Bigfoot a extant north american mammal

steddyeddy

We've been over this already. The vast majority have been, if not proven to be fakes, shown to be inconclusive and not 'proof'.

They actually havent several scientists have concluded them to be unlikely to be fakes as well as sources ranging from the fbi, doctors, bipedal locomotion experts and latent fingerprint experts the same people who have been able to identify some as hoaxes. By the way inconclusive in science is vastly different to fake you cant lump the two together.

I really dont know were your getting the vast majority were proven to be fakes from if that were the case why are the most prominent skeptics still trying to prove that the trace evidence is fake?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, correct. But you'll notice that when the panda was found alive and kicking people accepted its existance.

True but before its discovery there was no evidence of its existence bar trace evidence (foot prints, eyewitness accounts) and people used the arguement no evidence (that they believe) so it couldnt exist. I cant ignore the sightings, foot prints ect because if i did that i really wouldnt be a good scientist, ignoring these is not an option a statement like there is no proof ignores these and fails to explain them in.

You've mentioned several recently discovered species recently that supposedly the locals said were real and scientists said there was no proof, but then they found it, so scientists were wrong. Yes, scientists can be wrong, but again, you'll notice that when they were presented with the animal, either alive or dead, they didn't deny its existance, they accepted that it was a new species and got on with documenting and studying it.

yes but the precedent is there that a animal can exist before scientific discovery. this is not always the case scientists had a platypus body for years before they accepted it as being real, they thought it was a hoax. you cant discount the existence of a creature simply because you havent a body, there is evidence in beween having a body and having no body to study, some people are unable to explain the in between so they ignore it!

IMO believing that something must exist just because people say it does is ludicrous. Accept that it's possible that it can exist, keep your eyes peeled, even actively go looking, but don't declare that it must be true if there's no proof for it or you may wind up looking as silly as those guys who insisted that the sun travelled around the earth. Of course people who say it can't exist may be made to look foolish when it's found, which is all the more reason to go looking for concrete, tangible, proof.

Both sides are foolish by the way i dont say it definatly exists i say i find the evidence credible which is the point some people are missing here

If you accept things as gospel without evidence then you may as well embrace ghosts and bogles, kelpies, werewolves, vampires, homeopathy, scientology and the whole shebang.

I dont actually theres very little evidence for the above, and again ill point out i dont accept things as gospel, science is a matter of probabilities not absolutes, i find the existence of a north american ape credible i have alread presented why, if you have a problem with that dont preach the dangers of belif without evidence counter me on my evidence like dave has.

But you do have proof. Go to the natural history museum and there are stuffed foxes, they probably have some live ones in the zoo too. Or you could stake out your friend's garden to see if it shows up again. Because we have this proof that foxes exist I would not be surprised if my friend saw one in her garden. If she claimed to have seen a wolf I'd be a damn sight more sceptical because there's no evidence of wild wolves in Ireland.

Again how do i know that one was in my back garden?

steddyeddy

Just a quick point to make guys if your going to ask me why dont i belive in ufos, ghosts ect remember to keep the arguement zoological ie refering to animals eg ask why i dont belive in nessie, the chupacabra or the lusca of the bahamas. what im suggesting has nothing to do with ufos ghosts ect for the simple reason is that animals are established the rest are not!

Some animals are yet unestablished bigfoot, nessie or surviving thylacines for example but they still operate within scientific and zoolological principles, were some skeptics get a bad name is when they lump all unexplained phenomenon together eg ghosts, ufos, the psyche and rumours of a new animal, its extremly unscientific some scientists refuse to see bonobos from a seperate species than chimps for example, they are becoming less and less but there was a time when there was no evidence for them being a seperate species so by the logic of some skeptics I should lump them together with people who belive in ufos because there is no evidence for both? Common sense comes into it gentlemen.

steddyeddy

the six foot phillipino lizard for example discovered in the north phillippines had the same type of evidence as bigfoot for example in zoology it is called trace evidence ie sightings, foot prints, native knowledge and feaces yet no body on a area with a large poplulation and a medium amount of land, this has happaned again and again so zoologists rely on trace evidence to determine the reality of the species if they have of yet no body yes it can be hoaxed mis identified ect but thats were scientists come in to verify it.

Some of you dont seem to realize that expiditions are sent to retrieve new species all the time, why? because they have no body! so there must be a system there in the first place to determine the existence of a new creature ie trace evdence

Trace eveidence is verified scientific methodology if there was only one aspect of trace evidence eg native knowledge i would be hesitant to follow it up however if there are sightings, foot print and native knowledge that would warrant serious study in the area and yes we all know it can be hoaxed but so can this kind of evidence from all over the world and if we didnt investigate it because it could be hoaxed say goodbye to new animal discoverys.

we cannot have preconceptions regarding the evidence it is well documented that you have to be completly objective looking at any type of evidence if you go in thinking there is no such thing as bigfoot you will find the evidence most likely hoaxed why, because you dont believe in bigfoot not because of the qaulity of the evidence and the same holds true in rverse if i go in convinced the qqaulity of the evidence is meaningless i will find bigfoot to be real, qeustion the evidence not the reality as sciences current view of the world as this is useless as science is always changing!

maninasia

Steadyeddy, good explanation there of the process of finding unknown animals from trace evidence. A lot of non-scientists think that scientific consensus means the current view is the most 'correct' one. Usually that may be the case but when science interacts with society's views, especially in the case of rare events/hard to collect evidence these theories often put scientists at risk of ridicule and endangering their liveliehood. They'd rather stay away from that area and pretend it doesn't exist. This is a sad but true fact. It's good to be sceptical, but the best scientist ALWAYS maintains an open mind and looks at the evidence and understands the limits of current understanding.

Then there is the lumping together of all unknown phenomena. No scientist would ever do that. They stick to their own areas of expertise and what they know. I personally think there is a possibility of another human species existing up the present or until the recent past, that's because I also have a scientific background to back up this thought. I understand there were large numbers of human species in the past and some have proven to have lived right up to 10,000 years ago or so. It's not such an 'out there' idea that some continued in isolated areas. There are plenty of cases where unknown species have suddenly cropped up to overturn the current dogma. Now if you want to criticise UFOs, global warming etc. you should read about each one individually have the balls to back up your statements...which if you are a regular member of the public can easily be misinformed!

As for UFOs it attracts a lot of crackpots, newagers etc, but if you actually look at the reports, cross-reference them and rule out some natural known phenonomena there is still a lot of intriguing stuff there. How can scientists study something that is erratic and unpredictable and rare, how can they publish papers and get hired in a university? They can't so they don't..in fact they don't go near the area in even a small way because the press will ridicule them and then universities will not rehire them at the end of their contracts...

http://www.einsteinyear.org/facts/biography/ (an incredible story really, the 20th century's MOST famous scientist couldn't get hired!)

To given an example of conservatism and fear of ridicule...Einstein had already worked out one of the theories of relativity but when he applied for an academic position no university would accept him, his paper was rigorous and there were no mistakes in his mathematics, if they read it and tried to understand it they would have known this, instead he was stuck in a patent office for years! He had published three papers in all, enough for probably two Nobel prizes. They just didn't believe him, too far ahead of his time.

Because I think there may be something to bigfoot tales and UFO tales does it mean I think there is something to ghosts and goblins etc. No, of course not! I don't know anything about that to make any sort of judgement.

Me Me

From a historians point of view, the amount of historical and written evidence on this subject would verify this as fact, but who knows..

steddyeddy

Me Me wrote: »

From a historians point of view, the amount of historical and written evidence on this subject would verify this as fact, but who knows..

Yes it has often been discussed like this that the historical writings on this by the various american immigrants reads more like a eye witness account than a myth.

A lawyer who got involved said that if the case for bigfoot went to court it would be considered real without a doubt unlike the loch ness monster say.

steddyeddy

maninasia wrote: »

Steadyeddy, good explanation there of the process of finding unknown animals from trace evidence. A lot of non-scientists think that scientific consensus means the current view is the most 'correct' one. Usually that may be the case but when science interacts with society's views, especially in the case of rare events/hard to collect evidence these theories often put scientists at risk of ridicule and endangering their liveliehood. They'd rather stay away from that area and pretend it doesn't exist. This is a sad but true fact. It's good to be sceptical, but the best scientist ALWAYS maintains an open mind and looks at the evidence and understands the limits of current understanding.

Then there is the lumping together of all unknown phenomena. No scientist would ever do that. They stick to their own areas of expertise and what they know. I personally think there is a possibility of another human species existing up the present or until the recent past, that's because I also have a scientific background to back up this thought. I understand there were large numbers of human species in the past and some have proven to have lived right up to 10,000 years ago or so. It's not such an 'out there' idea that some continued in isolated areas. There are plenty of cases where unknown species have suddenly cropped up to overturn the current dogma. Now if you want to criticise UFOs, global warming etc. you should read about each one individually have the balls to back up your statements...which if you are a regular member of the public can easily be misinformed!

As for UFOs it attracts a lot of crackpots, newagers etc, but if you actually look at the reports, cross-reference them and rule out some natural known phenonomena there is still a lot of intriguing stuff there. How can scientists study something that is erratic and unpredictable and rare, how can they publish papers and get hired in a university? They can't so they don't..in fact they don't go near the area in even a small way because the press will ridicule them and then universities will not rehire them at the end of their contracts...

http://www.einsteinyear.org/facts/biography/ (an incredible story really, the 20th century's MOST famous scientist couldn't get hired!)

To given an example of conservatism and fear of ridicule...Einstein had already worked out one of the theories of relativity but when he applied for an academic position no university would accept him, his paper was rigorous and there were no mistakes in his mathematics, if they read it and tried to understand it they would have known this, instead he was stuck in a patent office for years! He had published three papers in all, enough for probably two Nobel prizes. They just didn't believe him, too far ahead of his time.

Because I think there may be something to bigfoot tales and UFO tales does it mean I think there is something to ghosts and goblins etc. No, of course not! I don't know anything about that to make any sort of judgement.

Very intersting thanks man for such a famous figure i knew little of einstein, yes you are right it takes balls as well as intelligence to verify and suggest new theorys and what i often find happaning in zoology anyway is that you will find a lot of zoologists actually put a lot of creedance in things like bigfoot or the mountain gorilla when there existence is first suggested beyond myth a lot of zoologists did/do believe it but were afraid to support the idea because of their careers.

A fbi agent who was a expert in dermal ridges a footprint identification summed it up when examining a alleged bigfoot print " the scientist in me says this is real with out a doubt, however the human part of me has a emotional response based on the enormity of this being real and that for me creates problems".

hollis12

well im not saying i necessarily believe in bigfoot but i am a lot more open to the idea now, the evidence you presented is indeed trace but it is good trace evidence but on a curious note are there reports of unknown man like creatures coming from africa?

thefly

steddyeddy wrote: »

i have stated my evidence you have filed to counter it

No but i would like you to prove that one was in my back garden

No you haven't!!!! All you have stated is that just because you have no evidence doesn't mean something doesn't exist. You at no point provided any sort of evidence proving the existence of "bigfoot"

Ok that can be arranged. I accept your challenge. How much time do you have?????

thefly

steddyeddy wrote: »

Just a quick point to make guys if your going to ask me why dont i belive in ufos, ghosts ect remember to keep the arguement zoological ie refering to animals eg ask why i dont belive in nessie, the chupacabra or the lusca of the bahamas. what im suggesting has nothing to do with ufos ghosts ect for the simple reason is that animals are established the rest are not!

Some animals are yet unestablished bigfoot, nessie or surviving thylacines for example but they still operate within scientific and zoolological principles, were some skeptics get a bad name is when they lump all unexplained phenomenon together eg ghosts, ufos, the psyche and rumours of a new animal, its extremly unscientific some scientists refuse to see bonobos from a seperate species than chimps for example, they are becoming less and less but there was a time when there was no evidence for them being a seperate species so by the logic of some skeptics I should lump them together with people who belive in ufos because there is no evidence for both? Common sense comes into it gentlemen.

Except foxes

So let me get this straight. You study zoology and yet you don't believe in foxes

steddyeddy

thefly wrote: »

Ok that can be arranged. I accept your challenge. How much time do you have?????

I have presented academic opinion from both myself and leading primatoligists on footprints, sightings and native american accounts you have failed to provide a scientific explantion to counter any of it.

Ill put it simply tell me why you dont think the footprints are real ie misidentification/hoaxs, tell me why the sightings are either made up misidentification and tell me why they skookum cast is unlikely to be made by bigfoot, a leading primatologist daris daris swindler stated it shows the impression of a creature with a large achillies tendon for example (to large to be a elk for example), why is he wrong?

steddyeddy

thefly wrote: »

Except foxes

So let me get this straight. You study zoology and yet you don't believe in foxes

Foxes are real however i have no physical evidence to say one was in my back garden yet my friend saw one but im not going to disbelieve him just because i have no physical evidence!

steddyeddy

thefly wrote: »

No you haven't!!!! All you have stated is that just because you have no evidence doesn't mean something doesn't exist. You at no point provided any sort of evidence proving the existence of "bigfoot"

Ok that can be arranged. I accept your challenge. How much time do you have?????

I use a pc in work so yes plenty of time!

thefly

steddyeddy wrote: »

I have presented academic opinion from both myself and leading primatoligists on footprints, sightings and native american accounts you have failed to provide a scientific explantion to counter any of it.

Ill put it simply tell me why you dont think the footprints are real ie misidentification/hoaxs, tell me why the sightings are either made up misidentification and tell me why they skookum cast is unlikely to be made by bigfoot, a leading primatologist daris daris swindler stated it shows the impression of a creature with a large achillies tendon for example (to large to be a elk for example), why is he wrong?

I'll say it again what evidence do you have

While I don't doubt that you have studied this subject and you seem well versed on the matter you simply have no evidence that they exist. You said it yourself, all you have is opinion (albeit from a respected expert in the field)

And what makes you so sure Bigfoot is an animal. What if it's an ALIEN

thefly

steddyeddy wrote: »

I have presented academic opinion from both myself and leading primatoligists on footprints, sightings and native american accounts you have failed to provide a scientific explantion to counter any of it.

Ill put it simply tell me why you dont think the footprints are real ie misidentification/hoaxs, tell me why the sightings are either made up misidentification and tell me why they skookum cast is unlikely to be made by bigfoot, a leading primatologist daris daris swindler stated it shows the impression of a creature with a large achillies tendon for example (to large to be a elk for example), why is he wrong?

Native Americans have been depicting ufos for years too but you say ufo's are not established???

steddyeddy

thefly wrote: »

Native Americans have been depicting ufos for years too but you say ufo's are not established???

what have ufos got to do with zoology? im presenting a zoological arguement and your mentioning ufos, I know nothing of ufos so what do you mean by them?

thefly

Yes but you have used Native Americans depiction of Bigfoot as "evidence" of proof.


I was arguing that Native Americans have depicted UFO's for years too. By your logic all I would need now is a professional opinion and then that is enough evidence to constitute proof of UFO's. Sorry, I'm a foot print short actually

steddyeddy

Yes but you have used Native Americans depiction of Bigfoot as "evidence" of proof.

I have stated i found the evidence credible not that this means bigfoot definatly exists, i wanted people to counter or give me a opinion on the trace evidence i presented, for the last time fly please counter the trace evidence i presented.

The legends on its own wouldnt mean much to me, but combined with contemporary sightings and footprint analysis, historical sightings and footprint documentation and body imprint analysis it makes it a whole lot more convincing.

steddyeddy

thefly wrote: »

Yes but you have used Native Americans depiction of Bigfoot as "evidence" of proof.


I was arguing that Native Americans have depicted UFO's for years too. By your logic all I would need now is a professional opinion and then that is enough evidence to constitute proof of UFO's. Sorry, I'm a foot print short actually

By the way were are you getting american depicting ufos from?

maninasia

Steadyeddy, you can't have a debate with people who are aren't bothered to check the evidence you put forward. TheFly , you need to check what he put forward, then put your own point forward.

steddyeddy

Dont worry maninasia im aware of this type of skeptic "you have no proof so i can sit back and spout the firm ascertation that what most people believe is real, i dont need to back up the science or understand it the only thing i need to say is you have no proof" these type of skeptics have often held back science to large degree throughout history.

seannash

if bigfoot exists would you think he would be top of the food chain?

if he is,this plus the fact that hes not hunted by man or beast contribute to a big population of them.

not saying it doesnt exist but surely a species that isnt hindered will increase its numbers

steddyeddy

seannash wrote: »

if bigfoot exists would you think he would be top of the food chain?

if he is,this plus the fact that hes not hunted by man or beast contribute to a big population of them.

not saying it doesnt exist but surely a species that isnt hindered will increase its numbers

In nature there is no one food chain, there are many and a lot of them over lap, from the eye witness sightings bigfoot seems to be an omnivore ie there is a eqaul amount of sightings involving it eating both small animals and fruit and vegitation and a large amounts of reports of it killing elk which im very wary of as it would be unusual for a large ape to use its bare hands to kill and consume mega fauna.

Hunting by man and being free to consume what you like is not a guarantee of a large rate of breeding (look at the gorilla which wasnt hunted heavily before discovery and had low numbers) , sasquatch seem to be hominids and bipedal ones at that, for bipedal hominids child birth is tough and expensive in terms of energy used and recovery time so hominids tend not to have large off springs. The creature has not been seen in groups larger than family units say 2 or 3 not large tribal groups so i imagine the way it breeds is simular to how people think some earlier hominids breed ie the youngest male leaving the family and finding a female. these conditions are not conducive to a large population.

seannash

steddyeddy wrote: »

In nature there is no one food chain, there are many and a lot of them over lap, from the eye witness sightings bigfoot seems to be an omnivore ie there is a eqaul amount of sightings involving it eating both small animals and fruit and vegitation and a large amounts of reports of it killing elk which im very wary of as it would be unusual for a large ape to use its bare hands to kill and consume mega fauna.

Hunting by man and being free to consume what you like is not a guarantee of a large rate of breeding (look at the gorilla which wasnt hunted heavily before discovery and had low numbers) , sasquatch seem to be hominids and bipedal ones at that, for bipedal hominids child birth is tough and expensive in terms of energy used and recovery time so hominids tend not to have large off springs. The creature has not been seen in groups larger than family units say 2 or 3 not large tribal groups so i imagine the way it breeds is simular to how people think some earlier hominids breed ie the youngest male leaving the family and finding a female. these conditions are not conducive to a large population.

cool,cheers for the explaination but surely bigfoot would have abnormally low numbers for an animal with its supposed way of life.

how explored is the NW region of america by the way

maninasia

I think you should look at the population density and also number of roads through the area and permanent settlements. Some animals are experts at hiding and are very sensitive (smell/hearing), they will clear off before you ever get near them. These wildnerness areas have to be experienced to believe them..there is nothing in Ireland that can give you that experience. You could hike around them for weeks and not see other people, no vehicles, nothing but millions of acres of forest. In fact you almost will never see the animals either..just hear them occassionally or see their nests or scratch marks. I have a friend that works in New Guinea and Australia in wild areas and he says he almost never sees anything due to this reason! That will get you thinking. To me the odds are against such a creature existing but that leaves small odds that they do exist.

Sexfarm

I'm not trying to discredit all witnessed sightings but I have a quick story about how people can be mistaken

A few years back I was staying in killykeen log cabins in Cavan with my family. Nice place and plenty of forestry. So one of the mornings my bro came in freaking out :eek: that he'd seen bigfoot . I think its safe to say that he didn't. But to this day he still gets pale and sweaty when i bring it up and doesn't like to talk about it . He's 100% convinced its what he saw.

steddyeddy

Ah yes bigtime the minds a funny thing i totally get that some people could be deluded into seeing certain things thats why i look at a composite of sightings involving mostly multiple witnesess, footprints and possible video evidence as well as a certain degree of native legends.

steddyeddy

hollis12 wrote: »

well im not saying i necessarily believe in bigfoot but i am a lot more open to the idea now, the evidence you presented is indeed trace but it is good trace evidence but on a curious note are there reports of unknown man like creatures coming from africa?

There is scattered reports of hominids coming from africa but thier often described as around four foot high nothing like the archetypal bigfoot.

"The first recorded sighting was in 1900 by a Captain William Hichens who reported his experience in the December 1937 edition of Discovery magazine thus: "Some years ago I was sent on an official lion-hunt in this area (the Ussure and Simibit forests on the western side of the Wembare plains) and, while waiting in a forest glade for a man-eater, I saw two small, brown, furry creatures come from dense forest on one side of the glade and disappear into the thickets on the other. They were like little men, about 4 feet high, walking upright, but clad in russet hair. The native hunter with me gazed in mingled fear and amazement. They were, he said, agogwe, the little furry men whom one does not see once in a lifetime."

steddyeddy

seannash wrote: »

cool,cheers for the explaination but surely bigfoot would have abnormally low numbers for an animal with its supposed way of life.

how explored is the NW region of america by the way

Yes if bigfoot exists it is extremly rare and elusive, i actually wrote to a agency consisting of scientists who are searching for bigfoot asking how do you plan on capturing a clever elusive animal that runs at speeds beyond human capability?

fontanalis

I read an interesting article a while back that stated Bigfoot and other hominid creatures may be a remnant of the split between hunter gatherers and settled farmers. Referring to hunter gatherers as some kind of quasi animal was a way to denigrate them and to cast them as some outsider.