Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Bigfoot a extant north american mammal
Options
Comments
-
steddyeddy wrote: »No its not ridiculous if you look at the credentials of these guys especially meldrum their pretty much the experts on bipedal evolution foot mechanics ect and second of all its known that they spot fakes because they challenged people to construct and make fakes and send them in for appraisal, they accurately differentiated between those found in isolated areas and those purposely constructed and sent in, they did release a few details as follows:
1. footprints constructed had a pronounced arch in the foot simular to humans, those found had non rather they had a mid tarsal break (split) in the foot which makes sense for a large primate rather than an arch.
2.there were no dermal ridges on the feet (footprints for the feet) rather they were completely devoid of detail scars ect.
3.they showed no variation among the individual prints toe positions ect
You should have a read of this article. The alleged dermal ridges may indeed just be casting artifacts. It's certainly not definitive at least.
You also have people like David Daegling, Rene Dahinden and Joel Hardin (bigfoot enthusiasts themselves) who call some of the famous cases hoaxes.steddyeddy wrote: »how is my point implausible i think you may have taken it up the wrong way, some creatures having been observed with injuries (limps, herniation ect). i still maintain none were caught?
Yes and I was questioning how plausible that is considering how widely dispersed these creatures seemingly are in N America. How is it possible none have been caught/killed?
None have even been RECORDED in years -- the strongest evidence still seems to be the Patterson video.
There's a large enough group dedicated to finding this thing, how elusive must it be to avoid being recorded or caught in all this time?
Especially if you believe the Patterson film, which shows a bigfoot walking nonchalantly across an opening in broad daylight.steddyeddy wrote: »some areas of north America are a lot more isolated than china was/is! the panda was discovered in 1916 a skin was recovered in the 19th century but thought to be a hoax, a panda is a completely different ball game than a primate whose behavior is described as cryptic ie it intends to remain elusive especially to other primates.
chimpanzees have been observed to sometimes cover up there tracks to avoid detection as will gorillas, chimps in uganda for example after the civil war there became more skittish and changed their activity from diurnality to nocturnality to avoid human detection (they were being used as bush meat )
You suggest on the one hand that they are cryptic, elusive and shy, and yet that conflicts with the Patterson video (which you don't reject), which clearly shows a bigfoot that is walking casually in a relatively open area, in broad daylight, and upon seeing another primate continues in its stride without flinching. Which is it?
I suspect that those chimps in Uganda changed their behaviour after they started to be killed indirectly, or else hunted. There's no civil wars going on in the U.S. at the moment, and seemingly nobody is hunting bigfoots, since we've got no dead bodies!steddyeddy wrote: »If your thinking large primates think humans, there are thought to be undiscovered tribes in Brazil as there was many recently discovered.
A six foot long lizard was recently found in the Philippines that the natives knew about for centuries, i have no problem with a animal as clever as a ape and as mobile as a bipedal ape avoiding detection, and if you look up proponents of bigfoot youll find the agree that America has many hiding places for a large ape.steddyeddy wrote: »http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bili_Ape another recently discovered ape in the republic of Congo the number of ape species is changing rapidly.
Yes you describe several animals that have been recently documented because they're hidden away in areas that are inaccessible to most researchers because of civil war, impassible terrain, danger, etc.
That's not the same as the USA.
No, it isn't possible that a species of 10 foot primates could hide away from researchers, hunters, campers, scientists, etc., for hundreds of years.
If they were all hidden away in Alaska then maybe you could force that argument, but they aren't, they're reported to be seen all over the country (see the map I posted), and you said yourself there's been 3000 (apparantly plausible) sightings. So how it is possible that these 3000 people saw them if they're hidden away so well? And none of them happened to have a camera on them? Or a gun? None of these hunters decided to come back the next day with a group of lads and chase down the animals?
Come onsteddyeddy wrote: »yes the skookum cast defiantly had elk and bear hair but also hair that cannot be matched to a known creature, no one is claiming only one animal makes up the impression there is a clear Achilles tendon in the cast far bigger than a human achilles which suggest something large and bipedal made a impression.
Hair that was seemingly analysed by one guy.
By the way in the cast there was 16 elk hairs, 4 bare hairs, 1 coyote hair, and the one you're talking about. Bigfoot lay down there and only lost one hair? You're a primate, don't loose hairs fall off your head all the time? And your body isn't even covered in hair like bigfoot's apparantly is! And did an elk then decide to lie down in the same spot because it was warm?
The hair argument is completely implausible. The print is widely thought to be that of an elk.steddyeddy wrote: »3000 sightings, foot prints stories from the natives told to the early explorers like Samuel de Champlain etc to be honest a series of hoaxes involving hundreds of forest rangers, zoologists, natives and the early explorers of the continent is a bit more far fetched than than alternative that there is a undiscovered ape in America.
hoaxers would have a shared knowledge of the footprint anatomy, behavioral characteristics ect and a lot of these people are state veterinarians, wildlife biologists and hunters i really find hoaxing to be hard to believe on such a large scale.
the people who were caught out in hoaxing "evidence" are generally red necks and exposed quite quickly like the video you posted about the hoaxers from Georgia the hoaxers have never turned out to be trained in the area of zoology ect.
I'm not suggesting a conspiracy of hoaxers spanning many disciplines, I'm suggesting that there are many individual hoaxes, combined with a growing mythology, a few animals that may look similar to bigfoot (bears), a load of confirmation bias and pattern-seeking, and this is what you end up with.steddyeddy wrote: »dave as i said i dont accept everything i hear at first, i think theres a lot more evidence for the loch ness montser needed before i believe it and for the rest i wont dignify them because the level of evidence is completely different.
i agree we need a specimen but i think the evidence is quite compelling and as i said before im half on half on the video i cant prove anything with that, its all over the place as regards opinion analysis etc.
yes i agree with the dragon analogy but this is backed by mythology previous reports, physical evidence associated with the reports, dont think i looked at this and said sounds hmm sounds real or even jane Goodall believes it i will too, i actually looked through numerous eye witness reports and saw a lot of things that fit together, the foot prints the behavior described in the reports from people who wouldn't know the intricacies of primate behavior.
it was less than one hundred years ago when natural selection was largely disbeilved as there was lack of evidence, im convinced more evidence will be made available.
Give me links to a few of these eye witness reports that detail intricate primate behaviour at least.
You've given lots of bad evidence, but combining lots of bad evidence does not amount to good evidence. Anecdotes are effectively worthless.steddyeddy wrote: »the difference with your legendery creatures dave is that they rarley have contemperary acounts of them, coinciding with foot prints behavior that makes sense within the animals genus (primate, whale etc) there just stories however if you look at a lot of them they have since been discovered kraken=giant squid , Sichuan = giant panda and many others.
Still not compelling, it's just speculationsteddyeddy wrote: »i dont get into pub fight over this for nothing dave
ill defend bigfoot before i jump to the girlfriends defense!
Don't tell your girlfriend that!0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,150 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59079
The idea of extant human antecedents or cousins always fascinated me. More as an abstract idea and wish. This is the first time in human history that we're alone as bipedal creatures. At times there were many sharing the planet. That part isnt unusual really. I never really put that much store in it as an actual possibility until someone I knew whose veracity I would have great faith in saw one up close as it were. He is of a medical background and would be about 10 Dawkins(tm) in general scepticism.
On a fishing trip in Canada, the place of his birth, late afternoon he was moving up a river in a very remote area and as he moved upstream he noticed but at the same time didnt notice(if you know what I mean) his attention being drawn to a tree stump. He kept moving and when he was within about 40 feet the "stump" stood up. He was armed with a pistol for bear. Mostly to scare them as the calibre wasnt big enough to do much else. He told me he forgot he was carrying it. He froze basically, as did the creature.
His description? He described at as being about his height. He's a big chap so 6' 4" not 8 or 10 feet. He said body wise it was like a big man covered in hair. A hairy prizefighter as he called it. He did say it looked nothing like the famous cinefilm above. Not nearly as bulky. Facially he couldnt make out much, but he could barely see eyes and the face was black. More like a chimp than a gorilla. It looked straight at him. No obvious aggression or any other emotion. But he got the distinct vibe that he was to go no further. So he stepped back a few steps in the river. It then turned and walked up into the bank melting into the shrubbery. He told me he found tears running down his face. Not fear. The shock of seeing a human walk a couple of steps but something not human. That was a visceral emotion for him.
He told me he smelled nothing nor did it make any sound, nor was it overtly threatening at all. He felt he was watched as he made his way back downstream, but he reckoned that was just his mind playing tricks. Interestingly he partially thinks the whole thing may have been his mind playing tricks. His discipline is in the mental health arena. But he "knows" he saw something. Something he never gave any credit to consciously. He's told about 5 people so some details are different to protect that confidence.
I've met and known maybe 5 people in my life who I would believe as witnesses in such a case and he would be one of them. I leave others belief to themselves as I would do in their position.
So do they exist? Is there the possibility of some bipedal relative out there? IMHO the bigfoot of the US is the least likely. The reports of the alma in the former USSR I would give more credence to. One example of the latter is the interesting encounter of the German soldier who walked from eastern siberia after he was interned by the soviets after the last war. Very practical, logical "germanic" chap, whose story makes amazing reading. He made it back to Germany. Covered 1000's of miles doing so. In the urals(IIRC) on a remote mountain pass he encountered an "apeman" up close and personal over many hours and gave a very good description.
On the Alma type, "Hans Schiltenberger was captured by the Turks and sent to the court of Tamerlane, who placed him in the retinue of a Mongol prince named Egidi. After returning to Europe in 1427, Schiltenberger wrote about his experiences. In his book, he described some mountains, apparently the Tien Shan range in Mongolia: "The inhabitants say that beyond the mountains is the beginning of a wasteland which lies at the edge of the earth. No one can survive there because the desert is populated by so many snakes and tigers. In the mountains themselves live wild people, who have nothing in common with other human beings. A pelt covers the entire body of these creatures. Only the hands and face are free of hair. They run around in the hills like animals and eat foliage and grass and whatever else they can find. The lord of the territory made Egidi a present of a couple of forest people, a man and a woman. They had been caught in the wilderness, together with three untamed horses the size of asses and all sorts of other animals which are not found in German lands and which I cannot therefore put a name to" This chap reported many animals on his travels, many of whom not described by the west until much later(EG prizewalskis horse).Marco Polo also makes mention of same. More on the alma http://www.unmuseum.org/alma.htm Possible relatively recent contact, capture and interbreeding. http://www.bigfootencounters.com/creatures/zana2.htm http://www.bcscc.ca/almasti.htm
Further east again, the orang pendek is another plausible one. Many witnesses who describe a 5 foot high bipedal creature not unlike an orang but less bulky. Many footprints have been found. Interestingly not human like. Primitive bipedal type. Most compelling, is that the orang "jane goodall" whose name escapes observed one herself once. Not a drunken hillbilly by any strecth and a person well versed in the behaviour and habits of SE Asian primates. It was another woman researcher who first said she saw the giant "lion killer" chimps of the congo(who sometimes walk awkwardly bipedal).
I suspect older hominids may have lasted into late prehistoric times too. The european legends of trolls http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll may be a race memory of neandertals. The description fits remarkably well. "They are often regarded as having poor intellect (especially the males, whereas the females may be quite cunning), great strength, big noses, long arms, and as being hairy and not very beautiful" who " are more human-like folk of the wilderness, living underground in hills, caves or mounds". The biggest noses of any hominid so far found belonged to neandertals. They had short legs and long arms and great strength and mostly lived in caves. My theory anyway and the "green man" of european history may be another remnant?
Is it possible that some lived into more recent times? I can imagine so(dwarf mammoths lived until the 11th century on a remote siberian island). The Hobbits of Flores may have according to local legends. Are any around today? I would like to think so. In the continental US? I don't know and actually doubt it, even with the testimony of the chap above, but elsewhere in the huge areas of asia? Possible. In other ways, I hope they're never found.
TL;DR? Maybe... Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Unless he was mistaken. It was late afternoon, light was fading and he was 40ft away. You say he described it as looking like a 'hairy prizefighter'; it's much more likely to have been a hirsute boxer on a camping trip than to have been a lost ape-man. (before anyone says that humans don't get that hairy; I've worked in swimming pools for years; you wouldn't believe how hairy some men get)The idea of extant human antecedents or cousins always fascinated me. More as an abstract idea and wish. This is the first time in human history that we're alone as bipedal creatures. At times there were many sharing the planet. That part isnt unusual really. I never really put that much store in it as an actual possibility until someone I knew whose veracity I would have great faith in saw one up close as it were. He is of a medical background and would be about 10 Dawkins(tm) in general scepticism.
It's not impossible, and like you I think that if a new species of ape is to be discovered it probably won't be in the US, but will be somewhere much more remote. However I really, really don't buy the claim that some put forward that because there are folk tales about ape-men then they must be real. There have been stories about vampires, witches and zombies from all over the world for thousands of years but no-one's out there leading a Dracula hunt.So do they exist?
What's your source for this? The only info I can find gives a date for the Pygmy Mammoth dying out as between 10,000 and 11,000 years ago.Is it possible that some lived into more recent times? I can imagine so(dwarf mammoths lived until the 11th century on a remote siberian island).0 -
-
dave ill come to your points momentarly for the moment here is a classic sightin by william roe a hunter which is one the most interesting and is a sort of archtype of bigfoot reports.
Ever since I was a small boy back in the forest of Michigan, I have studied the lives and habits of wild animals. Later, when I supported my family in Northern Alberta by hunting and trapping, I spent many hours just observing the wild things. They fascinated me. But the most incredible experience I ever had with a wild creature occurred near a little town called Tete Jaune Cache, British Columbia, about eighty miles west of Jasper, Alberta.
I had been working on the highway near Tete Jaune Cache for about two years. In October, 1955, I decided to climb five miles up Mica Mountain to an old deserted mine, just for something to do. I came in sight of the mine about three o'clock in the afternoon after an easy climb. I had just come out of a patch of low brush into a clearing when I saw what I thought was a grizzly bear, in the bush on the other side. I had shot a grizzly near that spot the year before. This one was only about 75 yards away, but I didn't want to shoot it, for I had no way of getting it out. So I sat down on a small rock and watched, my rifle in my hands.
I could see part of the animal's head and the top of one shoulder. A moment later it raised up and stepped out into the opening. Then I saw it was not a bear.
The Mica Mountain sasquatch, drawn by William Roe's daughter under his direction
This, to the best of my recollection, is what the creature looked like and how it acted as it came across the clearing directly toward me. My first impression was of a huge man, about six feet tall, almost three feet wide, and probably weighing somewhere near three hundred pounds. It was covered from head to foot with dark brown silver-tipped hair. But as it came closer I saw by its breasts that it was female.
And yet, its torso was not curved like a female's. Its broad frame was straight from shoulder to hip. Its arms were much thicker than a man's arms, and longer, reaching almost to its knees. Its feet were broader proportionately than a man's, about five inches wide at the front and tapering to much thinner heels. When it walked it placed the heel of its foot down first, and I could see the grey-brown skin or hide on the soles of its feet.
It came to the edge of the bush I was hiding in, within twenty feet of me, and squatted down on its haunches. Reaching out its hands it pulled the branches of bushes toward it and stripped the leaves with its teeth. Its lips curled flexibly around the leaves as it ate. I was close enough to see that its teeth were white and even.
The shape of this creature's head somewhat resembled a Negro's. The head was higher at the back than at the front. The nose was broad and flat. The lips and chin protruded farther than its nose. But the hair that covered it, leaving bare only the parts of its face around the mouth, nose and ears, made it resemble an animal as much as a human. None of this hair, even on the back of its head, was longer than an inch, and that on its face was much shorter. Its ears were shaped like a human's ears. But its eyes were small and black like a bear's. And its neck also was unhuman. Thicker and shorter than any man's I had ever seen.
As I watched this creature, I wondered if some movie company was making a film at this place and that what I saw was an actor, made up to look partly human and partly animal. But as I observed it more, I decided it would be impossible to fake such a specimen. Anyway, I learned later there was no such company near that area. Nor, in fact, did anyone live up Mica Mountain, according to the people who lived in Tete Jaune Cache.
Finally the wild thing must have got my scent, for it looked directly at me through an opening in the brush. A look of amazement crossed its face. It looked so comical at the moment I had to grin. Still in a crouched position, it backed up three or four short steps, then straightened up to its full height and started to walk rapidly back the way it had come. For a moment it watched me over its shoulder as it went, not exactly afraid, but as though it wanted no contact with anything strange.
The thought came to me that if I shot it, I would possibly have a specimen of great interest to scientists the world over. I had heard stories of the Sasquatch, the giant hairy Indians that live in the legends of British Columbia Indians, and also many claim, are still in fact alive today. Maybe this was a Sasquatch, I told myself.
I levelled my rifle. The creature was still walking rapidly away, again turning its head to look in my direction. I lowered the rifle. Although I have called the creature "it", I felt now that it was a human being and I knew I would never forgive myself if I killed it.
Just as it came to the other patch of brush it threw its head back and made a peculiar noise that seemed to be half laugh and half language, and which I can only describe as a kind of a whinny. Then it walked from the small brush into a stand of lodgepole pine.
I stepped out into the opening and looked across a small ridge just beyond the pine to see if I could see it again. It came out on the ridge a couple of hundred yards away from me, tipped its head back again, and again emitted the only sound I had heard it make, but what this half- laugh, half-language was meant to convey, I do not know. It disappeared then, and I never saw it again.
I wanted to find out if it lived on vegetation entirely or ate meat as well, so I went down and looked for signs. I found it in five different places, and although I examined it thoroughly, could find no hair or shells of bugs or insects. So I believe it was strictly a vegetarian.
I found one place where it had slept for a couple of nights under a tree. Now, the nights were cool up the mountain, at this time of year especially, and yet it had not used a fire. I found no sign that it possessed even the simplest of tools. Nor a single companion while in this place.
Whether this was a Sasquatch I do not know. It will always remain a mystery to me, unless another one is found.
I hereby declare the above statement to be in every part true, to the best of my powers of observation and recollection.
(Signed) William Roe0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,150 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59079
Unless he was mistaken. It was late afternoon, light was fading and he was 40ft away. You say he described it as looking like a 'hairy prizefighter'; it's much more likely to have been a hirsute boxer on a camping trip than to have been a lost ape-man. (before anyone says that humans don't get that hairy; I've worked in swimming pools for years; you wouldn't believe how hairy some men get) Oh yea possibly. The light was good though, late afternoon in mid summer in the region is bright, nowhere near dusk and it was in full sunlight. That's why he said it wasnt brown like a bear, but jet black(apparently even black bears are a bit brownish according to him). I hadnt heard from him in 6 months and he rang me today :eek: Off to the paranormal forum I go! :pac: and we chatted about this. No more details really just not human, looked like an ape in the head, but (furred) human in the body. While he's still not convinced it wasnt an hallucination, he is sure he didnt hallucinate a bear or some bloke.
I get your point but there are differences. Witches have an interesting history and the word is equated with shamanic/wise medicine women that translated into more of a negative term with christianity. "Witches" did exist. Zombies can be explained by people awakening from comas, even drug induced ones and the primitive explanation was "Zombie", so they existed as well. Vampires as we know them are a very recent legend. Again with natural and rational explanations for the legends. The aforementioned zombies, people buried in comas that when they were exhumed showed scratch marks in the coffin lids, the way the body decomposes could lead primitive peoples to ascribe the supernatural(blood like liquid from the lips, groaning of escaping gas, stabbing of the chest causing noise to emanate from the mouth mistaken for life in the dead, etc). So they have an explanation too. As do werewolves. Many shamanistic rituals involve the shaman entering teh spirit of an animal and becoming that animal. Usually involving various hallucenigenic herbs. Indeed Ive done one of these ceremonies just to see and let me tell you it feels very "real", even though objectively I knew it wasnt. I was a bird at one point flying in the air, feathers, wind the lot.It's not impossible, and like you I think that if a new species of ape is to be discovered it probably won't be in the US, but will be somewhere much more remote. However I really, really don't buy the claim that some put forward that because there are folk tales about ape-men then they must be real. There have been stories about vampires, witches and zombies from all over the world for thousands of years but no-one's out there leading a Dracula hunt.
Wildmen are a different subject. More wide ranging. Yes many cultures ascribe a spiritual element, though they do same for native animals, but when cultures describe these animals as part of the natural history along with known animals and with a lack of fantasy animals in their bestiary. We may be thrown by european bestiaries of the middle ages with men with no heads and three legs etc, but that doesnt translate to other cultures. we were a bit "inventive" If a culture has no fantasy animals yet mentions "ape men" it does beg investigation IMHO. May be a villified outcast tribe, it may be a race memory, it may be fantasy, but it may be something else, in more recent times, or even extant still. When Jane Goodall and others reckon it's worth more of a look I agree.
Many apologies 3-4000 years ago. Dunno WTF brain fart gave me 11th centuryWhat's your source for this? The only info I can find gives a date for the Pygmy Mammoth dying out as between 10,000 and 11,000 years ago.
Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/10/24/juvenille-bigfoot-or.htmlsteddyeddy wrote: »[IMG]file:///C:/Users/henry/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot.png[/IMG]
[IMG]file:///C:/Users/henry/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-1.png[/IMG]
The most recent alledged picture of a bigfoot. Taken when whatever it was walked in front of a camera trap, the game commision states it could be a bear with severe mange however scientists who examined it said its proportions were not that of a bear and more indicative of a primate.
If the bear on the right had its head down they'd be mirror images. It's a bear with mange.0 -
-
steddyeddy wrote: »there is no way that the image on the left mirrors the image on the right, bear expert doctor lynn rogers stated the proportions are not bear like measure them your self, the head seems to be missing the prominent ears of the bear also the head slopes uphigher than a bears. The hind limbs seem slightly longer and the torso shorter.
The bear on the left has its head down which is why the 'hump' on the back is visible. The three legs visible in the photo on the left are in the same position as in the one on the right apart from the bear having its arse to us a little.
http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/pa-sas-photos2/#0 -
The bear on the left has its head down which is why the 'hump' on the back is visible. The three legs visible in the photo on the left are in the same position as in the one on the right apart from the bear having its arse to us a little.
http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/pa-sas-photos2/#
the skull is too long for the head, the knee joints are placed to high on the lower limbs.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement