Bigfoot a extant north american mammal

Wibbs · 27-04-2010 12:12am

steddyeddy wrote: »

Exellent points there wibbs you would be right to suspect native americans moved in much earlier in fact some scientists say they have evidence that it was even a far back as 50,000 years ago.

There may even be signs of even earlier migrations, though Im not so sure.That said Flores shows that erectus had the ability to navigate strong currents, so were more clued in that we used to give them credit for. Dumb apes they were not.

In regards to he fossil evidence it has been said that the fossil record acounts for 0.5 per cent of all the creatures that have ever existed, in fact many intelligent animals avoid the conditions of fossilization paticualry primates for example gorillas, chimps and bonobos have practically no fossil record bar around four teeth!

Very true and the dearth of hominid fossils is not far off that example. We dont have a fully articulated Neadertal skeleton for example. Reconstructions are all composites.

The forests of north america and canada are often very acidic and are not condusive to the process of fossilazation, certain areas of africa for instance would be more likely to have a more complete fossil record, if africa doesnt preserve primate fossils american forests certainly wont.

there is that.

The thing i find interesting is there was an ape called gigantopithecus who emigrated from the same areas of asia as the rest of the animals from north america, this was the only ape that went extinct during the pleistocene, interestingly enough this ape was 9.8 feet all in essence a ten foot ape (the maximum size found anyway) they only have a couple of teeth and a large jaw of this creature (fossil rarity of primates highlighted here also) .

True and an interesting possible ancestor. The thing is we know feck all about gigantopithecus, but from what is known it was a giant non bipedal primate. A big gorilla basically. Plus great apes other than the aforementioned gigantopithecus dont migrate very far. Much less than hominids, so the idea of one moving from asia to the americas across the bering land bridge, which at its best was a perilous undertaking doesnt quite fit for me. Now you mention bison and mammoths etc but they weren't sub tropical species like gigantopithecus was. They were all cold adapted. That for me anyway would be an issue. If witnesses were describing a homo erectus I would actualy believe that more TBH. I could give some credence to their ability to get to the americas in the first place.

Say all the sightings of sasqautch are around the ten foot mark (which there not there are even reports of creatures 5 foot) then an animal doesnt get that size from standing out in the open, many reports include the fact that the sasqautch after the initial sighting sqauts down in bushes and vegatation and seems to be hiding in various ways. As do gorillas and chimps ho cover themselves in vegatation when humans aproach.

Well that guy I referenced before said his sighting started when what he thought was a tree stump stood up so.... TBH my sneaking belief that it may be out there is almost entirely predicated by that witness I know. I simply believe him. And it rattled his cage enough to make him doubt his own eyes, but at the same time believe his own eyes. Not evidence by a long shot, but enough for me anyway that its worth considering. Thsts just me though and not science.

Jane goodall states flately that shes sure they exist as she interviewed many witnesses that saw or heard them.

Yea her take was the descriptions of territorial behaviour and vocalisations by pre interweb uneducated witnesses rang true for her as how primates might act.

Dr.daris swhindler a primate expert and formerly the former biggest skeptic of bigfoot states "i can only now conclude that there is a descendent of gigantopithecus walking around north america.

after he examined that skookum(sp) cast I believe?

Having myself being familar paticualarly with washington state (an area with some of the most sightings) i can safely say that the wilderness is there for all intended puposes a lot of that wilderness is basically unexplored.

I think people forget how big this planet actually is. Especially if they live in a populous region like Ireland, even though ireland is actually quite sparse in population. They think ryanair and sat nav and Tv means this world has few enough big surprises left. Its good, nay a requirement to be sceptical, but I'm reminded that we know more about the moon than our own oceans. More men have stood on the moon than have sat at the bottom of the deepest trench of the sea and the vast forests and wildernesses of this planet have a lot more secrets to give up before they're done.

another one i am interested in however is the orang pendek man like ape standing around three feet tall that looks human, these are seen today according to several well respected people including a camera man for national geographic, this is in the island of sumatra close to the island of flores where homo florseiensis was discovered and national geographic are funding a project to find them.

Yea like I said earlier the orang pendek is an interesting one for me. Not alone have a few respected types seen something, one of the "jane goodalls" of orang utans saw something out of the ordinary. I doubt its a relict hominid though. Not judging by the witnesses and the footprints. Its feet dont look like ours, more orang like with a large toe(smaller than an orang, more adapted to walking upright, but with a familial connection). A step(no pun) on the way to bipedalism more than a fully bipedal animal. I would suspect if it exists its a smaller, more bipedal sub spieces of Orang. Kinda similar as a bonobo is to a chimp.

Wibbs · 27-04-2010 12:16am

Sid_Justice wrote: »

The thing about the amazon is interesting, I'd be less surprised if a new megafauna species was discovered there.

Yes and no. Like the Congo jungle much of the amazon is actually quite recent(hence I put little store in the idea of extant congo dinosaurs). Not that long ago it was much more "civilised" and utilised by man. The very fertile black soil found all over it is evidence of earlier more organised human exploitation. Its not as impenetrable nor pristine a forest environment as the pacific north west of the us and canada for example and nowhere close an example as the vast forests of Asia.

steddyeddy · 27-04-2010 12:16am

sid every animal discovered in the last hundred years has had the same argument made against it, actually i was referring to the mountain gorilla which was discovered in 1902 (well first shotin 1902) im not referring to the 1850s sid but even a animal discovered this year a six foot lizard discovered in the phillipines, some zoologists said it cant exist area too well populated ect, the proppnents said what about the sightings the sicentists used the population arguments again, you cant throw out the sighting simply because you dont like the idea they have to be explained

Sid even skeptics dont throw out bigfoot because of wilderness reasons, there is more than enough areas for a intelligent animal to exist.

steddyeddy · 27-04-2010 12:23am

Wibbs yes it was indeed the skookum cast that convinced daris and you would be right that most scientists consider giganto a non bipedal ape however some are now saying it was bipedal due to the structure of the jaw.

I dont know how cold adapted it was your quite right on the enviorment it lived in, but an interesting thing that trikes me is bigfoot sightings usually document the fact that it has long flowing hair running down from its arms, as does an orangutang another asian ape.

The giganto connection is just a theory, i would not belive it migrated the bering land bridge to north america unless it was a bipedal ape which is far from certain.

steddyeddy · 27-04-2010 12:24am

hollis12 wrote: »

i find it hard to belive bigfoot exists without more evidence

Feel free to take me up on anything i said earlier, i dont belive it therfore it doesnt exist isnt an argument against its existence.

steddyeddy · 27-04-2010 12:38am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql0pO2ZIkW0

Far from conclusive but a alleged 911 call repoting bigfoot.

steddyeddy · 27-04-2010 1:33am

Well that guy I referenced before said his sighting started when what he thought was a tree stump stood up so.... TBH my sneaking belief that it may be out there is almost entirely predicated by that witness I know. I simply believe him. And it rattled his cage enough to make him doubt his own eyes, but at the same time believe his own eyes. Not evidence by a long shot, but enough for me anyway that its worth considering. Thsts just me though and not science.

Well thats it exactly most people think its a tree stump or something else it has been observed to be quite stationary and then suddenly moves with a stride.

Yea her take was the descriptions of territorial behaviour and vocalisations by pre interweb uneducated witnesses rang true for her as how primates might act.

Yes this has converted a lot of scientists.

Yea like I said earlier the orang pendek is an interesting one for me. Not alone have a few respected types seen something, one of the "jane goodalls" of orang utans saw something out of the ordinary. I doubt its a relict hominid though. Not judging by the witnesses and the footprints. Its feet dont look like ours, more orang like with a large toe(smaller than an orang, more adapted to walking upright, but with a familial connection). A step(no pun) on the way to bipedalism more than a fully bipedal animal. I would suspect if it exists its a smaller, more bipedal sub spieces of Orang. Kinda similar as a bonobo is to a chimp.

Yes indeed debbie martyr saw one herself one of the major people involved in oranutang conservation.

Fnz · 27-04-2010 3:01am

steddyeddy wrote: »

Feel free to take me up on anything i said earlier, i dont belive it therfore it doesnt exist isnt an argument against its existence.

To be fair, you talk and talk. We're not all cryptozoologists - remaining unconvinced is not unreasonable.

Dave! · 27-04-2010 4:42am

steddyeddy wrote: »

Right i have just read the article and do concede on the fact that some casts have got to be fakes paticularly ones connected with paul freeman who is dodgy to say the least, however the experts on the foot anatomy and dermal ridge experts are often the first to declare some tracks fakes.

Some like the criplple foot tracks in washington which seem to indicate a deformity of the right foot have been widely praised as being extremly difficult to fake because of the knowledge required to fake a foot like this sort of pathology.

The dermal ridges can be faked but they are not the same as human dermal ridges many of the tracks have simular features including midtarsal break which is not found in humans, so for this to have been a legend created by hoaxers there would have had to have been a shared knowledge among hoaxers of non human primate foot anatomy and pathology around the whole country for the lt four hundred years of the legend! that is extremely unlikely.

Have a look at this

http://www.orgoneresearch.com/bigfoot%27%20mid%20tarsal%20break.htm

Someone makes a crude foot prosthetic out of foam found in a dumpster and ends up producing a mid-dermal ridge:

IMG_4987%5B1%5D.jpg

A bit more effort and I'm sure you could do an even better job.

So now that's holes poked in the mid-tarsal ridge and the dermal ridge argument.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Ill say again im half and half on the patterson film i definatly dont think its conclusive proof of the creatures existence but i will say most of the sightings indicate that the creature is not exactly afraid of humans but aparantly unwilling to have contact with anything strange, as is the reaction of gorillas, bonobos and chimps to human contact unless the humans act violently as is the case in sightings were people act violently towards bigfoot.

The fact that it strolls away rapidly means absolutly nothing, humans stroll away from things they want no contact with, when i talk about primate behaviour im talking about humans, gorillas, chimps ect primates all act similarly to each other, nothing about that bigfoot video is out of touch with primate behaviour.

A good point to note is that the recently discovered bili ape saunters away peacefully when it makes human contact and shows no fear.

nothing in that video suggests that the creature isnt cryptic the minute it or whatever it is saw the camera man it walked away quite fast the video you are posting has been slowed down so more details could be seen the creature is walking away quite fast.

But primates show evidence that they are startled. I'm not saying afraid, I'm saying startled/surprised. If you were walking through the woods, glanced over your shoulder and saw 2 guys pointing a video camera at you, would you not be at all startled? I certainly would. It might make me jump a bit, do a double-take (pardon the pun!), give a startled expression (widen eyes, etc).

But even forgetting about that -- I showed you a costume from 2001 A Space Odyssey, it looks just as good as the costume in the Patterson clip. And I'm not sure if I already posted this, but with a bit of practise the gait in the clip is easily reproduced:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB5I6HgA-CI

So it could easily be faked, and I think we can write it off (I'm aware that you say you're half and half on it).

steddyeddy wrote: »

well thats sort of my point about the chimp behaviour they modified their actions to avoid humans in essence becoming more cryptid and your right not many people ae hunting bigfoots but still primates are by nature cryptic wheter threatend or not, they do however become more cryptic when hunted ect.

Primates do not hide in underground bunkers or hollow tree trunks, which is what the entire SPECIES of bigfoot would have to be doing to avoid detection/capture/leaving traces. They are not that cryptic usually, they're quite visible, just (as I'm sure you'll point out) often hid away in inaccessible forests.

I accept that they might modify their behaviour when being hunted (seems reasonable, I haven't looked into it though), but you just conceded that bigfoot is not being hunted. So why so hidden?

steddyeddy wrote: »

Actually areas were the giant panda was discovered and various recent discoveries were made have been better explored than some wilderness areas in america, america has more wilderness than most european countries have total landmass!

Yes but bigfoot sightings aren't reserved to these wilderness areas are they? They're observed in almost every single state (see map), how much wilderness is there in New York?

What areas of the USA, where bigfoot has been seen, are unexplored? Give me a few examples.

steddyeddy wrote: »

These creatures if they exist are extremly rare and are certainly not all ten feet many heights have been reported, scatter a hundred elusive people with good outdoor skills around america and you can bet if they wanted to remain undiscovered they could!

Scatter a hundred ninjas around the entire USA and they could go undiscovered yeah, but in order to sustain a species for hundreds of years (as you claim), then surely they would have to live close to each other, in order to breed, etc.? And primates are social creatures that live in groups, and you say that bigfoot exhibits typical primate behaviour, so they're not dispersed are they?

So we're talking about various small groups of primates, let's be clear about that.

There would also have to be several adults that are about 10 feet high if the eye witness accounts are anything to go by, right?

steddyeddy wrote: »

yes many hunters have went back to chase the animals and even given up their jobs to trek through wilderness days at a time.

MANY hunters have gone to that effort, and nobody has ever killed one?

That doesn't strike you as strange?

Perhaps the bigfoot hunters should fly in a few poachers from Africa, they have more experience hunting primates so would probably have more success.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Not at all most people even skeptics agree that there is at least one animal that doesnt quite match up to known american wildlife in the cast (there are definatly many animals imprinted in the cast) daris schwindler the world authority on primates and a former bigfoot skeptic anylysed the cast and stated there is a large bipedal ape walking around america.

the hair was examined by a whole team of experts not one guy and there are many hairs not just one.

the cast has a clear example of an enlargd achilles tendon in the cast which elk doo not have in fact a large achilles tendon is a feature of bipedialty.

Quote from the 'Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization':
http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/ISU_press_rel_cast.asp

Hair samples collected at the scene and from the cast itself and examined by Dr. Henner Fahrenbach, a biomedical research scientist from Beaverton, Ore., were primarily of deer, elk, coyote, and bear, as was expected since tracks in the wallow were mostly of those animals. However, based on characteristics matching those of otherwise indeterminate primate hairs collected in association with other Sasquatch sightings, he identified a single distinctly primate hair as “Sasquatch.”

So it was just one hair, yeah? How did a creature with long hair all over its body lie down in the mud but just drop a single one, whereas an elk dropped many?

And why were there no bigfoot footprints found around it?

Here's an analysis of it from another bigfoot enthusiast:
http://www.stockinghominid.com/HoaxesandMisidentifications.html

In an analysis written by Richard Noll he states, “Three out of the 56 collected [hair samples] at the site and from the cast have been identified as unknown primate. Humans are considered primate in this analysis.” We spoke to Dr. Henner Fahrenbach about the primate hairs; he stated to that only “1” hair was primate. Dr. Fahrenbach also stated that the primate hair was just a fragment of hair. Basically, it did not have a root, but was determined primate because the hair did not have a medulla. Usually, animal hairs have a very distinct medulla. Noll’s analysis continues with “The major difference between Human hair and the samples collected (as far as I can tell) are the scale features, and the fact that the ends are tapered, not cut. All human hair would be cut at the ends.” Well, those comments made us think. We contacted Carrie Oien at the FBI Hair and Fiber Analysis Office in Quantico. The information was read to Mr. Oien over the phone and received a chuckle and blunt “Horse hockey” from him. Mr. Oien politely explained to me that human hair, amongst other reasons, breaks off, falls out, and is yanked out. All human hair does not have cut ends. Carrie Oien then laughingly expressed that human and primate hairs don’t have Spinous, or Coronal scales. Elk, rodents, and Bovine do, but primates do not. So, when Mr. Noll states that one of the differences between human hair and the samples collected are the scale features, this simply shows that none of the collected hairs are Sasquatch hair. There should not be any difference between the hair scales if the hairs are from a Sasquatch.

The entire Skookum incident was filled was contradictions, and unanswered questions. By using principles such as Occam’s Razor (“All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one.”) researchers would have investigations that are much more precise in the evaluations. With Skookum , not one Sasquatch footprint was found. Logic has us asking; why would a Sasquatch walk up, lie down, and reach for food? Wouldn’t it make more sense for the Sasquatch to simply walk up, bend down to retrieve the food, and walk away?

So, here’s the Skookum scenario. Sasquatch walks up to the wallow, backwards, brushing it’s tracks away. It stops, and LIES DOWN, making a very large imprint in the mud. Now, it reaches for an apple, takes a bite or two and drops it on the ground. The Sasquatch wasn’t very hungry, so, it rises up and continues walking, backwards, to the tree line covering it’s track as it leaves the area. But what about the alleged Sasquatch heel and tendon imprint? Elk use their legs to lie down and stand up. Could this imprint be nothing more than an elk bending at the “knee” in an effort to recline in the mud to wallow in it?

This was supposed proof of a Sasquatch, thrown out to the public. Mega hype and notoriety over nothing more than a possible elk wallow. This type of sensationalistic hype is detrimental to Sasquatch research. Devoted researchers must have integrity, and use common sense when it comes to investigations involving Sasquatch. In the decades that have past, why is it that science doesn’t take this subject more seriously? Why should they, when our own researchers don’t.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well wheter you say its a conspiracy or not that what would be needed for the hoaxing theory to be plausible a conspiracy!

Not at all, as I've already pointed out

steddyeddy wrote: »

http://www.bfro.net/ theres a few hundred!

Feel free to dig up a few compelling ones that detail specific primate behaviour that the person couldn't possibly know about, and that couldn't be made up.

Just had a quick look at the first one I could see:

Anyways, we stuck with our gut feeling and starting heading back. About ten minutes later, a big rock came flying from the left heading towards the right and hit another rock and made a loud crack. The rock must have rolled for at least 5 seconds afterwards. I could tell by the sound the rock made when it hit, that is was a big rock. And the fact that it rolled for such a long distance afterward. It had to be someone or something very strong. We stuck around the area for another 5-7 minutes to see if we could see or hear anything but no luck. I had already known that this area has had its own encounters with bigfoot so I suspected that this was what it was.

etc

Shocker :rolleyes:

steddyeddy wrote: »

I have given my opinion why it exists backed by my knowledge of likely primate behaviour, instead of tackling it directly you have tried to tackle it with misinformation and the misrepresentation of facts.

No need for the ad hominems, point out my misinformation or else give it a rest.

steddyeddy · 27-04-2010 6:03pm

Have a look at this

http://www.orgoneresearch.com/bigfoot%27%20mid%20tarsal%20break.htm

Someone makes a crude foot prosthetic out of foam found in a dumpster and ends up producing a mid-dermal ridge:

A bit more effort and I'm sure you could do an even better job.

So now that's holes poked in the mid-tarsal ridge and the dermal ridge argument.

Yes that is track made simply and it does look quite real if i saw that on its own i would say excellent but thats stumbled on to one of the reasons fakes are easily spotted, if i was tracking human tracks along a beach and saw one hundre tracks like the one above i could say that they have been faked for the simple reason that all the prints would be the exact same no toe variation, no indication of a bend in the foot ect, jeff meldrum a expert on hominid and primate foot prints saw this clearly in some fakes, the most convincing tracks have variation in every single track ie the toe position is dfferent, some tracks show a definate bend in the mid foot, some tracks the toes are in a curled position and some are not.

Tracks like the one above have been rejected for that reason, for some of the most convincing tracks to have been faked hundreds of of different shaped casts would have to be luged up a mountain somewhere. There are a few reasons why i dont think the footprints are all faked and all it takes is one track to be real for the culprit to be real!

1. The earliest settlers in north america/canada reported footprints resembling huge human tracks, david thompson a explorer in 1811 while searching for a waterway from the columbian river came across the tracks of an creature with foot prints of eighteen inches, this is one of many cases of early explorers coming across the tracks.

2. The ancient native americans left pictographs of various creature tracks as testiment to their animal tracking skills, included on many of these are coyote, bear, wolverine, bison, human tracks (tribes often tracked other tribes) and tracks resembling a giant human tracks.

Sure some tracks are faked dermal ridges can be faked but not the movement of those ridges in different footprints an the variation of the mid tarsel break.

In the track above that does not represent a mid tarsel break but a pressure ridge as jeff statd himself, a mid tarsel break wouldnt be as pronounced.

But primates show evidence that they are startled. I'm not saying afraid, I'm saying startled/surprised. If you were walking through the woods, glanced over your shoulder and saw 2 guys pointing a video camera at you, would you not be at all startled? I certainly would. It might make me jump a bit, do a double-take (pardon the pun!), give a startled expression (widen eyes, etc).

But even forgetting about that -- I showed you a costume from 2001 A Space Odyssey, it looks just as good as the costume in the Patterson clip. And I'm not sure if I already posted this, but with a bit of practise the gait in the clip is easily reproduced:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB5I6HgA-CI

Dave i agree with you that film could very well be fake i never said i found it one hundred per cent convincing and is far far from conclusive proof of bigfoot, as regards being startled yes primates would be startled or it would have to be a really dumb creature, on the other hand john chambers who designed the costumes for the planet of the apes stated he could not have faked that, if its a fake its a good one, there seems to be visible muscle under the skin but experts on either side of the argument cant prove anything conclusivly, like i say the video is far from convincing but i cant say outright its a fake as i dont know for certain, what i can say is it doesnt look convincing and im going to sound mad here but if it is real it definatly isnt male.

So it could easily be faked, and I think we can write it off (I'm aware that you say you're half and half on it).

I have no problem with writing it off, i would say it can be faked but i woulnt go as far as say easily faked.

Primates do not hide in underground bunkers or hollow tree trunks, which is what the entire SPECIES of bigfoot would have to be doing to avoid detection/capture/leaving traces. They are not that cryptic usually, they're quite visible, just (as I'm sure you'll point out) often hid away in inaccessible forests.

Washington state alone would have enough has enough wilderness for a large primate to exist, gorillas and chimps are not quite visible in fact one tribe of 150 chimps remained hidden for several months having been discovered peviously.

They are leaving traces as in tracks and vocalisations, a lot of american/canadian wilderness i fully all intended purposes unexplored, most creatures would be cryptic to a certain degree.

I accept that they might modify their behaviour when being hunted (seems reasonable, I haven't looked into it though), but you just conceded that bigfoot is not being hunted. So why so hidden?

several animals are not currently hunted but extremly cryptic inclding humans sometimes we get that way not because we currently live with something that threatens us because we have in the past, an example is the giant panda which wasnt huted extensivly until recent years i extremly cryptid it got that way because it used to exist along side huge carnivores.

Yes but bigfoot sightings aren't reserved to these wilderness areas are they? They're observed in almost every single state (see map), how much wilderness is there in New York?

There is a fair bit of wilderness in new york paticulary whitehall which has wilderness stretching all the way up to canada. were did you get that map if you dont mind me asking?

What areas of the USA, where bigfoot has been seen, are unexplored? Give me a few examples.

Most states have some degree of wilderness, washington, california, gerogia, and ohio all hae some unexplored areas.

Scatter a hundred ninjas around the entire USA and they could go undiscovered yeah, but in order to sustain a species for hundreds of years (as you claim), then surely they would have to live close to each other, in order to breed, etc.? And primates are social creatures that live in groups, and you say that bigfoot exhibits typical primate behaviour, so they're not dispersed are they?

Good point but they wouldnt have to live near each other the reports site sasqauch as moving quite fast and as a bipedal creature would be able to travel vast differences (a grizzly bears territory can be a thousand sqaure miles!) the vocalisations attributed to the creature are quite loud and carry for miles so it would not have to live near a female in order to mate!

Not all primates live in groups male oranutangs are solitary creatures and only see other orangutangs in order to mate, this is interesting to me as if bigfoot exists it must have come from asia (most of the north american animals come from asia including humans) like the orangutang animals from simular areas often have simlar mating habits.

So we're talking about various small groups of primates, let's be clear about that.

Most sightings only report seeing one creature at a time a few sightings report 2-3 traveing together this is simular to orangutang behaviour, im not saying that large groups live together if people were reporting 50 at a time i wouldnt belive it.

There would also have to be several adults that are about 10 feet high if the eye witness accounts are anything to go by, right?

I dont know the upper range of the creature but im guessing its around that height and yes there would have to be several adults.

MANY hunters have gone to that effort, and nobody has ever killed one?

That doesn't strike you as strange?

Yes it does and makes me doubt from time to time but then the fact that nobody reported or killed a bili ape untill recently i find strange hunters poachers ect have tried to but have so far remained unsuccesfull in recent years anyway.

Perhaps the bigfoot hunters should fly in a few poachers from Africa, they have more experience hunting primates so would probably have more success.

Yes i definatly think more could be done to disprove or disprove the whole thing, i would be happy with either result as long as it put a close to the mystery.

Quote from the 'Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization':
http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/ISU_press_rel_cast.asp

So it was just one hair, yeah? How did a creature with long hair all over its body lie down in the mud but just drop a single one, whereas an elk dropped many?

apolgies dave it does seem to be one hair i was confusing it with other hairs found in other locations attributed to bigfoot, i dont know why theres only one hair found but the fact is it cant be indentified and looks primate.

Simular hairs have been found in other areas that look primate and have naturally worn nd indicsting that they my not have been cut.

And why were there no bigfoot footprints found around it?

Here's an analysis of it from another bigfoot enthusiast:
http://www.stockinghominid.com/HoaxesandMisidentifications.html

Because the wallow was surrounded by hard dirt, so the same reason why there was no elk coyote tracks around it.

Feel free to dig up a few compelling ones that detail specific primate behaviour that the person couldn't possibly know about, and that couldn't be made up.

I will and ill highlight the known primate behaviour in bold, ill give you ones that are least likely to be made up eg multiple witnesses who dont know each other.

Shocker :rolleyes:

Not really if i report a gorilla in the congo say it wouldnt invalidate my report just because the locals have legends of gorillas.

No need for the ad hominems, point out my misinformation or else give it a rest.

I didnt mean it as a attack on youself dave your an intelligent guy and i enjoy having this debate with you i mean that some of my facts are being taken up the wrong way either, possibly by how i explain them.

I believe bigfoot could exist for example that deosnt mean i take ufos loch ness monster or virgin births at face value all thinga are not equally believable or unbeliveble to me.

steddyeddy · 27-04-2010 6:24pm

Fnz wrote: »

To be fair, you talk and talk. We're not all cryptozoologists - remaining unconvinced is not unreasonable.

Im not a cryptozoologist i dont like the term to me it implies belief without looking at the facts a lot of cryptozoologists are very scientific but a few just jump on the bandwagon of the latest fad, im a zoologist with a open mind towards new creaures being discovered i do not subscribe to a beleif if the evidence is poor, like wise i can change my beleif if evidence is given thats refutes my beleif.

You say your not a cryptozoologst well thats something we have in common, remaining unconvincd is as reasonable as remaining convinced, but the difference is for example i say im convinced for the reasons x, y and z, then dave says hes unconvinced for reasons x, y and z, where as some some people chime with just im not convinced! thats not an argument against anything and it holds as much validity as me saying simply im convinced to think otherwise is absurd.

Fnz · 28-04-2010 4:42am

steddyeddy wrote: »

Im not a cryptozoologist i dont like the term to me it implies belief without looking at the facts a lot of cryptozoologists are very scientific but a few just jump on the bandwagon of the latest fad, im a zoologist with a open mind towards new creaures being discovered i do not subscribe to a beleif if the evidence is poor, like wise i can change my beleif if evidence is given thats refutes my beleif.

You say your not a cryptozoologst well thats something we have in common, remaining unconvincd is as reasonable as remaining convinced, but the difference is for example i say im convinced for the reasons x, y and z, then dave says hes unconvinced for reasons x, y and z, where as some some people chime with just im not convinced! thats not an argument against anything and it holds as much validity as me saying simply im convinced to think otherwise is absurd.

Whether or not you label yourself a cryptozoologist wasn't the point (I believe the search for skookum could be classified as cryptozoology but term wasn't intended as a dig). The burden of proof is on you if you intend to bring people around to understanding why you went from a position of "being completly skeptical to being quite confident that the evidence points to (the skookums') reality". Your argument has not been succinct to the lay person. Your, long-winded, posts may be interesting as part of a discussion on why there is yet no evidence for bigfoot; but it still means that "remaining unconvinced" (of bigfoot's existence) seems much more valid than "remaining convinced".

steddyeddy · 28-04-2010 2:24pm

Fnz wrote: »

Whether or not you label yourself a cryptozoologist wasn't the point (I believe the search for skookum could be classified as cryptozoology but term wasn't intended as a dig). The burden of proof is on you if you intend to bring people around to understanding why you went from a position of "being completly skeptical to being quite confident that the evidence points to (the skookums') reality". Your argument has not been succinct to the lay person. Your, long-winded, posts may be interesting as part of a discussion on why there is yet no evidence for bigfoot; but it still means that "remaining unconvinced" (of bigfoot's existence) seems much more valid than "remaining convinced".

I disagree i have presented evidence i find compelling eg witness reports going back centuries, footprints having been found for centuries, mi sorry but to explain something that i find compelling for zoological reasons im going to have to use a scientific arguement, ill simplfy it for the next post and put it in bullet form.

However you say my posts are long winded and a lay person so you cant really connect with the argument well to be honest i think thats just an excuse, you would be complaining if they were my posts were too short and had no science in them.

wibbs and dave to my knowledge have no zoology degree yet they tackled each and every one of my points head on with no flinching and you make a argument that my posts are too long, mate i hope this isnt the exent of your debate on the subject, i told you i want a challenge not someone moaning that my posts are too long, i presented evidence and untill you counter my evidence like dave has (and ive conceded many times) ill assume your ok with it.

wel actually in science unconvinced and convinced are both completely acceptable, however either one loses its aceptablilty if your being blindly unconvinced or blindly convinced, and i know you didnt mean it as a dig but zoologist who have a interest in bigfoot or new mega fauna arent automaticaly cryptozoologists, zoology is very much involved in the search for new animals, before the komodo dragon was discovered it wasnt a cryptozoological inerest it was zoological. Im a zoologist with a open mind.

Wibbs · 28-04-2010 11:31pm

The only degrees I have are on my wall thermometer

.

If it was me looking for these possible still extant or more recent hominid/pongoids I'd be looking in Asia more. The Alma/Orang pendek types for practical reasons. IMHO its a very interesting area of possible research. Even if we find no living examples, the fact that such legends exist in particular areas may inform our past and how we transmit that past. IE if the last neandertal did die out 20,000 years ago and can be connected to the notion of say trolls in modern legends that is interesting. It could show that transmission of such notions is actually more robust than we give such things credit for. It would inform how we look at other legends like the great flood legend common in alomost all cultures, which could link into the floods that followed the sea rise after the last ice age. And that's what 12,000 years ago? The tale of Sodom and Gamorrah* may be linked with the fallout of a meteorite event as an example. It would be prudent to look at other legends with wide commonalities to lead the way for more scientific analysis and possible discovery.

Bigfoot, yeti wildman are no different. They come from somewhere. In the modern era they comes via the wires, but they were there as a notion loooooong before broadband across very different unconnected cultures. That deserves a look.

* I know what sodomy is, I always worried about what gamorrahey was

Sid_Justice · 30-04-2010 12:58am

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes and no. Like the Congo jungle much of the amazon is actually quite recent(hence I put little store in the idea of extant congo dinosaurs). Not that long ago it was much more "civilised" and utilised by man. The very fertile black soil found all over it is evidence of earlier more organised human exploitation. Its not as impenetrable nor pristine a forest environment as the pacific north west of the us and canada for example and nowhere close an example as the vast forests of Asia.

What do you mean yes and no? You agree a bit and disagree a bit? I did say Megafauna not hominid or close human relative, I presume you assumed as much.

Wibbs · 30-04-2010 11:29am

Of course. Megafauna like the congo pgymy elephant that has grown smaller as a local adaptation. Or the tales of congo "dinosaurs" could be a surviving group of rhinos that stayed around when the jungle took over from grassland. My point was that it would be more unlikely to find a new megafauna species in the amazon as it was exploited by man more in the past and isnt as "pristine" or ancient or as unexplored an environment as many think.

It would be more likely an animal could remain hidden in the pacific northwest/canada as levels of human population in those areas was historically very low and remains so. Though that would be offset by the lower(by comparison) biodiversity in temperate rain forests. A new species of wolf or bear I could imagine however.

The problem I have with the notion of a bigfoot type primate is that great apes, other than ourselves, never made it to the americas. Gigantopithicus oft cited as a possible explanation just doesnt work for me. It was a tropical(sub tropical at best) animal. I can't see it migrating or surviving in sub polar areas. Similar issues with the australian "bigfoot". No great apes in Oz and migration would require a sea voyage and social cooperation. Now its possible erectus could have gotten to the americas(they got to java and flores and all over asia in short order). Even more possible they could have gotten to Australia(I suspect they may have), but descriptions of these "bigfoots" dont sound like any homo erectus so far discovered by science.

Like I've said I'd be looking in asia and the tropical and temperate forests as a much more likely place for recent survival of hominids, maybe into historical times, maybe and its a big maybe, into today.

steddyeddy · 01-05-2010 2:49am

Wibbs wrote: »

Of course. Megafauna like the congo pgymy elephant that has grown smaller as a local adaptation. Or the tales of congo "dinosaurs" could be a surviving group of rhinos that stayed around when the jungle took over from grassland. My point was that it would be more unlikely to find a new megafauna species in the amazon as it was exploited by man more in the past and isnt as "pristine" or ancient or as unexplored an environment as many think.

It would be more likely an animal could remain hidden in the pacific northwest/canada as levels of human population in those areas was historically very low and remains so. Though that would be offset by the lower(by comparison) biodiversity in temperate rain forests. A new species of wolf or bear I could imagine however.

The problem I have with the notion of a bigfoot type primate is that great apes, other than ourselves, never made it to the americas. Gigantopithicus oft cited as a possible explanation just doesnt work for me. It was a tropical(sub tropical at best) animal. I can't see it migrating or surviving in sub polar areas. Similar issues with the australian "bigfoot". No great apes in Oz and migration would require a sea voyage and social cooperation. Now its possible erectus could have gotten to the americas(they got to java and flores and all over asia in short order). Even more possible they could have gotten to Australia(I suspect they may have), but descriptions of these "bigfoots" dont sound like any homo erectus so far discovered by science.

Like I've said I'd be looking in asia and the tropical and temperate forests as a much more likely place for recent survival of hominids, maybe into historical times, maybe and its a big maybe, into today.

Well as i say earlier the giganto theory has a lot of holes in it and for it to work i would be assuming that the creature adapted to artic conditions or was forced out of the area and up north for some reason or the other.

I would agree there is more unexplored areas in asia for a large biped to be found but in my opinion there is more evidence for bigfoot than say the yeti, it is in this area however that the politics of zoology comes into play.

If bigfoot and the yeti both ran for president the yeti would win (sorry its late and im tired im not on drugs lol) the people who see the yeti are people like lord hunt, reinhold messner famous mountain climbers and members of the national geographic society who carry more clout with the zoolological elite for instance its well known that david attenburogh is a beliver in the yeti simply because half his friends in his elitist circle claimed to have seen it!

If i were just to look at landmass i would say that a large ape existing there undiscovered was unlikely, (when i say ape for me to believe it exists it would have to be closer to human than the other apes, many reports indicate a near human level of intelligence) but then i would have to dismiss the sightings, the fact that native americans have totem poles depicting apes, the fact that they have artifacts and masks so ape like that scientists asked themselves if they havent been to africa how could they have such accurate ape like depictions (the masks have sagital crest, trumpted lips like a chimpanzee).

The there is the matter of the sightings, footprints and unknown vocalizations heard, a scientist who is sitting on the fence of the bigfoot debate jack napier a primate expert and said the following of the footprints and the sightings "if just one of these is real then scientists have a lot to anwser for.

As regards the sightings being made up im sorry but over four hundred years of the same thing reported again and again, which we only recently (the last fifty years or so ) find out that over a hundred native american tribes had names and near identical descriptions of in their legends and foot prints described in areas in the same places as the sightings for hundreds of years, fo me to belie that this is a hoax that has being going on for centuries with people amazingly reporting simular features and behaviours would go against occams razor that the simpliest explantion is often the correct one.

To explain this mystery in any other terms would multiply the problem beyond necessity and this aproach in science has proven wrong again and again in science.

steddyeddy · 01-05-2010 2:52am

Wibbs wrote: »

Of course. Megafauna like the congo pgymy elephant that has grown smaller as a local adaptation. Or the tales of congo "dinosaurs" could be a surviving group of rhinos that stayed around when the jungle took over from grassland. My point was that it would be more unlikely to find a new megafauna species in the amazon as it was exploited by man more in the past and isnt as "pristine" or ancient or as unexplored an environment as many think.

It would be more likely an animal could remain hidden in the pacific northwest/canada as levels of human population in those areas was historically very low and remains so. Though that would be offset by the lower(by comparison) biodiversity in temperate rain forests. A new species of wolf or bear I could imagine however.

The problem I have with the notion of a bigfoot type primate is that great apes, other than ourselves, never made it to the americas. Gigantopithicus oft cited as a possible explanation just doesnt work for me. It was a tropical(sub tropical at best) animal. I can't see it migrating or surviving in sub polar areas. Similar issues with the australian "bigfoot". No great apes in Oz and migration would require a sea voyage and social cooperation. Now its possible erectus could have gotten to the americas(they got to java and flores and all over asia in short order). Even more possible they could have gotten to Australia(I suspect they may have), but descriptions of these "bigfoots" dont sound like any homo erectus so far discovered by science.

Like I've said I'd be looking in asia and the tropical and temperate forests as a much more likely place for recent survival of hominids, maybe into historical times, maybe and its a big maybe, into today.

I agree wibbs im sure that homo erectus would have got to austrailia, the fact that they got to flores is remarkable and led some scientists to conclude that they must have used boats!

Dave! · 01-05-2010 4:20am

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes that is track made simply and it does look quite real if i saw that on its own i would say excellent but thats stumbled on to one of the reasons fakes are easily spotted, if i was tracking human tracks along a beach and saw one hundre tracks like the one above i could say that they have been faked for the simple reason that all the prints would be the exact same no toe variation, no indication of a bend in the foot ect, jeff meldrum a expert on hominid and primate foot prints saw this clearly in some fakes, the most convincing tracks have variation in every single track ie the toe position is dfferent, some tracks show a definate bend in the mid foot, some tracks the toes are in a curled position and some are not.

Tracks like the one above have been rejected for that reason, for some of the most convincing tracks to have been faked hundreds of of different shaped casts would have to be luged up a mountain somewhere. There are a few reasons why i dont think the footprints are all faked and all it takes is one track to be real for the culprit to be real!

Post up a link that details the analysis and studies of these tracks of hundreds of footprints that have been found to be impossible to fake and that couldn't be a human foot.

steddyeddy wrote: »

1. The earliest settlers in north america/canada reported footprints resembling huge human tracks, david thompson a explorer in 1811 while searching for a waterway from the columbian river came across the tracks of an creature with foot prints of eighteen inches, this is one of many cases of early explorers coming across the tracks.

Just had a look on wikipedia and found this:

In his published journals, Thompson recorded seeing large footprints near what is now Jasper, Alberta, in 1811. It has been suggested that these prints were similar to what has since been called the sasquatch. However, Thompson noted that these tracks showed "a small Nail at the end of each [toe]", and stated that these tracks "very much resembles a large Bear's Track".[6]

oops! Another alleged bigfoot track turns out to be from a different animal?

You gonna mark that off your list of evidence, or have I gotten it wrong (can't say I've gone to the trouble of reading the book)?

steddyeddy wrote: »

2. The ancient native americans left pictographs of various creature tracks as testiment to their animal tracking skills, included on many of these are coyote, bear, wolverine, bison, human tracks (tribes often tracked other tribes) and tracks resembling a giant human tracks.

Link with pictures of these?

steddyeddy wrote: »

Sure some tracks are faked dermal ridges can be faked but not the movement of those ridges in different footprints an the variation of the mid tarsel break.

In the track above that does not represent a mid tarsel break but a pressure ridge as jeff statd himself, a mid tarsel break wouldnt be as pronounced.

It was a rather primitive prosthesis, if you can do that with something from a bin, I think a bit more effort could produce your mid tarsel break.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Dave i agree with you that film could very well be fake i never said i found it one hundred per cent convincing and is far far from conclusive proof of bigfoot, as regards being startled yes primates would be startled or it would have to be a really dumb creature, on the other hand john chambers who designed the costumes for the planet of the apes stated he could not have faked that, if its a fake its a good one, there seems to be visible muscle under the skin but experts on either side of the argument cant prove anything conclusivly, like i say the video is far from convincing but i cant say outright its a fake as i dont know for certain, what i can say is it doesnt look convincing and im going to sound mad here but if it is real it definatly isnt male.

I have no problem with writing it off, i would say it can be faked but i woulnt go as far as say easily faked.

So will you mark that off your list and stop presenting it as evidence? Or will you just throw it in with all of these alleged impossible to fake footprints, anecdotes, ambiguous ancient descriptions, etc., and hope that people think it's compelling? Because that's what you've been doing -- lumping together what is scientifically considered bad evidence, and using it argue for bigfoot's existance.

One piece of good evidence would be a million times better than all of this stuff.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Washington state alone would have enough has enough wilderness for a large primate to exist, gorillas and chimps are not quite visible in fact one tribe of 150 chimps remained hidden for several months having been discovered peviously.

They are leaving traces as in tracks and vocalisations, a lot of american/canadian wilderness i fully all intended purposes unexplored, most creatures would be cryptic to a certain degree.

Vocalisations? These are presumably part of the anecdotes? Cryptic bigfoot is shouting his head off in the forest and yet people still can't find him?

Alot of the rural areas have campers, researchers, bigfoot enthusiasts, etc., roaming through them.

steddyeddy wrote: »

There is a fair bit of wilderness in new york paticulary whitehall which has wilderness stretching all the way up to canada. were did you get that map if you dont mind me asking?

Most states have some degree of wilderness, washington, california, gerogia, and ohio all hae some unexplored areas.

And this is where bigfoot sightings are localised?

No, they're in locations all over the place. Often people see it when camping, when hunting, or just when driving, so these aren't hidden away areas that nobody goes to so it could concieveably live with no problems.

The fact that there have been thousands of alleged sightings goes against your argument that it could live hidden away because of all the wilderness in the US. Evidentally bigfoot is roaming around in areas that are frequented by humans for various recreational reasons, including bigfoot hunting!

steddyeddy wrote: »

Good point but they wouldnt have to live near each other the reports site sasqauch as moving quite fast and as a bipedal creature would be able to travel vast differences (a grizzly bears territory can be a thousand sqaure miles!) the vocalisations attributed to the creature are quite loud and carry for miles so it would not have to live near a female in order to mate!

Not all primates live in groups male oranutangs are solitary creatures and only see other orangutangs in order to mate, this is interesting to me as if bigfoot exists it must have come from asia (most of the north american animals come from asia including humans) like the orangutang animals from simular areas often have simlar mating habits.

Most sightings only report seeing one creature at a time a few sightings report 2-3 traveing together this is simular to orangutang behaviour, im not saying that large groups live together if people were reporting 50 at a time i wouldnt belive it.

I dont know the upper range of the creature but im guessing its around that height and yes there would have to be several adults.

Okay

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yes it does and makes me doubt from time to time but then the fact that nobody reported or killed a bili ape untill recently i find strange hunters poachers ect have tried to but have so far remained unsuccesfull in recent years anyway.

Yes i definatly think more could be done to disprove or disprove the whole thing, i would be happy with either result as long as it put a close to the mystery.

Bili apes were only discovered recently though weren't they? Bigfoot has been seen all over the shop for hundreds of years, right? It's considerably more strange because of this fact. Native Americans have been tracking them, but none managed to kill one? They've been witnessed by thousands of people and none of them (when roaming through rural woods, often bear country) had a gun on them? No bodies have been stumbled upon (I know you mentioned the acidity might break them down*, but that takes time, surely in hundreds of years someone might have tripped over one that was 'in the process' of breaking down?), no poo stepped in, nothing. Ninjas.

* the entirety of North America is not an acidic environment, is it? New York?

steddyeddy wrote: »

apolgies dave it does seem to be one hair i was confusing it with other hairs found in other locations attributed to bigfoot, i dont know why theres only one hair found but the fact is it cant be indentified and looks primate.

Simular hairs have been found in other areas that look primate and have naturally worn nd indicsting that they my not have been cut.

But what about this?

So, when Mr. Noll states that one of the differences between human hair and the samples collected are the scale features, this simply shows that none of the collected hairs are Sasquatch hair. There should not be any difference between the hair scales if the hairs are from a Sasquatch.

Post up links about the rest of these hairs that have been scientifically analysed and found to be not human or any other animal.

steddyeddy wrote: »

I will and ill highlight the known primate behaviour in bold, ill give you ones that are least likely to be made up eg multiple witnesses who dont know each other.

Go ahead. Lots of multiple witnesses report seeing Nessie.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Not really if i report a gorilla in the congo say it wouldnt invalidate my report just because the locals have legends of gorillas.

I was just pointing out that the first thing the witness considers is that a sasquatch threw the rock at them, rather than, say, it just rolled down the hill and picked up momentum along the way.

They also already knew that the area had sasquatch sightings, so she'd probably have attributed anything strange that happened to bigfoot. Just like people who believe in ghosts attribute every creaky floorboard to ghost activity, and religious people who go to Knock or Mecca are likely to see something of significance to their religion. Confirmation bias.

I suspect that accounts for a significant amount of reported sightings.

steddyeddy wrote: »

I didnt mean it as a attack on youself dave your an intelligent guy and i enjoy having this debate with you i mean that some of my facts are being taken up the wrong way either, possibly by how i explain them.

I believe bigfoot could exist for example that deosnt mean i take ufos loch ness monster or virgin births at face value all thinga are not equally believable or unbeliveble to me.

No but you're willing to take bigfoot anecdotes on face value, but presumably (I've inferred from your post) not UFO, Nessie, etc.

So why do you disregard them? They often have the same weight behind them, ie. multiple witnesses, 'trained individuals' (come on), etc.

Do you not find their anecdotes compelling?

BTW This is going on a bit too long for me mate (over 2 weeks?!), I reckon I'll make my closing remarks in my next post

Wibbs · 01-05-2010 3:17pm

In my humble it could come down to a few possibilities;

1)Bigfoot exists and exists in relatively populated areas. IMO highly unlikely for obvious reasons.

2) Bigfoot exists but in very isolated areas and is nearly extinct. In the past it was found over a more wide range than today and native legends reflect this. Add in the element of campfire stories about the boogey man and now the world wide campfire and like Dave! says confirmation bias comes in to play along with misidentification. Like luftwaffe pilots in the battle of britain were always shot down by spitfires, yet overwhelmingly the aircraft credited with most kills was the less famed hurricane. People want to see bigfoot,not a bear or elk moving through the bushes.

3) Bigfoot doesnt exist. Now I would split this into two possibilities. Bigfoot never existed and its all tall tales of the dark woods, or legends that grew from outcast people of a tribe that "went bush" that over time became "wildmen". This is a possibility. Along with a commonality across cultures of a shangri la, we also find a commonality in legends about people who become wild or animalistic, like werewolves and green men.

4) Or, our species earlier encounters with non human hominids or bipedal pongids has left a race memory that comes to the fore when things go bump in the night. My fave is this latter one.

It could be a mixture of all of the above. Even so without good evidence ist most likely to be 3 or 4 in that list. In the americas anyway.

steddyeddy · 01-05-2010 6:19pm

I think ill present my closing arguments aswell after i respond to daves post but you have to admit guys it was a interesting thread and what i found surprising is that no one was attacked for there beliefs (called stupid ect) i wouldnt call myself a skeptic.

I have a open mind but i am a critical thinker im find it hard to beilive that one religeon is more valid than than another for instance but i feel were some people go wrong is to attack the person rather than present a scientific and realistic look at the beliefs and qeustion them, there was a very good debate here were science was used as well as rationale i have a feeling however that that is what kept people away from this thread, it certaily isnt an easy target.

steddyeddy · 02-05-2010 3:32am

Wibbs wrote: »

In my humble it could come down to a few possibilities;

1)Bigfoot exists and exists in relatively populated areas. IMO highly unlikely for obvious reasons.

2) Bigfoot exists but in very isolated areas and is nearly extinct. In the past it was found over a more wide range than today and native legends reflect this. Add in the element of campfire stories about the boogey man and now the world wide campfire and like Dave! says confirmation bias comes in to play along with misidentification. Like luftwaffe pilots in the battle of britain were always shot down by spitfires, yet overwhelmingly the aircraft credited with most kills was the less famed hurricane. People want to see bigfoot,not a bear or elk moving through the bushes.

3) Bigfoot doesnt exist. Now I would split this into two possibilities. Bigfoot never existed and its all tall tales of the dark woods, or legends that grew from outcast people of a tribe that "went bush" that over time became "wildmen". This is a possibility. Along with a commonality across cultures of a shangri la, we also find a commonality in legends about people who become wild or animalistic, like werewolves and green men.

4) Or, our species earlier encounters with non human hominids or bipedal pongids has left a race memory that comes to the fore when things go bump in the night. My fave is this latter one.

It could be a mixture of all of the above. Even so without good evidence ist most likely to be 3 or 4 in that list. In the americas anyway.

Wibbs the only problem i have with your posts is that their too articulate ill end up posting thread on the problem pages saying my degree is worth sweet fanny adams

Wibbs · 02-05-2010 11:51am

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think ill present my closing arguments aswell after i respond to daves post but you have to admit guys it was a interesting thread and what i found surprising is that no one was attacked for there beliefs (called stupid ect)

+1 actually I've found that to be the case in this particular forum, though I just browse for the most part.

steddyeddy · 05-05-2010 5:03pm

I havent forgotten this thread, im compliling final statements and links if anyone finds a dead body in the meantime let me know :S

Genghiz Cohen · 15-05-2010 7:56pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

I havent forgotten this thread, im compliling final statements and links if anyone finds a dead body in the meantime let me know :S

steddyeddy · 15-05-2010 8:00pm

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Thanks if you love that i have a story crazy story about virgin births that half the country belive in!

steddyeddy · 16-05-2010 1:15am

Post up a link that details the analysis and studies of these tracks of hundreds of footprints that have been found to be impossible to fake and that couldn't be a human foot.

In jeff meldrums words

"There is a lot more to foot prints than most people realize. When you study foot prints very closely there is a tremendous amount of information that can be obtained. Variations in toe positions, weight shifts, weight distribution, lift off, heel strike, stride, depth of impression, pressure ridges, all of these can be used to detect fakes and to gain information on the creature that made them. The information gained from bigfoot tracks indicates an anatomical structure that is very different from a human foot."

As regards couldnt be faked in washington state Well over 1,000 footprints were left of an allegedly crippled Sasquatch, whose left footprints were "normal" by Bigfoot standards but displayed right footprints betraying a type of acquired or congenital clubfoot deformity.

These tracks have convinced several anthropologists that the Bigfoot phenomenon is attributable to an unidentified primate living in the forests of the Pacific Northwest. John Napier, a world-renowned expert on the evolution of human locomotion, admitted that he could not conceive that the Bossburg tracks were fabricated. Similarly, Grover Krantz has related how the morphology of the Bossburg tracks convinced him of the reality of Sasquatch. More recently, an associate professor of biological sciences at Idaho State University, Jeff Meldrum, identified the deformity as an example of metatarsus adductus, and includes the tracks among his examples of alleged Bigfoot prints.

This set of tracks has convinced many experts in meldrums words again "These tracks display anatomical details that a would-be hoaxer would be unlikely to have a knowledge of. These tracks are not simply enlargements of human feet. Rather, they exhibit distinctions in proportion and anatomy that are consistent with the size and purported gait of the Sasquatch."

Another fact your neglecting is the effect a human of average weight will have on the ground, track depth is often used to measure the weight of large mammals and the same principle has been used in alleged bigfoot tracks.
According to the critics all Bigfoot tracks are fakes made by hoaxers with a pair of large false feet attached to their shoes. The weight required to make a typical footprint has been estimated at 700 pounds by wildlife authorities. Author/researcher John Green attempted to simulate the depth of Sasquatch footprints while wearing 14½ inch fake feet and carrying a load of 250 pounds , his total weight of 450 pounds was too light to make deep enough impressions in firm wet sand. A kind of mechanical stamping device or footprint machine may be an alternative means of faking tracks.

The huge number of tracks that have been found and the remoteness of the areas where they have been discovered argue against large-scale faking. Some of these tracks extended for distances of three-quarters of a mile up to several miles with thousands of individual footprints. A series of three thousand footprints, each 16 inches long, was found on a logging road in the Cascade Mountains. On another occasion a long line of prints were discovered on Powder Mountain, about 65 miles north of Vancouver, by a man flying low over the mountain in a helicopter. The tracks were 4,800 feet up the mountainside and ran for five miles before disappearing into ice caves at the foot of a glacier. With something like 100 million track events having occurred over the last forty years.

Finally, there is the question of how the fakers manage to produce footprints that are so biologically convincing (john Napiers words). If they were all the same a hoax would automatically be suspected but Sasquatch footprints vary — some anatomical features are constant, but they are sufficiently different for individuals to be recognised by their footprints.

oops! Another alleged bigfoot track turns out to be from a different animal?

You gonna mark that off your list of evidence, or have I gotten it wrong (can't say I've gone to the trouble of reading the book)?

Yes you have man "its great size was not that of a bear" far too broad to be even a polar bear!

Link with pictures of these?

Oh-mah or the hairy man as depicted if im not mistaken by a californian tribe, (the hairy man is always depicted as crying because according to legend he gave humans the ability to walk on two legs like he does, but when humans saw him they ran away scared, the hairy man was upset by this and said i will hunt at night when you are all asleep among the big trees (sequoia)

steddyeddy · 16-05-2010 1:16am

Part two coming up tommorow folks.

kylith · 16-05-2010 1:02pm

Eddy, do you not find tribal stories a somewhat unreliable source? After all if there were any truth to the story in the first place it would have been long lost in the mists of time and exaggeration.

Our own mythology is full of the Tuatha De Dannan, the Bansí, leprechauns, kelpies and immortals. Do you think that that'd be a reliable reason to decide that somewhere, somewhere in Ireland there's some aul' wan screeching whenever someone dies, after all your granny swears she saw one once*?

*not necessarily your granny.

steddyeddy · 18-05-2010 2:23am

kylith wrote: »

Eddy, do you not find tribal stories a somewhat unreliable source? After all if there were any truth to the story in the first place it would have been long lost in the mists of time and exaggeration.

Our own mythology is full of the Tuatha De Dannan, the Bansí, leprechauns, kelpies and immortals. Do you think that that'd be a reliable reason to decide that somewhere, somewhere in Ireland there's some aul' wan screeching whenever someone dies, after all your granny swears she saw one once*?

*not necessarily your granny.

Ha ha kylith my granny did swear she saw the banshee we carted her off to the home shortly after.

Right thats perfectly true every tribe of every race has various creation legends for example and not all can be right but animals mentioned in the mythology of aboriginal tribes are either made from scratch with no truth what so ever or real, the reality of the animal mostly lies somewhere in the middle ie a real animal with partly imagined attributes.

Fairys, banshees ect are classed as supernatural mythology and require a suspension of the natural laws as we know them eg life after death ect.

Animals apearing in native mythology are often based in realty, however they are often attributed with magical powers to explain maybe their speed, elusiveness ect.

I definalty dont take all aboriginal legends at face value however it would be wrong of me to dismiss the animals represented in these legends simply because they are used in this way.

One reason why i find the native american legend of bigfoot compelling is the fact that over one hundred native american tribes have simular legends of the creature with extremly simular pyshical descriptions bipedal, around 8 foot, hair covered extremly elusive ect, exactly the same way each tribe has a simular description of the bear for example.

The distance between some of these tribes would have made it difficult if not impossible to share knowledge.

The tribes of the islands of flores for example had simular tales of a mythological creature called the ebo gogo a lot of the tribes never ran into each other but gave the creature simular features, later on the remains a human relative 3 foot tall was found in a cave on the island matching the legends exactly (homo florsiensis).

Not all creatures in native legends can be imagined we just have to look at the probality of each one existing.

Bigfoot a extant north american mammal

Comments