Bigfoot: I want to believe

[creekster]

Your enthusiasm is infectious, but you are simply wrong. We have skulls from Neanderthals and other hominids going back millions of years but not one skull from a Bigfoot has turned up? Not one pile of steaming Bigfoot scat has been found and collected? There just isn't any reliable physical evidence. I have hiked in the woods a bit and I have seen carcasses and antlers and bones and all sorts of remains of dead animals along with scat and fur tufts and other signs of living animals (including the animals themselves) but I have never seen anything that might belong to a Bigfoot. And I am just some suburban soft touch who hikes on occasion. You mean to say that all of the hardcore backwoods guys out there have never been able to turn up anything? It just isn't true.

Indy says the probability isn't zero. Probably true, but my guess is the probability is so close to zero that the difference is a meaningless distinction.

[frank ryan]

Your enthusiasm is infectious, but you are simply wrong. We have skulls from Neanderthals and other hominids going back millions of years but not one skull from a Bigfoot has turned up? Not one pile of steaming Bigfoot scat has been found and collected? There just isn't any reliable physical evidence. I have hiked in the woods a bit and I have seen carcasses and antlers and bones and all sorts of remains of dead animals along with scat and fur tufts and other signs of living animals (including the animals themselves) but I have never seen anything that might belong to a Bigfoot. And I am just some suburban soft touch who hikes on occasion. You mean to say that all of the hardcore backwoods guys out there have never been able to turn up anything? It just isn't true.

Indy says the probability isn't zero. Probably true, but my guess is the probability is so close to zero that the difference is a meaningless distinction.

If you saw something it wouldn't matter, no one would believe you.

[creekster]

If you saw something it wouldn't matter, no one would believe you.

Right. Bring me a skull. Or a bag full of scat. Something. Anything.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Your enthusiasm is infectious, but you are simply wrong. We have skulls from Neanderthals and other hominids going back millions of years but not one skull from a Bigfoot has turned up? Not one pile of steaming Bigfoot scat has been found and collected? There just isn't any reliable physical evidence. I have hiked in the woods a bit and I have seen carcasses and antlers and bones and all sorts of remains of dead animals along with scat and fur tufts and other signs of living animals (including the animals themselves) but I have never seen anything that might belong to a Bigfoot. And I am just some suburban soft touch who hikes on occasion. You mean to say that all of the hardcore backwoods guys out there have never been able to turn up anything? It just isn't true.

Indy says the probability isn't zero. Probably true, but my guess is the probability is so close to zero that the difference is a meaningless distinction.

You just need to pay closer attention, ape man. I was watching a Sasquatch program on the Animal Planet the other day and one of the guys explained how the Sasquatches (Bigfeet? Dang it - what is the plural?) mimic the sounds of other forest animals. Therefore, when you think you hear a bird chirping or a squirrel chattering or a coyote howling, you are probably hearing a Sasquatch. Swish!

[Jeff Lebowski]

Can you show me any sites which have collected thousands of statements of unicorn witnesses? Or hundreds of pictures (as blurred as they are)? Or scientists at mainstream universities who study them and the evidence of them?

If you can't see the difference between bigfoot and unicorns, or elves, or leprechauns, then you're letting your skepticism get the best of you.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Wait a minute there, pardner. Are you mocking the unicorn, elf, and leprechaun researchers? Not cool, man. NOT cool.

Many (if not most) indigenous American people have histories which include beings very similar to our understanding of bigfoot. There are also quite a number of otherwise intelligent and educated people who have now thrown their hats in with the bigfooters.

I used to be where you are in my belief. But there is a distinct difference in the number of witnesses and amount of evidence between bigfoot and any other cryptid. At some point you have to believe either there's something there, or it's the most elaborate hoax/mass hallucination you've ever heard of.

Do aliens count as cryptids? Because I am sure that UFOs have garnered even more scrutiny and analysis than Sasquatch over the years. Ditto for ghosts.

There are some serious studies/investigations going on right now, on a far different scope than has ever been done. Real scientists are putting themselves on the line on this. I think it's really interesting to see what comes of these efforts.

Who are these scientists? I would love to see their credentials and what they are publishing and where they are publishing. Scientists studying the people involved in Sasquatch hunting and people studying folklore don't count.

SoCal, don't get me wrong. I love reading your posts in this thread, so please keep us updated on the goings-on of the Sasquatch community. It is fascinating.

[UtahDan]

You just need to pay closer attention, ape man. I was watching a Sasquatch program on the Animal Planet the other day and one of the guys explained how the Sasquatches (Bigfeet? Dang it - what is the plural?) mimic the sounds of other forest animals. Therefore, when you think you hear a bird chirping or a squirrel chattering or a coyote howling, you are probably hearing a Sasquatch. Swish!

The forests of North and Central America are pretty darn big. They are concealing things a lot bigger than a big foot, you know.

[pellegrino]

Right. Bring me a skull. Or a bag full of scat. Something. Anything.

are you sure you want that?

[frank ryan]

Right. Bring me a skull. Or a bag full of scat. Something. Anything.

We put rapists away on sketchy testimony right? I'm not a bigfoot believer but I think there is plenty of weird stuff out there and I don't like invalidating sincere people's experiences.

Do aliens count as cryptids? Because I am sure that UFOs have garnered even more scrutiny and analysis than Sasquatch over the years. Ditto for ghosts.

We need a ghost thread. I so believe in those

[Jeff Lebowski]

We put rapists away on sketchy testimony right? I'm not a bigfoot believer but I think there is plenty of weird stuff out there and I don't like invalidating sincere people's experiences.

We don't put rapists away on zero evidence. There is not a single piece of irrefutable, smoking-gun evidence for Sasquatch. Not one. Which is the exact same case for unicorns and leprechauns, by the way.

[frank ryan]

We don't put rapists away on zero evidence. There is not a single piece of irrefutable, smoking-gun evidence for Sasquatch. Not one. Which is the exact same case for unicorns and leprechauns, by the way.

We send accused rapists away on faulty testimony all the time.

[Non Sequitur]

..Which is the exact same case for unicorns and leprechauns, by the way.

Don't forget about angels.

[frank ryan]

Don't forget about angels.

Or Gold plates

[SoCalCoug]

Your enthusiasm is infectious, but you are simply wrong. We have skulls from Neanderthals and other hominids going back millions of years but not one skull from a Bigfoot has turned up? Not one pile of steaming Bigfoot scat has been found and collected? There just isn't any reliable physical evidence. I have hiked in the woods a bit and I have seen carcasses and antlers and bones and all sorts of remains of dead animals along with scat and fur tufts and other signs of living animals (including the animals themselves) but I have never seen anything that might belong to a Bigfoot. And I am just some suburban soft touch who hikes on occasion. You mean to say that all of the hardcore backwoods guys out there have never been able to turn up anything? It just isn't true.

Indy says the probability isn't zero. Probably true, but my guess is the probability is so close to zero that the difference is a meaningless distinction.

Do you know when the first fossil chimpanzee was discovered? 2005, when 500,000 year old fossil chimpanzee teeth were discovered in East Africa. So absent the three fossil teeth that were unexpectedly discovered 7 1/2 years ago, there would have been no fossil record of a well-known primate, with a current world population of approximately 300,000. Why was the discovery unexpected? Because they were discovered in a much more arid location than chimps generally inhabit.

Chimpanzees live in jungles - areas with lots of rain (that's "moisture" if you're from Utah). That type of environment doesn't lend itself to fossilization. You find fossils from animals (and proto-humans) that lived in arid places - like the savannah, where bones are much less likely to rot. And where are bigfoot alleged to reside? In forests, with high moisture content. So you wouldn't expect to find a lot (if any) fossils. In 2004, you would have said there was no evidence that chimpanzees existed prior to the modern times. Does that mean they didn't exist then? It certainly doesn't mean they don't exist now.

Also, if what has been leaked from the Ketchum report is accurate, it may not be accurate to say that no fossil bigfoot have been found. It is apparently a conclusion of the report that bigfoot is descended in part from a known relic hominid - i.e., from one of the fossil proto-humans that has already been discovered, and in part from Homo sapiens, for which there are numerous fossils. There are also unidentifiable hominoid fossils - can you say that none of these are definitively not bigfoot?

As for the alleged lack of physical bigfoot evidence - how do you know? Have you been able to positively identify every tuft of hair or piece of crap you've come across in the wild? Where do you do your hiking? Are you in areas where bigfoot sightings have been reported? Do you even know where they're supposed to live?

Maybe it's a bit like the existence of God. I've heard church members say everytime they go outside, they see evidence of God and his creations. Others, who are not religious, see no such evidence. Are the ones who say there is no physical evidence of God right? Or do they just not recognize it as such?

You say you've done a lot of hiking and haven't seen any evidence of bigfoot. If I'm not mistaken, you live in the bay area. So I can assume you've seen physical evidence of mountain lions (don't say you've only seen footprints - footprints can't be physical evidence because there's lots of alleged bigfoot footprints around and you say there's no physical evidence)? You've surely seen physical evidence of a Northern rubber boa? Or a California alligator lizard? Maybe larger animals? Surely you've seen evidence of Tule elk, bobcats, ringtails, American badgers, and gray foxes.

It's likely you've seen evidence of some of these, but it's unlikely that if I showed you a list of every species of animal living in the bay area, that you've seen evidence of every one of them.

According to BFRO, which has the most comprehensive collection of alleged bigfoot sightings, there is a total of 1 reported possible bigfoot contact, in 2000, and all it consisted of was screams heard in the distance. As for surrounding counties, there are no reports in San Mateo county, 5 in Santa Cruz County (as early as 1958, and most recently in 2004), none in Santa Clara county, 1 in Alameda County (in 1963), none in Solano county, none in Sacramento county, none in San Joaquin county, 3 in Stanislaus county (1870, 1962, and 2007), none in Yolo county. In total, BFRO has a total of 426 reports of potential bigfoot encounters in California - they're just not in the areas near where you live, which means you really shouldn't be expecting to find any evidence, anyway.

So, even giving the bigfooters the assumption that there are bigfoot, you shouldn't expect to come across any evidence near where you live, nor should you expect any fossils identifiable as bigfoot to be found. The lack of such does not really add to the argument against the existence of bigfoot, any more than the lack of evidence of great white sharks in Arizona means they don't exist.

[SoCalCoug]

Another update on "Daisy", the alleged captured bigfoot.

Supposedly, there are some health concerns with the specimen, and it is still in captivity. Ed Smith, the former associate of the group that allegedly has the bigfoot, accidentally received the text blast announcing to the group the capture of a bigfoot ("Daisy is in the box"). I imagine that happened sort of like it's happened that I continue to receive email blasts from a ward I haven't lived in for almost three years - I'm on someone's email list, and even though I've left the ward, someone left me on their email blast list.

The existence of Ed Smith has been questioned on some of the bigfoot blogs; I'm satisfied that his existence has been proven.

Ed has worked out a deal with tbe Quantra group, who bhave agreed to meet with a select group to show them the evidence they've collected so far. This bridge group includes several people who are respected within the bigfoot community. The date and time of the meeting has been set, but not yet published. The members of the group will then be allowed to share what they've seen.

I get the impression the meeting will happen soon. It'll be very interesting to hear the reports of the bridge group.

[SoCalCoug]

Do aliens count as cryptids? Because I am sure that UFOs have garnered even more scrutiny and analysis than Sasquatch over the years. Ditto for ghosts.

Yeah, I purposely left out aliens; that's a whole other thread.

Who are these scientists? I would love to see their credentials and what they are publishing and where they are publishing. Scientists studying the people involved in Sasquatch hunting and people studying folklore don't count.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Meldrum"]Jeffrey Meldrum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame], Idaho State University (who I believe is also LDS - not sure if that helps or hurts his credibility).

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Sykes"]Bryan Sykes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame], University of Oxford.

These are the two most prominent. There's also Dr. Melba Ketchum, who has co-authored a couple of papers on animal DNA, I believe. She was involved in the Human Genome project and IIRC (this is from an audio interview) she was part of the group that first completed the genome of a horse. She is also the one who claims to have a paper in peer review identifying bigfoot DNA. There's a [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bindernagel"]John Bindernagel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame], a biologist who's been chasing bigfoot since the 60's.

There will reportedly be quite a number to be added to this list when Dr. Ketchum's paper is published, as she claims to have a number of co-authors (not yet identified).