Bigfoot

[Erniedytn]

Ok so I normally wouldn't have done this but I watched a National geographic special about it last night. I want to start by saying that up until a few years ago I did believe that Bigfoot was out there. Then I watched this program on The History Channel called Is It Real: Bigfoot. It focused on the Patterson-Gimlin film, which is one of two videos out there of Bigfoot. This guy came forward and said that he and his buddy hoaxed the whole thing. At first I was like "Yeah whatever dude...you're just looking for publicity".....then they showed him walking around his front yard and dude walked and acted just like the "bigfoot" in the film. This was when I was like "Ok....Bigfoot is bullshit".

Fast forward to last night. New show about bigfoot; this time they got several scientists involved. There was a forenzic fingerprint expert, a DNA scientist, a guy that studies nature sounds, and some dude that tracks the paths of wild animals over a long period of time.

The finger print dude was the most interesting. He took finger/footprint samples from every species of ape known to man, and then he took prints from all of the bigfoot casts made over the years. After the comparison he stated that the style of prints found on the casts DO NOT match any of prints he took from the apes, nor does it match human prints. He said that they do however have "ape like characteristics". He said he would stake his whole career on this and believes that there is indeed some species of ape living on the North American continent.

They gave the DNA guy hair samples from a plaster cast they had of Bogfoot's lower body. These guys set up this big circle of mud in the woods and put some apples in the middle. They came back the next day and found an imprint in the mud of an enourmos thigh, lower leg, achilles tendon and heel. They made a plaster of it, removed some hair samples, and sent it out for study. Unfortunately he couldn't get a solid reading on it, so that came out inconclusive.

They gave the nature sounds guy a supposed recording of Bigfoot howling in the woods. He listened and concluded that the sound was definately made by some sort of large primate......humans included.

The guy who tracks the movements of wild animals took all of the recorded bigfoot sightings and plugged them into his program. He concluded that the whole bigfoot phenomena is either a really big hoax played out over the last 20 years, or there is indeed a species of ape living in North America. He says the patterns of movement coincide with this.

So, to say the least, this triggered my ineterest in Bigfoot again. I am still very skeptical about it though. I look at it like this; If there was a species of ape living in North America, and is as large as they say....wouldn't we have discovered it by now? Wouldn't there be carcasses to be found?

Thoughts anyone?

 

[fdd2blk]

maybe it nests in the center of the earth.

 

[human8]

Osama Bin Laden Is Big foot, thats why they can't find him! I think there is a resource online of sightings, seriously. I believe. And I use bigfoot guano from their secret grotto to feed my trees. Redwood Diesel.

 

[srsnow]

i use to watch stuff about big foot and i heard they barry their dead thats why people don't find bodies.

 

[Erniedytn]

This is what I was talkin about on the Patterson-Gimlin film:

After nearly forty years of secrecy, the truth behind the world-famous Roger Patterson Bigfoot film has been revealed. The man who actually wore the costume and played the role of Bigfoot in the film has been located and has made a full confession. Moreover, the husband and wife team who made and sold the Bigfoot costume that Patterson used to fake his movie have also confessed, and several other important eyewitnesses have come forth with corroborating evidence. In a new book, The Making of Bigfoot: The Inside Story (Prometheus Books, 2004), Seattle-based author Greg Long reveals details of the hoax, the result of a six-year investigation which also clandestinely involved author Kal Korff.

Exposing Roger Patterson's 1967 Bigfoot film hoax: new revelations shed light on a world-famous, much-debated film supposedly showing a Bigfoot creature | Skeptical Inquirer | Find Articles at BNET.com

 

[Erniedytn]

Here is the other film of Bigfoot; this one has yet to be disproven. If you pay close attention when it reappears out from behind the hill, you will notice that he gets a litter taller almost instantly. Supposedly this is due to the Bigfoot placing it's young on it's shoulders.

YouTube - Bigfoot Field Guide Informational Video-Memorial Day Footage

 

[overfiend]

i guess its possable they still keep finding new things all the time in the sea and rain forest. maybe bigfoot is a master at stealth a lot of us have got away at stealthy outdoor grows for years why is it hard to believe something could go unnoticed forever

now the skunk ape i dont believe in

 

[Sirius]

Bigfoot is prolly real. Most legends/myths have some truth to them, and with the evidence over the years that has been collected they are almost certainly real. Hair, footprints, video footage, still photography and the such have all been taken. The evidence is overwhelming that something exists in the woods we dont know about. It might not be an ape or ape-man of any type. Just because stupid fucks pull hoaxes or the like does not mean that everyone that witnesses these events do. In fact most people who witness any unknown object/being/creature are sane, rationale, intelligent people who are really seeing something they do not know of or understand. Their interpretation of what they have seen can often conflict with evidence, and this causes people to disbelieve their stories.

Also, just because a scientist says something doesn't mean you should take it as fact. There are tons of shitty scientist who do incomplete, non-comprehensive work. Do your own investigation into the matter, and believe what you find your conclusions to be. You shouldn't go off what someone else says

anyway im baked, lol. peace.

 

[Erniedytn]

now the skunk ape i dont believe in

Never heard of that...so I googled it. This is what I found:

The Skunk Ape is said to be a large hairy, bipedal mammal that calls the Florida Everglades home. They have (allegedly) been spotted as far north as Tallahassee and as far south as Lostman's River. Large adult males are said to weigh in excess of 450 lbs and stand 6 to 7 feet tall with reddish or dark brown hair similar in appearance to an orangutan or gorilla. Some believe that this biped is part of the same species as the famed Bigfoot. A handful of sightings have also happened in the Western US, including Simi Valley, CA. In recent months, several sightings have been reported near the Withlacoochee River in Brooks County, GA, between Quitman and Valdosta. The smell of a Skunk Ape has been reported to be similar to rotten eggs or Hydrogen Sulfide.

Skunk ape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The attached picture is supposedly a Skunk Ape taken in Myakka FL...not too far from me.

 

[Erniedytn]

Also, just because a scientist says something doesn't mean you should take it as fact. There are tons of shitty scientist who do incomplete, non-comprehensive work. Do your own investigation into the matter, and believe what you find your conclusions to be. You shouldn't go off what someone else says

I would if I had some evidence to examine!!!! This subject is like aliens and conspiracy theories......you can't prove it's real, but you can't disprove it either. I would like to believe what the scientist says over some guy who claims to have seen Bigfoot and that's it. So far this is the only scientific evidence I have seen produced. I mean...like you say...not ALL of these people are crazy or hoaxsters...there has to be something to this, but whether or not it's actually "Bigfoot" is hard to say.

 

[Sirius]

I would if I had some evidence to examine!!!! This subject is like aliens and conspiracy theories......you can't prove it's real, but you can't disprove it either. I would like to believe what the scientist says over some guy who claims to have seen Bigfoot and that's it. So far this is the only scientific evidence I have seen produced. I mean...like you say...not ALL of these people are crazy or hoaxsters...there has to be something to this, but whether or not it's actually "Bigfoot" is hard to say.

I agree, what bigfoot actually is, is very debatable, but yes, there has to be something to it. Even if bigfoot turned out to be not real and was proven a figment of our imagination, the fact that hundreds of people claimed to have seen the same thing is something that needs to be carefully studied until the question of "why" can be answered definitely.

By the way, you dont need physical evidence to study something like hair or footprints. Maybe just by reading reports you could draw your own conclusion as to what you think it is, or discover something someone may have missed or that you haven't heard of that helps prove or disprove a theory.

 

[Erniedytn]

Well...looking at the "evidence" I have I would say that there is definatley something out there; what that is well...

 

[email468]

Well...looking at the "evidence" I have I would say that there is definatley something out there; what that is well...

I'm so glad you put evidence in quotes because there is zero evidence for bigfoots (or is that bigfeet?). I say this because the only evidence available (crappy films/video/recordings, eyewitnesses, foot print casts, and hair that for some unidentified reason can not be tested) could have been made by other means. Same goes for UFOs, ghosts, etc... Once again - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (Sagan).

And while there are occasionally new species of large creatures "discovered" they are usually known - just never recorded or observed by science (the giant squid comes to mind).

People tend to believe whatever they are interested in is the cause of "strange" occurrences. If you are interested in ghosts then ghosts are what caused the weird noises at night. If you are interested in aliens, every odd light in the sky is the mother-ship. If you are interested in God, then your headache goes away because you prayed.

This is not evidence it is anecdote and probably the worse thing to rest your faith.

The most famous piece of evidence for bigfoot is an admitted hoax and your first reaction is the guy who says it is a hoax is hoaxing that it was a hoax? yikes! i think you've summed up the conspiracy theory frame of mind rather well there. So why not turn that around and say - oh the only real bit of evidence that could have forced science to look at the bigfoot question again is the DNA found in the hair and that is the only bit of evidence that didn't work out right? Hmmmm. Sounds like the aliens are conspiring with the TV show to keep proof of bigfoot from reaching us!

I know we go round and round about this stuff so i'm pretty sure you won't be offended by what i wrote but just in case i will add: please don't construe any of the above as a personal attack.


and one final thought .... science doesn't "prove" negatives. Another words, science will never, ever prove bigfoot doesn't exist. But the onus isn't on them, it is on the people who claim they exist to prove it.

 

[email468]

I agree, what bigfoot actually is, is very debatable, but yes, there has to be something to it. Even if bigfoot turned out to be not real and was proven a figment of our imagination, the fact that hundreds of people claimed to have seen the same thing is something that needs to be carefully studied until the question of "why" can be answered definitely.

By the way, you dont need physical evidence to study something like hair or footprints. Maybe just by reading reports you could draw your own conclusion as to what you think it is, or discover something someone may have missed or that you haven't heard of that helps prove or disprove a theory.

not very debatable until evidence that isn't falsifiable is offered. Until then it is just talking about bigfoot - which really doesn't qualify as a theory. In case you aren't certain, theory, in a scientific context, doesn't mean guess (or even the more common educated guess).

For a creature such as bigfoot to be proven to exist you do indeed need physical evidence. In fact, that is the only acceptable kind.

And the fact that hundreds of people (hell i'll spot you thousands of people) believe in something hardly makes it true or even possible.
There was a time when most people believed the Sun went around the Earth. Today millions of people are Muslim, millions are Christian, millions are Jewish, millions are Hindu, millions are buddhists (I didn't capitalize cause they won't mind), and millions are atheists .... they can't all be right, right?

something to think about anyway...

 

[Erniedytn]

The most famous piece of evidence for bigfoot is an admitted hoax and your first reaction is the guy who says it is a hoax is hoaxing that it was a hoax? yikes! i think you've summed up the conspiracy theory frame of mind rather well there. So why not turn that around and say - oh the only real bit of evidence that could have forced science to look at the bigfoot question again is the DNA found in the hair and that is the only bit of evidence that didn't work out right? Hmmmm. Sounds like the aliens are conspiring with the TV show to keep proof of bigfoot from reaching us!

Yes that was my first response to the claim...someone looking for their 5 minutes of fame...but after just seeing the way the guy walked and his demeanor.....I finally admitted defeat. What baffles me is that even after this claim there are still hundreds of people pouring over this video insisting that it is real. Now that's scary! Why is it so hard to believe that someone claiming to have done a hoax is lying? I'm not saying that this guy is lying, but it is possible for this scenario to happen.

On another note...what do you make of the fingerprint guy's conclusion? I mean this guy looked at solid evidence in fingerprinting and came to the conclusion that this was a species of ape not yet discovered. He said he would stake his whole career on that. Is he full of shit too?

 

[Sirius]

What do you consider evidence then? Most of the above items if found at a crime scene could send a person to prison for life, but somehow they bear little weight in a investigation into a massive country wide sighting of creature known as Bigfoot. I feel that little more than a body would prove the existence of this animal, only because of the mystery. The giant squid was a myth of sailors in historic times yet people believed in its existence, it wasn't until commercial fishing came along and actually snagged one and science inspected the body did they actually name it a new species. Only recently did a film crew actually catch one on film live.

Believe it or not most of the Earth still remains unexplored, hence why hundreds of new species are discovered all the time. So that fact is, bigfoot and many other unknown mythical monsters COULD exist without us knowing.

Scientist very much frown upon this idea because it leads to fact that aliens and other such living things can exist without our knowledge. Anyone who knows any scientists know that the mentioning of one of these phenomena/creatures is career suicide. So evidence is overlooked and tainted by biased science.

"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (Sagan)." Carl Sagan says it well.

Putting all your eggs in one basket isn't always a good thing to do in science. Many times when think we figured something out, we find we are just viewing from the wrong perspective.

By the way, I also mean no offense by any of my views.

 

[email468]

Yes that was my first response to the claim...someone looking for their 5 minutes of fame...but after just seeing the way the guy walked and his demeanor.....I finally admitted defeat. What baffles me is that even after this claim there are still hundreds of people pouring over this video insisting that it is real. Now that's scary! Why is it so hard to believe that someone claiming to have done a hoax is lying? I'm not saying that this guy is lying, but it is possible for this scenario to happen.

On another note...what do you make of the fingerprint guy's conclusion? I mean this guy looked at solid evidence in fingerprinting and came to the conclusion that this was a species of ape not yet discovered. He said he would stake his whole career on that. Is he full of shit too?

I have to ask - when someone is making wild claims about bigfoot, UFOs, etc... , do you automatically assume, as I do, they are doing it for the publicity too?

my initial impression is, yes he is full of shit too. The fallacy here is appeal to authority.

The problem is the TV show producers do not know how to conduct a blind study. It would be quite easy to present the "fingerprint expert" with a series of prints (several made-up, some from the bigfoot impressions, a human, a chimp, an orangutan, etc..) and he could then give opinions. Make sure they are scaled for size (so the bigfoot isn't obvious) then see if he can pick out the "unknown primate" impression. Or better yet, get a few more experts in that field to see if they can at least agree on the majority of their answers. If they are using science, their answers should mostly agree (allowing some margin for error).

It isn't difficult to design preliminary tests to weed out baloney. But unfortunately: "We Re-examined the Evidence and Guess What? Bigfoot is still Bullshit!" just wouldn't be that popular of a TV show.

 

[overfiend]

ok so the skunk ape does exist on google. for now

 

[tckfui]

I used to have a pet skunk ape, I bought it in taipan as a baby, it weight 45 pounds and was only 6 weeks old. payed 2,475 for him I did.

 

[email468]

What do you consider evidence then? Most of the above items if found at a crime scene could send a person to prison for life, but somehow they bear little weight in a investigation into a massive country wide sighting of creature known as Bigfoot. I feel that little more than a body would prove the existence of this animal, only because of the mystery. The giant squid was a myth of sailors in historic times yet people believed in its existence, it wasn't until commercial fishing came along and actually snagged one and science inspected the body did they actually name it a new species. Only recently did a film crew actually catch one on film live.

Believe it or not most of the Earth still remains unexplored, hence why hundreds of new species are discovered all the time. So that fact is, bigfoot and many other unknown mythical monsters COULD exist without us knowing.

Scientist very much frown upon this idea because it leads to fact that aliens and other such living things can exist without our knowledge. Anyone who knows any scientists know that the mentioning of one of these phenomena/creatures is career suicide. So evidence is overlooked and tainted by biased science.

"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (Sagan)." Carl Sagan says it well.

Putting all your eggs in one basket isn't always a good thing to do in science. Many times when think we figured something out, we find we are just viewing from the wrong perspective.

By the way, I also mean no offense by any of my views.

Let me start by saying you are absolutely right. There is more to explore and discover than what we know so far. Mythical beasts may very well exist and it is common knowledge species are going extinct before we have a chance to name them. I would continue to say that I would love for bigfoot to exist.

But I disagree with your conclusions about science. Any scientist who could prove bigfoot exists would win all kinds of kudos, awards, book deals, etc.. (same goes for any popular other-worldly creatures). Scientists are humans and no doubt bring bias with them wherever they go which is why experiments are done which should attempt to eliminate any and all chances for bias. Why do some scientific reports conflict or offer contrary evidence? Most likely, if the science is sound, it has to do with not eliminating all these biases.

And let's be fair, it isn't like scientists are out there trying to prove unicorns, leprechauns, and tooth fairies exist either and many people believe(d) in them too.

Now on to your claims of evidence:
eyewitnesses - sorry a million people saying the same thing is still no good for science. this is by far the worse form of evidence and is the earmark of bad science. unfortunately, very convincing to juries - thank goodness for DNA.

film, video, other electronic recording - so far none has been presented that couldn't have been faked - no good for science.

Fingerprint/footprint expert - appeal to authority fallacy but even if we admit this testimony as evidence it is hardly convincing. The prints could have been made by an "unknown primate". That's true, they also could have been carved or could have been made by a human but when stretching them onto the big wooden feet to make the prints would have made them non-human. Another words, the evidence could have been faked and yes, faked well enough to fool an expert.

Hair - couldn't get DNA - no evidence - no good for science.

That doesn't mean that all the evidence IS fake or lies - but as long as they COULD be - they are useless for science. Now combine all that with a bigfoot body - hell a piece of bigfoot shit even - then we get the attention of scientists.

So you ask me what would be convincing evidence, my response is - anything that can not be faked or something else that is properly examined by scientists (note the plural). Like fur that we can get DNA from, some feces, bones, anything like that. But I should say even if we found some unknown primate hair, that still doesn't "prove" bigfoot. It could be a non-bigfoot unknown primate or some kind of strange hybrid. So yes, a bigfoot body would be the best proof of their existence though any of the other things i mentioned would certainly be strong evidence that there is something there. But so far we got squat as far as scientific evidence is concerned. One quick aside here... I have heard the claim that we haven't found any bodies cause they bury their dead!?! So we don't even have proof they exist and our conclusion as to why is they bury their dead! WTF? So we have no proof of the creatures existance and are surmising on its habits? this is one of the biggest, steamiest piles of logical fallacy out there regarding bigfoot.

And while i disagree that the evidence presented could send someone to prison, it is true that forensic evidence is FAR different from scientific evidence. The law expects yes/no, right/wrong, guilty/non-guilty but science doesn't work like that. With science - there is ALWAYS a shadow of a doubt (called error bars or margins). Sometimes it is just a little sliver, sometimes much larger but the shadow of doubt is always there.

And what is wrong with requiring extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims? Would you believe I can breath under water without proof or just my testimony? How about i get a scuba diver to back up my story? Or produce a video of me underwater for an hour (couldn't fake that, right)? Believe me yet? of course you don't cause i can't breath under water! To believe me you would require the extraordinary evidence of me actually breathing under water and rightly so.

Ultimately the answer to whether bigfoot exists is independent of what either one of us believes. It either does or does not exist and you and I debating the virtues of the evidence does not change the answer. You are convinced by the evidence, I am not.