under tons of soil with forest on top? one, two, three?

Edited October 18, 2011 by georgerm

[Guest]

This is another great example of why the where of bigfoot really matters. Those wood bison - and the nesting grounds of Whooping Cranes which was a mystery until an aerial fire crew discovered them in 1954 - occurred in an area that was (and still is) extremely difficult for humans to access. The landscape is vast and dominated by muskeg bogs, so it's really tough going up there from the ground. It wasn't until aircraft could be efficiently and reliably used for surveys that the wood bison - and the nesting cranes - were found.

Now if bigfoots were restricted to places like Wood Buffalo Park, then I'd agree that stories like these would make compelling analogies. This is why it's so important for these discussions to start from an agreed-upon position, such as "do bigfoots live in Ohio or not?" If they don't, then how do we explain all the reports from there? If they do, then we should admit that bigfoots are nothing like wood bison or whooping cranes in terms of only existing in remote places where humans rarely access.

Examples like these actually work against bigfoot plausibility: 15 Whooping Cranes - the only ones in the world - were discovered by accident in Alberta in 1954 by people who weren't even biologists. Wow.

This is a case of "It's not you. It's me," but I'm not sure I understand your argument here. My use of the Wood Bison as an example is based on their limited intelligence and size. If an animal this big and dumb can hide (regardless of the location), why then could we not leave open the possibility that an animal that is smaller and smarter could be much more adept at hiding (again, regardless of location)? Does that make sense?

BTW – I’m using the word “dumb†as a relative term.

[Guest 127]

DNA does not spontaneously generate itself. If you have DNA, there MUST be a creature from whence the DNA came.

Not exactly true. DNA can be fabricated to some extent. This is why proponents need to careful about calling DNA a new species with no body or other supporting evidence. You need flesh or bones, a body. DNA alone simply should not and will not suffice in this case IMHO.

[BobZenor]

Then it is incumbent on proponents to be clear about where bigfoot does live. Without any physical evidence, are we not forced to assume that bigfoots occur in places that produce anecdotal evidence? Please enlighten me on which of these states lack bigfoots:

Florida

Ohio

Oklahoma

Texas

Pennsylvania

California

All have markedly different habitats from which bigfoots are reported. Moreover, bigfoots are reported from Australia, Sumatra, Nepal, China, and Russia, and again, in markedly different habitats. Assuming bigfoots dispersed across Beringia from the Old World into the New, they must have occurred for generations in varied habitats ranging from temperate and coniferous forests to grassland and tundra. This is why the "no fossils because they live in forests with acidic soils" excuse is not supported. If bigfoots were only reported from such places, it would be a perfectly viable explanation for the lack of a fossil record, but they're not, so it isn't.

Which state doesn't it live in? It only has to live in one for it to exist. The same applies to its biome. How would anybody know if they don't live in a particular state? That would imply far more knowledge than is possible. It is possible for for someone to have a first hand experience and know that they do live there. I only have first hand experience in California but I wouldn't say it is a hundred percent but it was pretty close. I wouldn't expect anyone else to be convinced by it besides my brother since he was also there. To know that they don't live somewhere is proving a negative. That is pretty much impossible on something as large a state.

I would have my doubts about them living in all those states but I don't translate lack of knowledge into having any sort of certainty. I don't have a goal to try to disprove them in my mind so I don't assume conditions that make their existence highly unlikely like requiring a very large population or them living in every state.

[Guest]

Yeah, that list is hard to argue with. But some people, a lot of peope, have seen one. Witness unreliability is a fact, but there are just too many witnesses for there not to be a bigfoot of some kind. I cannot tell you much more, but I do know something is there, something smart.

I know children who have seen one, and a college professor. I am a teacher, and I saw one. I am as sane as sane can be after it saw a bigfoot. I would never in a million years make up something like that. If I could UNsee it, I would in a heartbeat. It is a pain in the keister. We are not lying. We did not see a bear. It was not swamp gas or a big elk or a person in a costume. Period.

KsC, I believe you. There are way too many sightings by responsible men and women such as you, even some from forest rangers and police officers, not to forget to mention the military forces out night training who have had encounters for there not to be a viable BF population in America, indeed, around the world.

Someone writing an article such as this one can make even hard core believers stop for a moment until they realize that one person's opinion does not remove the truth of a living creature presently unknown to science living in forests around the world, well, except for Hawaii...

[BobbyO]

KsC, I believe you. There are way too many sightings by responsible men and women such as you, even some from forest rangers and police officers, not to forget to mention the military forces out night training who have had encounters for there not to be a viable BF population in America, indeed, around the world.

Someone writing an article such as this one can make even hard core believers stop for a moment until they realize that one person's opinion does not remove the truth of a living creature presently unknown to science living in forests around the world, well, except for Hawaii...

& the UK..

[Guest]

Which state doesn't it live in? It only has to live in one for it to exist.

OK then, produce one from any state and you'll convince Radford.

Radford's statements refer to the bigfoot phenomenon. Your personal experience in California is not that entire phenomenon. If Radford wanted to examine that phenomenon by only seeking your input, he might conclude that the only place bigfoot occurs is in the wildest parts of California. If that was the case then you're right - his statements regarding minimum viable population size, lack of fossil record, etc. are drastically weakened. Bigfoot would be far more plausible if its reported range was restricted, like that of Okapis, Bonobos, and Wood Bison.

To examine the phenomenon, however, one needs to begin from an informed position that includes patterns of information from the anecdotal data. There are many weird things associated with bigfoot (e.g., paranormal abilities, keeping pets, UFOs) and it would be silly to rhetorically accept them as a mainstream part of the phenomenon. There are also geographic and habitat outliers, e.g., the "dumpster diving" bigfoot and the account from Staten Island. But what of the over 200 accounts from Ohio? What about the people on the BFF who are as sure of their encounters in Kansas or Oklahoma as you are of yours in California? If we include that reported range of almost the entire North American continent, then there is a big problem with minimum viable populations and a biological bigfoot. But on what basis should Radford have restricted that hypothetical range?

[Guest]

As Southern Yahoo said earlier about the potentially LARGE amount of Hominin bones fossils that have not been DNA tested (of course these were collected some time ago before that could be done) , the chance of overlooking a new species seems very possible and we have the bottomless pit of the Smithsonian that hopefully one day in my lifetime will test and share some of the findings from the past we wonder about.

[xspider1]

15 Whooping Cranes - the only ones in the world - were discovered by accident in Alberta in 1954 by people who weren't even biologists. Wow.

Here we go again... How could anyone possibly know that those were the only ones? <~~ Rhetorical question, obviously, because no one could ever know such a thing. Just because no one can say for sure what states BF are currently in, doesn't matter much in terms of the fact that there is definitely something out there which matches the description of Bigfoot.

[Guest WIKayaker]

My opinion…I have no proof nor do I reference any specific evidence but I think that an issue so important in the discussion regarding definitive-to-the-public Bigfoot acknowledgement is their similarity to US. Much of the anecdotal and alleged physical evidence is showing that they are far more human than “just an animalâ€. Whether they are another race or have some genetic anomaly is of course being studied.

Because they appear LIKE us, they have possibly often been overlooked as just a person when seen from a distance. Their remains have possibly been overlooked as “an unusually tall tribe of native Americansâ€. If they are a type of human, but hairy and larger… (read up on Esau by the way) there may be some explanations.

Unlike a typical animal, they seem to be proactively TRYING to avoid us. They appear to be intelligent in a WILD way. They scare us, being so similar but big, hairy, wild appearing and acting. No one is afraid to tell someone they spotted an unusual bug or bird. But a big kinda’ human monster is just a no-no. There is this social stigma because of their apparent ‘humanness’.

Of course there are stories of them being shot throughout recent history, but being big they get away or the shooter freaks and departs fearing them or fearing if it was just some regular guy. (or, as we know the samples sometimes get tested…)

They are not routinely getting hit by cars because they are obviously brighter than a deer or a bear. Being ‘humanish’, they possibly conceal each other’s remains too.

My biggest questions are about how they’ve adapted to the harshest cold climates (could just be their large size, thick-skin and hair) and their ‘eye-shine’ being most unusual.

To answer many of the “10 reasonsâ€, use a “human-like†filter in your mind when considering them. It makes a difference.

Outta here…posting and running.

[Guest slimwitless]

Not exactly true. DNA can be fabricated to some extent. This is why proponents need to careful about calling DNA a new species with no body or other supporting evidence. You need flesh or bones, a body. DNA alone simply should not and will not suffice in this case IMHO.

Is Ketchum in over her head or is she a mastermind capable of manufacturing a plausible non-human DNA sequence?

Anyway, if the study has samples available for repeated testing then the unlikely argument that the DNA was fabricated won't hold water.

I should add that I'm not entirely convinced that DNA will be the only line of evidence.

Edited October 18, 2011 by slimwitless

[Guest]

Here we go again... How could anyone possibly know that those were the only ones?

Because in the early 20th Century - on the heels of the extinctions of Passenger Pigeons, Carolina Parakeets, Bachman's Warblers, etc. - there was intense interest in saving the last surviving members of our rarest species in North America, among them Ivory-billed Woodpeckers, California Condors, and Whooping Cranes. Those last Whooping Cranes were very closely monitored for years. The only problem was that no one had, until 1954, found the paltry 7 or 8 pairs of birds on their individual nesting ponds in one of the most inhospitable and vast landscapes remaining in North America. But found they were, true needles in an immense haystack, 57 years ago.

All living Whooping Cranes today are descendants from that flock of 15. We know that because the current captive breeding program (and official "stud book" to maximize genetic diversity) began with eggs collected from those nesting pairs. Yes, it's possible that a pair have been living undetected in a park in suburban Cleveland, but after all these years, there's been no evidence that this is the case.

. . . there is definitely something out there which matches the description of Bigfoot.

But part of that "description" includes where the things live. If bigfooters agree that bigfoots are big and hairy, then someone like Radford can investigate those specific claims. Part of his investigation should include other things that are big and hairy, e.g., he should evaluate claims to gauge the likelihood that the person making the report actually encountered a bear. This is easy to do by determining if the witness claims to have seen the big, hairy thing running on two legs.

One specific claim is that bigfoots don't appear in the fossil record because they occur in forests with highly acidic soils that quickly degrade bone and prevent its fossilization. That claim is easy to evaluate by determining where people claim to have seen bigfoots. If the claims include habitats and geographic regions that do readily produce fossils, then the acidic soils excuse for bigfoot's absence from the fossil record is untenable.

That's all Radford has done, and I've made the same argument here many times. Soil pH does not explain the lack of bigfoot in the fossil record because bigfoots are frequently reported from places that lack acidic soils. It's neither mine nor Radford's fault that this is the case. I'd also gladly revisit my position on this if someone could demonstrate to me a hypothetical bigfoot distribution that is limited to acidic soils that deter fossilization. Though I've been posing this question for years, no one has come forward to propose such a distribution.