Bigfoot a extant north american mammal

maninasia

I think you need to read a lot more to get some coherent statement together.

fontanalis

maninasia wrote: »

I think you need to read a lot more to get some coherent statement together.

What with the what now?

steddyeddy

fontanalis wrote: »

What with the what now?

good theory about bigfoot springing out fo the seperation between hunter gatherers and farmers i have heard that beofre but in relation to the almas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almas_%28cryptozoology%29. Most native american groups would have been hunter gatherers.

maninasia

Hunter gatherers > Farmers is not guaranteed to be in a straight line. Also different populations and environments will react differently , climate change has an effect too.
For instance the aborigines in Australia never extensively farmed even though they were there for 50000 years. You think they never tried? It's more likely they tried it but it wasn't successful due to climate change events.

fontanalis

maninasia wrote: »

Hunter gatherers > Farmers is not guaranteed to be in a straight line. Also different populations and environments will react differently , climate change has an effect too.
For instance the aborigines in Australia never extensively farmed even though they were there for 50000 years. You think they never tried? It's more likely they tried it but it wasn't successful due to climate change events.

I never said (coudl have expanded upon my first psot) it was in a straight line but "most" regions adopted a farming/setteld type culture at some point.
Like you say aborigines didn't (due to lack of animals/crops to domesticate etc) but interestingly there is the bunyip creature being reported in Australia.
Also bigfoot is a North American phenomenon and pre European expansion there wouldn't have been major "culture" clashes in North America(which steddyeddy aluded to above), so I accept my hunter gatherer/setleld farmer idea doesn't settle the bigfoot/wildman debate but I do think it's applicable in certain areas and tribes of humans are all to ready to denigrate others they see as different.
Then again you can go back further and say it's an echo of modern man coming into contact/trying to avoid contact with Neanderthals.

DublinGAA96

Hi all, just thought I'd give my opinion on this.

For starters, yes most things said on the show have to be taken with a pinch of salt. I will admit that in particular Moneymaker and Bobo are constantly clutching at straws with calls and movement on night investigations, but some things have happened that I believe are Bigfoots . There experienced you know, Moneymakers been "squatching for 25 years now" he's not going to waste his life unless he is a believer that there real. Obviously there have been some bollocks stories on it but a lot of interesting and compelling eye witness accounts that I believe are real and some are even backed up with video footage that cannot be fully explained, but is obvious it's not a human( the sheer size and gigantic step and clear body muscle of the subject - you cant see body muscle in legs and arms if your in a suit.)

I'm as big a skeptic as anybody, but I just think it's a big possibility. Some of the stories are just unbelievable. The Patterson and Gimlin video is very interesting too. Another one in Florida which was on the show where a couple were terrorized with incidents that has to be a squatch. Also in Georgia where a police car caught a subject running out in front of their car. They did a reconstruction on this incident, the road was something like I dunno, 10m wide or something and the subject cleared it in 2 steps. They got Bobo to try it and he wasn't able to do it in 2 steps he was way off. So it must be a Sasquatch.


To end it, the show doesn't help the fact(at times) that Bigfoot can definitely exist because there just retarded at times. But I think Bigfoot exists. Science needs a body but there is massive evidence and over 8,000 eye witness accounts. And it's clearly obvious that not all 8,000 witnesses are lying.

kylith

DublinGAA96 wrote: »

Hi all, just thought I'd give my opinion on this.

For starters, yes most things said on the show have to be taken with a pinch of salt. I will admit that in particular Moneymaker and Bobo are constantly clutching at straws with calls and movement on night investigations, but some things have happened that I believe are Bigfoots . There experienced you know, Moneymakers been "squatching for 25 years now" he's not going to waste his life unless he is a believer that there real. Obviously there have been some bollocks stories on it but a lot of interesting and compelling eye witness accounts that I believe are real and some are even backed up with video footage that cannot be fully explained, but is obvious it's not a human( the sheer size and gigantic step and clear body muscle of the subject - you cant see body muscle in legs and arms if your in a suit.)

Unless, for instance, he's making a good living off of gullible tourists, I wouldn't call that 'wasting a life', or he's deluded.

I'm as big a skeptic as anybody, but I just think it's a big possibility. Some of the stories are just unbelievable. The Patterson and Gimlin video is very interesting too. Another one in Florida which was on the show where a couple were terrorized with incidents that has to be a squatch. Also in Georgia where a police car caught a subject running out in front of their car. They did a reconstruction on this incident, the road was something like I dunno, 10m wide or something and the subject cleared it in 2 steps. They got Bobo to try it and he wasn't able to do it in 2 steps he was way off.

Got links for those?

ETA: I found the police video on youtube. I think that A) it seems to take many more than 2 steps and It appears to be a quadraped.

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

So it must be a Sasquatch.

"I can't explain it, therefore Bigfoot".

What you're doing is taking patchy reports from people who don't know, or have evidence for, what they saw and coming to the conclusion that because there's not an immediately obvious answer then something for which there is no evidence whatsoever is a more logical conclusion than, say, people misidentifying a bear. When you hear hoofbeats think 'horses', not 'zebras'.

To end it, the show doesn't help the fact(at times) that Bigfoot can definitely exist because there just retarded at times. But I think Bigfoot exists. Science needs a body but there is massive evidence and over 8,000 eye witness accounts. And it's clearly obvious that not all 8,000 witnesses are lying.

It's definitely possible for 8,000 people to lie about something. Certainly a large proportion of them will be. Others will be mistaken, deluded, wrong, or easily led.

My own personal theory on Bigfoot is that it's probably a passed-down memory of a long-extinct primate, similar to homo floriensis in Indonesia, being fueled by people's gullibility and tendency to see what they want to see. I find it highly unlikely that an 8' tall primate could go unnoticed in the US, considering the numbers necessary to maintain a breeding population and the encroachment of logging and development into the forests, not to mentions Americans' love of hiking, hunting, fishing, and other outdoor pursuits.

steddyeddy

Wow two years since this thread was started? I’m afraid I am slightly less qualified to deal with the possibility of an extant undiscovered primate. I have since moved away from a zoology joint major with biochem to focus on a pure biochem masters. However this is a still an obsession of mine. So Ill have to throw in my two cents.
I think my views on the North American ape are well known. Finding Bigfoot though is the biggest pile of crap. I’m all for bringing up the question of Bigfoot but it should be dealt with by scientists. Previous Bigfoot witnesses were interview by primatologists like John Napier, Daris swindler and Jane goodal (who was interested in Native American sightings of the creature.

These guys aren’t scientists and the methods they use are far from scientific (they don’t ask witnesses questions about anatomy or the creatures ethology). As far as I know the team "leader" is a lawyer.

As regards bear misidentifications its usually the opposite is reported. People often think they are seeing a bear at first until it walks away with a stride. As regards the loch ness monster comparison The variety of anatomical variation reported lends itself to misidentification. Bigfoot sightings have a remarkable consistency in reported anatomy and ethology. As regards the 8000 sightings all being lies? No that’s extremely unscientific to say that without investigating them. Personally I draw from the 2500 sightings reported pre internet. I suggest people read the reports documented by John Green and John Bindernagal amongst others. Note the similarity amongst described anatomy and ethology before calling all witnesses liars/misidentifications out of hand. If we did that we wouldn’t have half knowledge of animals that we do today.

Edit: an important point as to why I include the sightings pre interenet as more accurate than the ones that came later is that witnesses dont say they saw bigfoot. Most had never heard of bigfoot until the late fifties. At this time the witnesses reported upright gorillas.

One thing that is often overlooked about the whole Bigfoot thing is that it’s a phenomenon that needs to be explained. People are reporting seeing large apes and finding footprints and that needs to be explained. I’m backing the hypothesis that there’s an unknown animal behind the mystery while others are backing the hoax/liars/misidentification hypothesis. Both sides need to present their evidence to back their claims. My problem with the hoax side is that they have yet to produce a scientific peer reviewed study detailing the ape anatomy present in the footprints. Today were lucky enough to have a peer reviewed paper detailing the presence of consistent ape anatomy observed in the footprints documented. Heres the paper for anyone interested and below is a sample of the content.

It should become clear that these tracks are not merely oversized
facsimiles of human footprints. Their superficial resemblance ends at the
lack of a divergent medial digit. By contrast they lack the features that
distinguish modern human footprints, foremost the longitudinal arch and
differentiated ball at the base of the great toe (Meldrum, 2004). The
Anthropoidipes tracks exhibit extensions along trajectories in hominoid
foot form associated with trends toward greater body mass and greater
commitments to terrestrial locomotion (Fig. 10). These include increased
heel elongation and breadth; relatively shortened lateral toes; reduced
divergence of the medial digit.

Wibbs

+1 on the Finding Bigfoot crowd. Amateur hour. If they renamed the show Finding Wolves/Beaver/Lynx they'd likely come away empty handed to nearly the same degree. Swanning around making noise with a film crew in tow is hardly likely to spot any animal other than the odd dopey deer. I once saw a documentary on the Iberian wolf in Portugal where this couple spent the guts of 18 months trying to film them in their natural wild habitat. For the first 4 months they didn't even see one, even then they needed looong lenses and this is in a modern European country in a relatively highly populated area of farmland.

steddyeddy

Wibbs wrote: »

+1 on the Finding Bigfoot crowd. Amateur hour. If they renamed the show Finding Wolves/Beaver/Lynx they'd likely come away empty handed to nearly the same degree. Swanning around making noise with a film crew in tow is hardly likely to spot any animal other than the odd dopey deer. I once saw a documentary on the Iberian wolf in Portugal where this couple spent the guts of 18 months trying to film them in their natural wild habitat. For the first 4 months they didn't even see one, even then they needed looong lenses and this is in a modern European country in a relatively highly populated area of farmland.

Their a joke alright! As far as I seen they just run around forests at night screaming! What sort of animal in its right mind would they find by doing that?

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Their a joke alright! As far as I seen they just run around forests at night screaming! What sort of animal in its right mind would they find by doing that?

I wouldnt call them a joke. Its a TV show with a budget and a schedule. They are just the "actors" basically re-creating an actual investigation. What i find funny is, they interview somebody who has lived in the area 30 - 50 years have only ever seen this once. They expect to see this during their film schedule .

steddyeddy

Deleted User wrote: »

I wouldnt call them a joke. Its a TV show with a budget and a schedule. They are just the "actors" basically re-creating an actual investigation. What i find funny is, they interview somebody who has lived in the area 30 - 50 years have only ever seen this once. They expect to see this during their film schedule .

Hey I didnt mean to come across as dismissive of them completely. I am glad that the subject is getting more exposure. Their not actually actors as far as I know. I have seem them in other programs previous to finding bigfoot and mentioned in books.

My only problem in the techniques that they use. Previously because of dogma within the scientific community scientists couldnt even investigate this thing without damage to their careers. Now however we have great zoologists and primatologists investigating this. Ian redmond who worked with dianne fossey and david attenborough was on the ground in areas following sightings and the aproach he used was very scientific.

The methids these people are using will not attract any sort of clever primate (primates prefer to remain elusive anyway). The best effort yet has involved the use of bloodhounds who got the scent offresh footprints.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

My only problem in the techniques that they use. Previously because of dogma within the scientific community scientists couldnt even investigate this thing without damage to their careers.

There is a reason for the technique used. Its actually comes from the director. Starts with the storys, then a look at the area then speak with the witnesses. Wait till night time and do the investigation. The investigation itself consists of calls and knocking.

Its the exact same as ghost hunters and destination truth. Whats funny is, you start seeing cross overs with "actors"

Hell , Ghost hunters had a WWE wrestlers on one investigation.