Finding Bigfoot

Myrddin

steddyeddy wrote: »

From the anatomical detail in over 2 thousand consistent eye witness reports.

O...k. But these are probably a different type of eye witness report than we see with the loch ness monster & other assorted tourist traps & mythological creature sightings so maybe your right.

I've nothing really else to add to this discussion lads, if eye witness reports are scientific papers are enough for you to believe, then fair dues. Me, after this long, I'd kinda need something a bit more concrete at this stage. After over two thousand sightings, youd think we'd at least have a hair to analyze. Good luck with the search

EnterNow

EnterNow wrote: »

There's a bit of a difference between one person, and a whole species. The numbers kinda increase the odds of finding something, anything.

Well if there is a species, we do not know how many and as i said , people report these things as very fast. But it wasnt just one person it was a plane , it was White and large didnt move had lots of people looking for it and it still took a year.

EnterNow

EnterNow wrote: »

O...k. But these are probably a different type of eye witness report than we see with the loch ness monster & other assorted tourist traps & mythological creature sightings so maybe your right.

I've nothing really else to add to this discussion lads, if eye witness reports are scientific papers are enough for you to believe, then fair dues. Me, after this long, I'd kinda need something a bit more concrete at this stage. After over two thousand sightings, youd think we'd at least have a hair to analyze. Good luck with the search

Yeah people report anything for the loch ness monster, a log floating on the water etc .....

Chupacabra , people cant make up their mind what this is now. In the 90s it was green jumped around on 2 legs with a large alien head and big red eyes. Now its a dog with mange :rolleyes:

steddyeddy

EnterNow wrote: »

O...k. But these are probably a different type of eye witness report than we see with the loch ness monster & other assorted tourist traps & mythological creature sightings so maybe your right.

Indeed there is thanking for pointing it out. The loch ness monster as you say has at least 26 different descriptions. Theres no consistent anatomy or ethology reported.

I've nothing really else to add to this discussion lads, if eye witness reports are scientific papers are enough for you to believe, then fair dues. Me, after this long, I'd kinda need something a bit more concrete at this stage. After over two thousand sightings, youd think we'd at least have a hair to analyze. Good luck with the search

Actually science doesnt require belief. Finding a case put forward by scientific papers credible is not a matter of belief. That is cornerstone of skeptic ideaology. Try going into any science seminar in ucd or trinity and saying

if eye witness reports are scientific papers are enough for you to believe, then fair dues.

In science we construct hypothesis to explain a phenomenon. We may have two or more competing hypothesis to explain the phenomenon. As regards the phenomenon of sightings of large apes and foots prints we have those who follow the unknown primate hypothesis and those who follow the hoax hypothesis. My problem with the hoax side is the lack of scientific evidence they put forward. You yourself dont seem to think scientific method is important.

Myrddin

steddyeddy wrote: »

My problem with the hoax side is the lack of scientific evidence they put forward.

Evidence? I wasn't aware there was any...for either side of the debate?

You yourself dont seem to think scientific method is important.

Quite the contrary, I'm a firm believer in science & its methodology. But just because there are people involved in the search with scientific backgrounds, does not in any way validate the myth.

The problem with science & bigfoot, is that it's impossible to prove the existence of something that doesn't exist...so there will always have to be a point where science falls short, & personal belief takes over.

Just getting back to the lack of evidence on the side of the skeptics, it implies there is evidence provided by the believer side. Can you elaborate on this & enlighten me as to what evidence exists that points to the existence of Bigfoot? And when I say evidence, I'm talking hard scientifically acceptable evidence....not footprints, not eye witness reports, not pictures nor videos...actual evidence only please

EnterNow

EnterNow wrote: »

Quite the contrary, I'm a firm believer in science & its methodology. But just because there are people involved in the search with scientific backgrounds, does not in any way validate the myth.

Yes like Area 51 , it does not exist there is no evidence to prove it exists yet you can go out and see it

EnterNow wrote: »

Just getting back to the lack of evidence on the side of the skeptics, it implies there is evidence provided by the believer side. Can you elaborate on this & enlighten me as to what evidence exists that points to the existence of Bigfoot? And when I say evidence, I'm talking hard scientifically acceptable evidence....not footprints, not eye witness reports, not pictures nor videos...actual evidence only please

Thats called proof There is none. Just like in a murder investigation. If somebody see's the murder take place, there cannot be a trial without a body. (although im sure there has)

Dave!

steddyeddy wrote: »

Indeed there is thanking for pointing it out. The loch ness monster as you say has at least 26 different descriptions. Theres no consistent anatomy or ethology reported.



Actually science doesnt require belief. Finding a case put forward by scientific papers credible is not a matter of belief. That is cornerstone of skeptic ideaology. Try going into any science seminar in ucd or trinity and saying

In science we construct hypothesis to explain a phenomenon. We may have two or more competing hypothesis to explain the phenomenon. As regards the phenomenon of sightings of large apes and foots prints we have those who follow the unknown primate hypothesis and those who follow the hoax hypothesis. My problem with the hoax side is the lack of scientific evidence they put forward. You yourself dont seem to think scientific method is important.

Refer to "the hoax side" is a bit disingenuous, when really nobody is touting that as the only explanation or alternative to there being an extant creature going around. You're presenting a bit of a false dichotomy. As is the case with psychocultural explanations for a lot of things (e.g. UFOs), there may be a whole array of different contributing factors which coalesce to form the Bigfoot phenomenon, with hoaxes being just one factor. Others might include mistaking other animals, hallucinations or visual phenomena, the power of suggestion and legend, etc...

And it's also unfair to say that skeptics must present an alternative hypothesis. Without one we might be left with simply an unexplained phenomenon, which isn't ideal, but nevertheless it's perfectly legitimate to simply point out the flaws in your own evidence or theory without putting forth our own. It's up to you to argue against it if you're so inclined, but there's no requirement for positive evidence on your opponent's part.

Myrddin

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes like Area 51 , it does not exist there is no evidence to prove it exists yet you can go out and see it

I think your mistaken, I'm afraid there's not only evidence of the existence of Area 51...but more importantly, proof.

Area 51 is a military base, and a remote detachment of Edwards Air Force Base. It is located in the southern portion of Nevada in the western United States, 83 miles (133 km) north-northwest of Las Vegas. Situated at its center, on the southern shore of Groom Lake, is a large military airfield. The base's primary purpose is undetermined, however it appears to support development and testing of experimental aircraft and weapons systems

Source

Now I'm not saying this proves alien activity, or any other socio-myth that goes around about Area 51...but Area 51 is a legitimate military installation attached to Edwards Air Force Base. It was named '51' because of its longitude/lattitude co-ordinates, & the bases perimiter & warning signs are completely...real.

Thats called proof There is none. Just like in a murder investigation. If somebody see's the murder take place, there cannot be a trial without a body. (although im sure there has)

No, you mentioned a lack of evidence with regard the hoax side. I asked for evidence for the pro-Bigfoot side. You've yet to provide any. I simply don't call a footprint or an eye witness report viable evidence to proof the existence of an event/species unknown.

steddyeddy

EnterNow wrote: »

Evidence? I wasn't aware there was any...for either side of the debate?

I have provided a scientific paper on the subject. I assume you read it?


[/QUOTE]Quite the contrary, I'm a firm believer in science & its methodology. But just because there are people involved in the search with scientific backgrounds, does not in any way validate the myth.[/QUOTE]

Actually I was using the criteria by which they came to their conclusions rather than the fact they were scientists. The former skeptic Daris swindlers work on the subject would be a good example. After seeing the skookum imprint Daris retracted his former beliefs and stated:

“He looked at that cast and saw the very same thing I did,” recalls Meldrum. “His attention immediately was drawn to this remarkable Achilles tendon and very broad heel imprint, and what we interpreted to be the prominent buttock.
“The combination of short, pronounced buttock and a well-developed Achilles tendon equals biped — and nothing else.”
For Swindler, though, that realization was profoundly affecting — something that became obvious to the documentary film’s producer, Doug Hajicek, when he went to Swindler’s suite to find out what his on-camera testimony would be.
“He got really choked up,” Hajicek said of Swindler, who died in 2007. “He literally had tears coming down his face.”
Hajicek said Swindler had calculated, based on the size and structure of the creature’s leg and well-defined Achilles tendon, that the weight of the animal had to have been between 600 and 800 pounds. And that, as Meldrum said, the animal had to have been bipedal — that is, moving around primarily on two legs.

Daris is a professor of anatomy and an expert in ape anatomy. He used knowledge of ape anatomy to come to his conclusion. What did you use to come to the conclusion that it must be a hoax?

The problem with science & bigfoot, is that it's impossible to prove the existence of something that doesn't exist...so there will always have to be a point where science falls short, & personal belief takes over.

Indeed within all sciences a certain amount of confidence in an hypothesis will be there in place of definative proof. Even in the absense of complete proof certain hypothesis will have more evidence behind them than others.

[/QUOTE]Just getting back to the lack of evidence on the side of the skeptics, it implies there is evidence provided by the believer side. Can you elaborate on this & enlighten me as to what evidence exists that points to the existence of Bigfoot? And when I say evidence, I'm talking hard scientifically acceptable evidence....not footprints, not eye witness reports, not pictures nor videos...actual evidence only please [/QUOTE]

Well first of all eye witness reports are very important in zoology and the consistent anatomical and ethological reports do point towards an unknown primate rather than some spurious collection of hoaxs. The foot prints contrary to what you think are considered objective evidence in zoology and paleontology. The science which examines them is called ichnotaxonomy. From the ichnotaxonmy and over a thousand footprint casts in the Idaho state university we can determine the following.

Large, plantigrade, pentadactyl, entaxonic, elongate
footprints of a hominoid biped. Footprint is flat, lacking a fixed longitudinal
arch typical of human footprints. Frequently, indication of a transverse
axis of flexion at midfoot present, occasionally producing a midtarsal
pressure release ridge or disc. Ball is poorly differentiated from surrounding
forefoot; rarely transected by a flexion crease, if sole pad extends
sufficiently distal beneath proximal phalanges. Widest part of the
foot lies at inferred position of metatarsal heads. Heel is elongate, broad
and rounded. Relative breadth-to-length ratio exceeds that of human
footprints. Deepest part of the footprint often beneath the forefoot;
lacking evidence of distinct heel-strike typical of human striding gait.
Digit impressions are short and rounded to elongate ovals; toe stems

That is the anatomy present in the tracks. The same anatomy is present in higher order primates particualrly the mid tarsel break. The consistent anatomy points away from hoax and towards and unknow hominoid primate.

Another peice of evidence used in zoology is in relation to estimating the range of variation based on a living population. An analysis of the track prints has been the basis of a study by Dr.henner farrenbach.

Abstract
Measurements and estimates on sasquatch dimensions, collected over the last 40 years in the Western U.S and Canada, were subjected to statistical analysis and extrapolation by scaling laws appropriate to primates and mammals. The study has yielded average population values for foot length and width, ratios of foot length to height, values for dimensions and weight, strength, plantar pressure, walking and running gait, speed, and a tentative growth curve as a function of time for the female of the species. Additional information is provided on such subjects as hair color and nocturnality. The results suggest a substantial population with traits deviant from those of other higher primates and man.
Introduction
Over the last half century several thousand eyewitness reports of sasquatch sightings, foot prints, and other circumstantial evidence have accumulated. Numerical values contained in the sources have not been explored statistically. A large sample size, as has resulted from combining all available data, and its statistical treatment also provide evidence as to whether the data are real or fictitious

A collection of 706 footprints yielded an average length of 15.6" and a range of 4" to 27" =. The statistical treatment implies that more than 99% of the foot prints of this population are going to fall between 6" and 25". The graphic representation of the distribution is a bell-shaped curve, slightly more peaked than a normal distribution. This shape argues compellingly that the data originated from a single species rather than a multitude of overlapping species of different characteristics. It also means that they were not produced fictitiously over 40 years by hundreds of people independently of each other, a process that would have generated a distribution with many peaks.
The slightly peaked nature of the curve suggests that the difference between mature male and female does not exceed 2" in foot length, or about a foot in height, on the average. The largest prints are most probably from males, also supported by eyewitness reports of such animals being more facially hirsute and devoid of breasts. The slight asymmetry of the curve to the left might be attributable to the contribution of juveniles smaller than the population mean and their attrition before adulthood.

The statistical evience also points away from the footprints being fictitious data ie hoaxs. Its not proof but it certainly is evidence and its lead me to this conclusion.

There is no way I accept this or all of the bigfoot tracks which were validated by the same science can be hoaxed. "You dont need half the tracks to be real, you dont need one per cent you just need one"-Grover krantz

steddyeddy

Dave! wrote: »

Refer to "the hoax side" is a bit disingenuous, when really nobody is touting that as the only explanation or alternative to there being an extant creature going around. You're presenting a bit of a false dichotomy. As is the case with psychocultural explanations for a lot of things (e.g. UFOs), there may be a whole array of different contributing factors which coalesce to form the Bigfoot phenomenon, with hoaxes being just one factor. Others might include mistaking other animals, hallucinations or visual phenomena, the power of suggestion and legend, etc...

And it's also unfair to say that skeptics must present an alternative hypothesis. Without one we might be left with simply an unexplained phenomenon, which isn't ideal, but nevertheless it's perfectly legitimate to simply point out the flaws in your own evidence or theory without putting forth our own. It's up to you to argue against it if you're so inclined, but there's no requirement for positive evidence on your opponent's part.

Fair points Dave if someone says that they dont believe in bigfoot then thats fair enough. If they have a problem with me for coming to the conclusion of an unknown primate then I would say that its up to them to say why the science im using is wrong. Conversly if someone says footprints are a hoax then they should be able to back that up.

Skeptics dont have to come to an alternative explantion but I think they should put forward a reason as to why someone is misrepresenting science.

Myrddin

steddyeddy wrote: »

Daris is a professor of anatomy and an expert in ape anatomy. He used knowledge of ape anatomy to come to his conclusion. What did you use to come to the conclusion that it must be a hoax?

Yet again your jumping to the conclusion that if its not real, it must be a hoax. I never said every event is hoaxed, as Dave also said, there are many phenomena that could have coalesced to form the myth.

Some may have been mistaken identity.
Some may have been hoaxed.
Some may have been lies.
Some may even have been real.

To view the situation as black and white as its either real or a hoax, is quite frankly short sighted...particularly of someone involved in science.

I havn't red the paper yet & I'm still debating whether to or not. I really don't think by the end of it I'll feel any different, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. The quotes you refer to are interesting, & Daris' is certainly qualified to draw such conclusions. I suppose the overwhelming lack of 'proof' will always weigh heavily against the Bigfoot theory for me.

Myrddin

steddyeddy wrote: »

Skeptics dont have to come to an alternative explantion but I think they should put forward a reason as to why someone is misrepresenting science.

The exact thing that the world spins on....money.

steddyeddy

EnterNow wrote: »

Yet again your jumping to the conclusion that if its not real, it must be a hoax. I never said every event is hoaxed, as Dave also said, there are many phenomena that could have coalesced to form the myth.

Some may have been mistaken identity.
Some may have been hoaxed.
Some may have been lies.
Some may even have been real.

To view the situation as black and white as its either real or a hoax, is quite frankly short sighted...particularly of someone involved in science.

I havn't red the paper yet & I'm still debating whether to or not. I really don't think by the end of it I'll feel any different, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. The quotes you refer to are interesting, & Daris' is certainly qualified to draw such conclusions. I suppose the overwhelming lack of 'proof' will always weigh heavily against the Bigfoot theory for me.

The reason I post stuff about sasquatch here isnt necessarily to convince people. I think that a body will only do that for most people and thats fair enough. I am happy that the scientific community are taking it seriously so i no longer see the need to convince people. Im just putting my case forward as to why I find it credible. I dont think a lot of people are aware of the amount of studies out there.

The other hypothesis brought forward is misidentification but I dont think the calibre of the witnesses eg hunters, wildlife biologists lends itself to that hypothesis.

I apologise about the hoax thing. Im used to people saying the tracks are all hoaxs! Im just saying not all bigfoot proponents are idiots like a lot of people think!

Ill add that I am sure that some are hoaxs, misidentification and I know some are lies. I think a large body of those reports and tracks are none of the above Imo.

Myrddin

steddyeddy wrote: »

The reason I post stuff about sasquatch here isnt necessarily to convince people. I think that a body will only do that for most people and thats fair enough. I am happy that the scientific community are talking it seriously so i no longer see the need to convince people. Im just putting my case forward as to why I find it credible. I dont think a lot of people are aware of the amount of studies out there.

The other hypothesis brought forward is misidentification but I dont think the calibre of the witnesses eg hunters, wildlife biologists lends itself to that hypothesis.

I apologise about the hoax thing. Im used to people saying the tracks are all hoaxs! Im just saying not all bigfoot proponents are idiots like a lot of people think!

Ill add that I am sure that some are hoaxs, misidentification and I know some are lies. I think a large body of those reports and tracks are none of the above Imo.

Fair points & expressed nicely

To mirror your comments, I'm not out to slam other peoples beliefs. I fully respect whatever any individual chooses to believe in, be it Gods, Creatures or an ethos. The right to freely choose is what I respect above all else & it's nice to be able to discuss beliefs without risk of offending or insulting, such as what we've done today [I havn't been offended, & hope I havn't offended anyone either ]

I guess the work to find answers is more important than any side of the argument itself, & those who put their careers on the line to expose the truth, whatever that may be, should be commended!

EnterNow

EnterNow wrote: »

I think your mistaken, I'm afraid there's not only evidence of the existence of Area 51...but more importantly, proof.

http://www.womansday.com/cm/womansday/images/Qd/09-big-foot-Wacky-Road-Signs-1.jpg :D:D

Myrddin

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.womansday.com/cm/womansday/images/Qd/09-big-foot-Wacky-Road-Signs-1.jpg :D:D

Lol fair point my friend...but I suspect the dangers are very very different for disobeying both signs

steddyeddy

EnterNow wrote: »

Fair points & expressed nicely

To mirror your comments, I'm not out to slam other peoples beliefs. I fully respect whatever any individual chooses to believe in, be it Gods, Creatures or an ethos. The right to freely choose is what I respect above all else & it's nice to be able to discuss beliefs without risk of offending or insulting, such as what we've done today [I havn't been offended, & hope I havn't offended anyone either ]

I guess the work to find answers is more important than any side of the argument itself, & those who put their careers on the line to expose the truth, whatever that may be, should be commended!

People either side of the argument are looking for the truth in their own way. No you havent offended me but plenty have when I say I find the bigfoot thing credible so It causes me to go on the defence sometimes! So I apologise.

When is season 3 out ?

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote: »

Population "Theory" alone rules out Bigfoot. How can a theory rule out anything ?

Pick up an apple. Consider "Is this apple when I let go going to fly out of my hand upwards into the sky at the speed of light?" I think the theory of gravity rules that one out of consideration, don't you think?

Deleted User wrote: »

If there is something that large living in these area's I think alot of people especially from Ireland are unaware how large these area's actually are.

Africa is significantly bigger, it is still relatively easy to find lions, even though their population is decreasing due to among other things human hunting.

What is making Bigfoot's population decrease, given that if the animal is as described it should have been at the top of the foot chain. It ain't human hunters since we would have evidence of what they caught. It isn't human development because we would find all these dead Bigfoot just before you build your new house.

What is proposed is a species that should be by all description have numbered in the thousands if not millions being whittled down to only a tiny handful that can plausibly exist without detection from humans but that in doing so left no evidence behind of of their existence.

We have more evidence of species that are now extinct than we do of Bigfoot.

Deleted User wrote: »

In Canada alone, a new species of tree was discovered recently , it was huge and this thing was not even moving.

It was probably also in plain sight for a large amount of time but no one was interested in checking what species it was. If you go into your back garden you will find new species of beetle or bug, but no one would say they are hidden from you. It is just a case of looking, and by golly people have been looking for Bigfoot.

Deleted User wrote: »

Is it possible for a large carnivore to breed and populate there ? Absolutely yes.

And leave no historical evidence of their existence anywhere? Er, no. Unless they are cleaning up after themselves. Or, oh I don't know, a wizard did it.

Zombrex

steddyeddy wrote: »

From the anatomical detail in over 2 thousand consistent eye witness reports.

How many of them had never heard of or seen a previous description or drawing of Bigfoot before they made their eye witness report? (ie how many of them were not biased by what they had already been told Bigfoot should look like?)

Zombrex

Zombrex wrote: »

Pick up an apple. Consider "Is this apple when I let go going to fly out of my hand upwards into the sky at the speed of light?" I think the theory of gravity rules that one out of consideration, don't you think?

Is that not law ??

Zombrex wrote: »

Africa is significantly bigger, it is still relatively easy to find lions, even though their population is decreasing due to among other things human hunting.

Lions are not shy creatures and are happy to sit out in the open. Often basking in sunlight. Bigfoots are reported to be nocturnal or more active at night. Although there have been lots of day time sightings. Speaking of Africa, only in the last few years a new Ape was discovered called the Bili Ape , its a Large Chimp 5-6 feet and was even reported to walk upright at times.

Zombrex wrote: »

What is making Bigfoot's population decrease, given that if the animal is as described it should have been at the top of the foot chain. It ain't human hunters since we would have evidence of what they caught. It isn't human development because we would find all these dead Bigfoot just before you build your new house.

I dont know if there is a population or what the figure is and i dont know why its decreasing ?? If there are bigfoots what is the reproductive cycle, etc ??? Why would bigfoots die with developments going on ?

Zombrex wrote: »

What is proposed is a species that should be by all description have numbered in the thousands if not millions being whittled down to only a tiny handful that can plausibly exist without detection from humans but that in doing so left no evidence behind of of their existence.

Dont know were you are getting the figures from with regards to population sizes. With regards not being detected by humans. There is the case of the thousands of sightings. No evidence of their existence is a good call , but how long does it take for a carcase to rot in the woods. I bring up the case of Steve Fossett , he was missing a year. They could only get DNA evidence.

Zombrex wrote: »

It was probably also in plain sight for a large amount of time but no one was interested in checking what species it was. If you go into your back garden you will find new species of beetle or bug, but no one would say they are hidden from you. It is just a case of looking, and by golly people have been looking for Bigfoot.

Thats true about the tree, that could easily be the case. But the fact is, its still bigger then Bigfoot and doesnt move. Have people really been looking ?? No, there have been lots of little searches done for TV shows etc.... But if you really want to go looking, you have to get the best equipment , the best people and be prepared to be out there for years. Who is going to fund that ? But this is down to no good photographic evidence to backup the 1960's footage.

Zombrex wrote: »

And leave no historical evidence of their existence anywhere? Er, no. Unless they are cleaning up after themselves. Or, oh I don't know, a wizard did it.

Well what evidence would they leave behind ? Maybe they do clean up after themselves. My cat does

steddyeddy

Zombrex wrote: »

How many of them had never heard of or seen a previous description or drawing of Bigfoot before they made their eye witness report? (ie how many of them were not biased by what they had already been told Bigfoot should look like?)

Hey Zombrex Im not up for a debate about it really. Theres far more than two thousand "bigfoot" reports. When I say theres two thousand reports I am referring to those pre internet. The same reports also rarely feature people saying "I seen a bigfoot". The reports are mostly people saying they seen a "large upright ape, with man like features or an upright gorilla". Bigfoot as a name didnt take off until the late 1950s.

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote: »

Is that not law ??

Laws are just well established theories.

Deleted User wrote: »

Lions are not shy creatures and are happy to sit out in the open. Often basking in sunlight. Bigfoots are reported to be nocturnal or more active at night. Although there have been lots of day time sightings. Speaking of Africa, only in the last few years a new Ape was discovered called the Bili Ape , its a Large Chimp 5-6 feet and was even reported to walk upright at times.

And if the family of Bigfoot like creatures was well established through out North America and we were talking about just finding a new species or sub-species that wouldn't be a big deal.

But we are talking about a species and all their evolutionary ancestors and relatives being completely hidden from mankind.

It wouldn't be like finding a new species of ape. It would be like finding apes on a continent that has never had any evidence of their existence there before.

Deleted User wrote: »

I dont know if there is a population or what the figure is and i dont know why its decreasing ?? If there are bigfoots what is the reproductive cycle, etc ??? Why would bigfoots die with developments going on ?

The same reason other animals do, it disturbes their habits, such as hunting and nesting.

Deleted User wrote: »

Dont know were you are getting the figures from with regards to population sizes. With regards not being detected by humans. There is the case of the thousands of sightings. No evidence of their existence is a good call , but how long does it take for a carcase to rot in the woods. I bring up the case of Steve Fossett , he was missing a year. They could only get DNA evidence.

From his bones.

Why are North Americans not constantly finding Bigfoot bones in their woods?

Deleted User wrote: »

Thats true about the tree, that could easily be the case. But the fact is, its still bigger then Bigfoot and doesnt move. Have people really been looking ?? No, there have been lots of little searches done for TV shows etc.... But if you really want to go looking, you have to get the best equipment , the best people and be prepared to be out there for years. Who is going to fund that ? But this is down to no good photographic evidence to backup the 1960's footage.

You do not have to go specifically looking for Bigfoot. Scientists are constantly identifying and classifying North American species, either living for from their remains/fossils.

Deleted User wrote: »

Well what evidence would they leave behind ? Maybe they do clean up after themselves. My cat does

Themselves, their bones that eventually turn into fossils. We have found more fossils for extinct dinosaur species than Bigfoot or any of its primate anscestors (of which none has been found afaik).

Myrddin

Isn't a law, a theory thats been proven & hence no longer a theory?

To my knowledge, gravity isn't a law & is referred to/described in Einsteins theory of relativity.

Genghiz Cohen

EnterNow wrote: »

Isn't a law, a theory thats been proven & hence no longer a theory?

To my knowledge, gravity isn't a law & is referred to/described in Einsteins theory of relativity.

Nothing has even been proven (outside math). this is why I always roll my eyes when I hear something has been scientifically proven to help with...

We are just very very very very sure that gravity is a force acting between to objects proportional to their masses and distance from each other.
It could still be faries acting the mick, if you get me.

A theory is an often misused term.
A theory is just a set of rules that a phenomena seems to adhere to and we can use to try to work out what would happen in a hypothetical situation.
Such as gravity, one rule is: the further away 2 objects are the less of a force they exert on each other.

For example: using the rules set out in the theory of gravity, we can predict how the International Space Station will orbit for the next n years.

Myrddin

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

We are just very very very very sure that gravity is a force acting between to objects proportional to their masses and distance from each other.
It could still be faries acting the mick, if you get me

I do indeed, & thats why gravity is still referred to as gravitational theory. It fits our model, but it's not 'proven' as such.

A law, such as the laws of thermodynamics for example, is a theory that is mathmatically proveable/proven.

At least thats how I understand it?

Zombrex

EnterNow wrote: »

Isn't a law, a theory thats been proven & hence no longer a theory?

No. Nothing in science is ever proven. Or in other words we can never be certain that something will always happen or always happen in the way we think it will (ie the way the law says it will).

Laws are a product of theory and observational fact, where an observation is so well established that it can be very confident it will happen, though not certain.

EnterNow wrote: »

To my knowledge, gravity isn't a law & is referred to/described in Einsteins theory of relativity.

That is actually a good example of what we are talking about above

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation

These "laws" are technically wrong (or maybe better to say inaccurate), though accurate enough until you get up to very high levels of precision (ie they work fine for sky diving out of a plane, not so good for configuring GPS satellites)

Like all theories in science we can never be sure we have got it perfectly correct even if you actually have (how would you know, nothing is going to tell you that you have or haven't missed something).

We can only view that the theory is accurately modeling the observed phenomena as closely as our measurements can tell us.

Zombrex

Zombrex wrote: »

Laws are just well established theories.



And if the family of Bigfoot like creatures was well established through out North America and we were talking about just finding a new species or sub-species that wouldn't be a big deal.

But we are talking about a species and all their evolutionary ancestors and relatives being completely hidden from mankind.

It wouldn't be like finding a new species of ape. It would be like finding apes on a continent that has never had any evidence of their existence there before.


The same reason other animals do, it disturbes their habits, such as hunting and nesting.


From his bones.

Why are North Americans not constantly finding Bigfoot bones in their woods?


You do not have to go specifically looking for Bigfoot. Scientists are constantly identifying and classifying North American species, either living for from their remains/fossils.



Themselves, their bones that eventually turn into fossils. We have found more fossils for extinct dinosaur species than Bigfoot or any of its primate anscestors (of which none has been found afaik).

OK so what is your explanation for the phenomena that is Bigfoot ?

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote: »

OK so what is your explanation for the phenomena that is Bigfoot ?

No idea, but if I had to hazard a guess I would say the same with a lot of mythical creature sightings, humans confusing real animals with the legendary ones, sub-consciously inserting false features that closer match the legend, and of course fakes.

It can be difficult for some to believe humans do this, that we can't necessarily trust all sighting as accurate. But the reality is humans do this all the time and very easily (ie you don't have to be a drunk hill billy).

The classic example of this is the famous (in skeptical circles at least) case of the Panda that escaped from a zoo in the Rotterdam.

After the panda escaped a new bulletin alerted locals to be on the look out. After a search it turned out that the panda had not actually got very far, it had got struck by a train at the edge of the zoo.

Despite this the zoo got over 100 reports of the panda around the local neighbor hoods.

What had happened is reasonably well understood in human psychology. If you plant a notion in people's heads of an expectation to see something, the human mind will basically fill in the blanks. So for example you see a shape moving in your garden (maybe a cat) and if you are expecting a panda you will see something you are sure is a panda.

This is what happened in Rotterdam. People were ringing up describing seeing a "panda" but were describing the common image of a black and white bear, when in fact the real panda was small and red.

The description of Bigfoot has existed for who knows how long. It is seeped into public consciousness. Or to put it another way everyone already knows what Bigfoot is supposed to look like (the same way we all know what aliens look like, little green men, or the Lock Ness Monster).

Eye witness reports, with no physical evidence, are thus very suspect. I would be highly skeptical of anyone claiming to have seen Bigfoot. I would want to know exactly how they confirmed what they think they saw. If a 100 people in a day can see a panda that didn't even exist, that doesn't seem all that much to ask.

Senor Willy

Another reason people said they seen a Panda is that they are liars and
were looking for attention.:D
In fairness we do take two and two and make five..