Bigfoot

Though I want this to be scientific in nature, coffee house is probably a better place for this thread.I'm a Bigfoot fan. I admit that up front. I believe there is a large bipedal primate living in (among other places) the American NW.With evidence from sightings to oral traditions to footprint casts to hair samples - there's a strong indication that something is out there.I just watched a "documentary" on Discovery which talked about "both sides" of the issue and found the arguments being posed by the skeptics to be seriously lacking.Here's some examples:
- Bigfoot couldn't survive the winters in the Pac NW because there isn't enough food out there to sustain the needs of a big brained primate.- Bigfoot could not be noturnal because it would need to be able to see colors in order distinguish it's food (apparently only plants) from other plants- If Bigfoot is an ape there should be "ape nests" like those created by gorillasAnd on and on...Most of the arguments were good arguments for why there are not gorillas in the Pacific NW, but that's not really a valid way to disprove a different species.Other arguments were great for proving why no member of the primate family could survive in the Pac NW, which, if you told this to the Native Americans of the area, I would expect a lot of head scratching.Is there anyone here at EVC who is particularly ANTI-Bigfoot who'll try to raise at least a better line of reasoning for why this thing can't exist.I know - I'm basically asking you to prove a negative - this isn't meant to be a "Debate" as much as a discussion about why some evidence is acceptable and other evidence isn't, or why some reasoning simply doesn't apply.

Yeah, similiarly, I'm sure there were plenty of people making the argument that there is no way there could be a large bear living in a bamboo forest, and even if there was, there is no way it would be black and white.There are populations of deer and coyotes living in many many urban centers and people have no clue.If you think about it, how many times have you crossed over that bridge near your house? How many times have you climbed down to see what's under it.It's extremely easy to pass by little pockets of nature without a second glance. You never know what's hiding in the shadows.

Okay, short of time, so I'm going give the evidence a quick fly by and will come back to do more later.Accounts -
Take them for what they are worth, there have been literally thousands of eye-witness accounts. I'm sure some (even many) may be completely fictional. Others may be just simply in error about what they saw (ie it was a bear). But there are quite a few which are credible.Film / Photos -
Here there are many many fakes, unfortunately. Including the most famous footage - the Patterson Film.Physical Evidence -
Mostly plaster casts of footprints, and again, here we find a number of fakes as well. But there are quite a few which, at the very least, would be hard to fake, for example a few left in very fine silt actually show skin texture.Additionally there are hair samples attributed to a yet unknown primate. These never seem to get addressed in the TV specials.Oral history -
For what it's worth, the Native American tribes of the area have oral histories which reference these creatures. Sure, the Greeks have Minotaurs in their oral history, but you don't have hundreds of sightings a year of Minotaurs

Wander into the wrong thread River?

I agree, eyewitness accounts are as much about what the witnesser wishes to see as it is what is actually there. And, for the most part, I discount 90% of these accounts.But there are accounts which are not so easy to discount. Accounts of rational people who had ample opertunity to observe carefully what it was that they saw. Frankly, in the case of photos I generally feel that the better the photo the more likely it was faked.The most "real" footage I ever saw was taken by a pair of teens. In the audio track on the footage you can hear that they are freaking the hell out. However, I still can't make out what they think they are seeing in the footage. Underbrush + poor lighting + a cheap camera = not much to go on. However, unlike a lot of other clips, this one certainly doesn't "feel" fake the way that others so clearly do. I disagree. While, clearly, the specifics of any given oral history are completely subject to change, the fact that they exist up and down the coast is a pretty good indiciator that there was something driving this belief system.While I'm not suscribing this with the same sort of weight the Creos give "cultures all over the world have flood myths therefore the Flood really happened", I am saying that belief in this creature certainly predates European influence in the area. Well some would say the only acceptable hard evidence is a dead bigfoot. And, yes, that would be the "best" evidence (short of a captured live one).But I'll point out that pandas and mountain gorillas were both only known by eyewitness accounts and local legend long before a specimen was produced. In fact the "experts" of the day were saying many of the same things we hear about Bigfoot.Anyway, as for references on some of the other stuff, I'll get some good ones. Unfortunately it's 2am here and I don't want to blind link a bunch of crypto sites. I'll go and cherry pick the stuff I find more reasonable.

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.

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?

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?

There are plenty of species out there who's numbers don't count in the thousands. There are many who's numbers are in the hundreds or even less. Hell, at one point there were only 4 California condors left.I'm not suggesting that the population of this species is robust. What evidence do you have that they are not? Unfair question? You asked why haven't they been hit by cars, I'm offering you a possible answer to that question. If you wanna play the evidence game, please show that all accounts were reported by drunk backpackers. This is a MASSIVE assumption on your part. It's tantamount to saying, "If I haven't seen it with my own eyes, everyone else in the world must be wrong."Your question was how can these things go completely undetected. They haven't. If they had gone completely undetected we couldn't be discussing them now. This is a dodge. I said "Presumably we accepted the existance of chimps in the past". I presume that your zoo is not a time travel zoo.Chimps today are proof of chimps today. They are not proof of chimps in the past. We accept that because there are chimps today, it is reasonable to assume there were chimps in the past. But until extremely recently we had no fossil evidence that this was true. Now you are trying to attribute to me what other people are saying.I agree, many of the kooks they talk to about Bigfoot are just that - kooks.Here's a little secret coming to you straight from Hollywood. Kooks make for GREAT TV. If you have a camera and you're reporting the news and you have two choices - a rational reasonable articulate person who witnessed the event and a long haired kook - Always go with the kook. I love it when people make statements like this. Crash, please demonstrate exactly how biologists figured out it was a quadreped from a handful of molars.Giganto is very poorly represented in the fossil record.Additionally, I'm not saying - Bigfoot DID descend from Giganto, I'm saying it's the most likely candidate.Given the extreme amount of shifting taking place in human origins in the last 10 years, I'd suggest that "best guess" is about as good as we can get at any given time.Could gig be a direct anscestor? Sure. Could it be a cousin? Sure. Could it be a contemporary? Sure. I'm just point to a recent, existing ape large enough to fit the bill. Given that these things were around for a couple million years in SE Asia and all we have to show for it is a handful of teeth, the lack of fossil evidence in North America is not exactly astonishing.Additionally, we're going back to the chimp argument. How could there be an animal here and not leave a fossil record? Same way the chimps did it. Alright Crash, now you are starting to piss me off.You make a statement to the effect that only people can catch fish and they need to use hooks. I point out bears catch plenty of fish and you jump to some sort of accusation that I'm making things up.Don't ask a question that requires a speculative answer if you are in turn going to attack me for speculating.I further notice that you COMPLETELY overlooked my point that there are people (humans) who catch fish with their bare hands on a regular basis.According to your reasoning these people have to have bear claws - now THAT's nonsense.Care to provide some sort of evolutionary explaination for these alleged "bear claw people"? Of course you don't. Show me where I claimed that? I didn't.In fact, my exact sentence was: "Plenty of protein in a deer". To the best of my knowledge ruminants DONT EAT DEER.But of course you would overlook that sentence, as it's an actual answer to your question and instead pick a tiny fragment of what I said to attack.So, I will respond in kind: Crash, how can you attack the existance of bigfoot while simultaneously claiming he's an alien? Are you kidding me? You mean the people that went out looking for the giant panda to prove it existed had NEVER had someone say "Hey man, there's a big black and white bear up on that mountain."OF COURSE they were described. They were described by witnesses.Did they get an official species designation prior to someone killing one? No.
Am I asking that you give Bigfoot a species designation? No.So what the hell is your point?

To predict the food needed to supply of population of an animal you would need to know several things, among them:How many of that animal are there?
What does that animal eat?
What is that animals metabolism?We can guess at the metabolism, basing it off other great apes. But Gorillas get by on plants along while we eat quite a lot of meat. Is Bigfoot an herbavore? Is it an omnivore?How can you make a prediction about the amount of food an animal needs to eat if you don't first determine WHAT it is that that animal eats. Once again, I disagree with your term "hide". Hiding implies that they are not seen.These animals are regularly seen.What we don't have is a dead one. Excellent work Crash. If someone has a point you can't address, simply call it ridiculous nonsense and move on.It's those kind of debating props that really ought to win you a gold medal.Which part is the most ridiculous do you think? That planes exist? That they fly? That they are made of metal? That we have a means of tracking them in the air? That they sometimes crash? That we sometimes can't find the crash - even though the plane is metal, it's a different color than it's surroundings, we know where it was when it went down and there's usually a better than average chance of smoke coming up from the crash site.Is it that you've never seen an airplane or a crash site? Is that why my point is ridiculous?Crash, believe it or not, there are things out there which you have not seen and yet they still exist. The world is not determined by your acknowledging it or not.