Bigfoot

I think the most convining evidence that bigfoot could exist is the hair sample. Some bigfoot hunters were out one night trying to film a bigfoot. All they got was some audio but they did find some hair. They had the hair tested and it was from an unknown primate. I think they might have had a hand print on their truck too. I don't remember it that well, it was from a documentary.But anyways, I think its exciting to find hair from an unknown primate. There was something out there and we don't know what it was.

Ned, notice that I said "real" footage, not real footage.I don't consider the teen footage to be good evidence, you can't see anything. However, I do consider the teen footage to be a good example of something which is not faked. They believe that what they are filming is real, as opposed to some of the "walking from tree to tree" type videos where the cameraman is cool and collected.I don't think there is any good video evidence. If there was, we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we. Apparently not as much as you think.http://www.wwf.org.uk/News/n_0000000239.aspThis is an article about 3 new large mammal species discovered in Vietnam since 1993.One would think that of any of the Southeast Asian countries, we'd have known about animals in Vietnam. Yes, they are loaded with a lot of things. But I'm not cherry picking, because I'm not offering them as primary evidence. If I was, I'd have to say that thunderbirds are real and otterman is real and brother turtle, etc etc.However, if there were literally thousands of eyewitness accounts describing a "little furry guy who swims out of the sea and gives local girls wisdom", I'd recosider my position on Otterman.

Well, there are chimps. There are gorillas. There are orangutans. I don't have to believe in those. So, Bigfoot is not a giant leap in belief.Do you believe in God?
Do you also believe in Thor, Zeus, Ra, etc?

Well, firstly, how big is a "sustainable population"? To know that, we'd have to know lifespan of the creature.Additionally, just because a creature exists doesn't mean it's going to get hit by a car. Rare animals, particularly ones who are scared of humans, aren't exactly likely to be playing on the roads. Well, obviously the population isn't that small, since they aren't effectively hiding, hence we are having this conversation. People are seeing it. Well two things here. First, it wasn't until recently that we discovered any fossil records for chimpanzees at all.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...50831_chimp_teeth.htmlAugust 2005. Presumably we accepted the existance of chimps in the past prior to discovering these few teeth (the only chimp fossils we have).Secondly, there is LOTS of evidence of primates that far North. In fact there are primates inhabitting even the ice of the artic.As for what did they evolve from, the most likely candidate is Gigantopithecus, an extremely large species of ape who's teeth have been turning up in China, India and Vietnam. The fossil record dates it between 5 million and 100 thousand years ago according to Wiki. I suspect that a good number of those are guys in gorilla suits. As I said to Ned, the photographic/video evidence is clearly lacking. If it wasn't there would be no discussion here. Well, I don't know that they are tool users. I don't recall any accounts of tool use (though I certainly don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of Bigfoot accounts).As for shelters, I don't know what those would be. Clearly not huts, but perhaps the nest in trees, perhaps they nest in caves, perhaps they don't "nest" at all, but just kid of curl up where they can. Yes, humans need tools to catch fish. Bears however do not. Does this means that we don't believe in bears because bears don't make fish hooks?Hell, some humans can even catch fish with their bare (bear) hands.Additionally, discounting all the tools for hunting, we're left with tools for clothing manufacture, shelter, chopping firewood, etc. All designed for us naked apes to keep warm. Doesn't look like Bigfoot is doing too bad in that department. This is three points. 1) Calories, 2) Escape detection and 3) no tools.I already addressed 3.As for calories, clearly there is enough food in the Pacific Northwest to support large animals since there are large animals in the Pacific Northwest.If we assume that Bigfoot is a herbavore like the gorilla - one with a particularly ineffecient diet, then no there's not enough food to sustain them.But if Bigfoot is an omnivore, there's a ton of food. Plenty of protein in a deer.As for escaping detection - they haven't. When I say "bigfoot" you know exactly what I am talking about. When I say "cleasletromp" you have no idea what I'm talking about - Cleasletromps have effectly escaped detection Not to mention the fact that we're talking about an animal who can be actively hiding.There have been literally dozens of aircraft lost in the pacific northwest. These are large, white, metal machines, often with radio signals and beacons giving some clue as to where they went down, and they can not be found. If we can't find an airplane in a forest, what makes you so certain we'd be able to find a bigfoot? I agree. After all, there's no pandas or mountain gorillas either, since they were first described in only oral tradition and sightings. This isn't a debate, hence the last line of my initial post. I'm just talking about the ideas involved.Obviously the two of us, typing at computers, can neither prove nor disprove the existance of Bigfoot.

Actually I saw that documentary, I remember the handprint on the truck.In that case, it was a smeared handprint from one of the researchers, most likely left there as they offloaded their gear. And, to the best of my recollection, by the end of the documentary they were sending the hair away from analysis but I don't recall them getting analysis back.Though, I'm trying to block out some time to find some good links for people about similiar accounts.

Deer, elk, caribou - these don't hibernate. Nor do the animals which feed on them, wolves, wolverines, mountain lions.If Bigfoot is a preditory omnivore, what's to stop it from making a few kills.

I think the results came back that the hair was from an unknown primate.

Betcha it's not true or a lousily controlled analysis. That's what always happens when the "evidence" is zeroed in on. It fades.

Voice of Reason: The Reality of Bigfoot | Live ScienceLiveScience explains how an "unknown" source is arrived at. They also report that the hair ended up being 100% bison.

While I don't discount what they are saying in that article, I don't think the hair sample from the documentary is the same hair sample they are discussing.The article seems to be refrencing something called the "Yukon sample" which apparently coincides with a number of sightings.I don't see anywhere that even implies that the hair sample came as a direct result of a sighting though. In otherwords, it's not like people are saying - "I saw Bigfoot on my roof and he left this hair sample".Some people are saying "I saw Bigfoot"
Someone is saying "I found a hair sample"It turns out that the Yukon hair sample is bison. Perhaps collected from a barbwire fence, perhaps collected from the bison head in someone's garage.But, because the hair is bison, does that mean that sights from the area are also bison? Are these people unable to distinguish between a bipedal primate and a bison?

Don't you see Nuggin? There is a pattern here already.Anytime anything is looked at at all closely it turns out to be purple smoke. You've not yet given any evidence at all! You've just heard about this or that but have nothing with any substance.There reason for not accepting BigFoot is the pattern. When something with some substance is examined more closely the possiblity is strengthened. When something without substance is examined each case fades into fuzz or solid refutation.You seem to agree the we don't have any reliable (or even very clear) photographic evidence.We know that individuals keep mistaking what they are seeing. You seem to think the more that happens there more likely there is something behind it. The reverse is true: it only shows that individuals will see 'things' and get it wrong. The more they do the more you should expect this is what is happening with a new case.Folk tales are a hint to look. They are not in themselves evidence for a darn thing.Pulling the "look what was found in..." is the same as the "they laughed at so-and-so line". Yea, yea, but most of the time when they laugh they were correct too. This only says it is not impossible it doesn't say anything about it's degree of truth. If it was clearly impossible it would be ruled out so we don't need to know, more than we do, that it is possible.What we need is some substantial reason for thinking it is so. You haven't shown us a scrap of it yet. Just rumours of this or that.ABE Yes! They are (unable that is (abe) ). In the case of the article that nator linked to:

quote:

---

...he and other locals heard a large, mysterious animal in the brush. ...

---

Note: They heard a something. Edited by NosyNed, : a bit moreEdited by NosyNed, : No reason given.Edited by NosyNed, : clarify

Among sexual species? Typically 2-3 thousand individuals. What evidence do you have that they're scared of humans? Says you. The population is small enough that it's impossible for anybody but drunk backpackers to even get a glimpse of the guy; small enough that all the footage and photography appears to be either of bears, nothing at all, or guys in gorilla suits.Small enough that it's impossible for serious researchers with documentary equipment to find. Small enough that there's absolutely no known fossils or remains. I can go down to the zoo and see some chimps. The evidence for Bigfoot is as revelatory as God, and by many Bigfooters, spoken of in the same terms: if Bigfoot doesn't want you to see him, you won't.It's a little ridiculous. Look, I'm more than happy to be proven wrong, but a few hair fibers and a whole lot of hoaxes don't even begin to meet the burden of evidence. Not primitive ones - just tool-using Homo sapiens. Are you contending that Bigfoot uses tools to live in biomes where primates don't typically survive? Why don't we find any of these tools, then? The problem with this idea is that Gigantopithecus was quadrepedal, which wouldn't match your eyewitness reports of large bipedal hominids in the Pacific northwest. Plus there are zero fossils of any Gigantopithicus species in North America. Bears have fishhooks at the end of each arm. Does your footprint evidence substantiate big bear claws on Bigfoot?No?Maybe the most damning aspect of putative "Bigfoot" is that his proponents can make up literally any quality whatsoever to explain how he survives undetected in a place where no known primates but tool-using humans have been known to live. (And even the Native Americans lived coastally.)When you're just making up whatever it takes to explain the current objection, that's a sign to reasonable people that you're engaged in nonsense. I wonder why you're having a hard time seeing that. You must know that this is specious. Now you're claiming that Bigfoot is a ruminant? What's next? He's an alien, too? Right. Because we've both seen Harry and the Hendersons. Bigfoot is a myth in our culture. Of course we're both familiar with the myth.But to try to equate the commonality of the myth with some kind of independent corroboration is just nonsense. As species, they weren't described at all until we had physical proof. So where's yours?

If they came to me, I might.

Ned, I'm trying to be fair here.I'm not the one claiming the video/photographic evidence is good. In fact I've said the opposite.Further I'd be happy to discount all the ear-witness accounts, or the "I smelled something funny" accounts.Hell, I'll even throw out the I saw something furry move in the brush.Even tossing all that stuff out, there are still a good number of accounts in which the people are quite clear about what they saw.Yes, I know, I haven't linked them. What can I say, I'm popping on the site to do quick replies. More is coming, I promise - just been super busy.Speaking of patterns, so far I see two emerging.1) You haven't proved Bigfoot because you haven't show enough evidence.Fair enough, I openly admit I haven't put enough up here. More to come.2) Bigfoot can't be real because of reason X, Y, Z.These are the sort of statements that led to my initial post in the first place. "Bigfoot can't be real because there isn't enough plant life to sustain a gorilla." etc. etc.What boggles my mind is how an "expert" can make claims about why this animal can't exist based on some massive assumptions about pretty much every aspect of the creatures' life.

I take from this that you feel the God came to you, and that you don't believe that you are mistaken in that assumption.As such, it follows you that hold yourself up as evidence for God's existance.Can I therefore assume that you likewise accept all eyewitness accounts of Bigfoot?