• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Moderated Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Another Wallace stomper...

87edb2f7.jpg
 
Don't you know? Wallace based his stomper design on REAL BIGFOOT PRINTS, of course a real Bigfoot has a Double ball and square toes.
 
A mid-tarsal break is a real anatomical feature of non-human apes.

http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/19672845

The midtarsal break was first described in this journal nearly 75 years ago to explain the ability of non-human primates to lift their heel independently of the rest of the foot.​

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...ontology-lucys-feet-made-for-walking/1?csp=34

Indeed, the height of the medial arch is highly variable also in modern humans, and some asymptomatic humans are flat-footed to the extent that a marked pressure peak is apparent under the lateral midfoot, a peak that in a non-human ape would almost certainly be termed a mid-tarsal break. It may well be that the individual to whom this fourth metatarsal belonged lacked a mid-tarsal break, as Ward and colleagues claim, but this argument cannot be extended from the individual to the species on the basis of a single bone.​

Square toes and a double-ball foot are features exclusive to bigfoot casts and stompers, making them considerably less probable than the known, documented and studied mid-tarsal break of non-human apes.
 
xblade said:
Sure you can. You just don't like the most probable explanation.

By the way, here's a vid that discredits the argument used by many bigfooters, including scientist Dr. Meldrum, that no one ever finds bones of animals.






10 year old human? How can these creatures be so much smarter than man if they only have the intelligence of a 10 year old human?
Click to expand...

Hi xblade. I see your first point, and yeah, that could be one (or THE) reason.

And I don't believe I've ever come across ANYONE (bf'r or not) that claims that NO bones are ever found in the wild. My point was merely trying to put into perspective the chances of finding bones to a very abundant wild animal is in the the fractions of a percent. Now, taking into account alleged populations of BF, divide by at least 1000, and you'd get into the arena of the chances of actually finding bones (if BF did exist).

I think the argument that population, geographical location, and climate prohibiting carcass discovery is fairly sound.

And the 10 year old human comment was merely a guess, I've no idea where a BF would fall on the intelligence level, but comparing it to chimps and gorillas that can communicate and be taught, I was just guessing. And to answer your question, yeah, a 10 year old's intelligence would be more than enough to evade and survive in the wild. I think perhaps you are assuming that 10 year olds are unintelligent. (Don't let the 21st century parenting/schooling trends sway your opinion - we're talking more about life skills in a natural selection environment, not common sense, respect, and day-to-day social skills in a societal sense).
 
Cotter said:
And I don't believe I've ever come across ANYONE (bf'r or not) that claims that NO bones are ever found in the wild. My point was merely trying to put into perspective the chances of finding bones to a very abundant wild animal is in the the fractions of a percent. Now, taking into account alleged populations of BF, divide by at least 1000, and you'd get into the arena of the chances of actually finding bones (if BF did exist).

I think the argument that population, geographical location, and climate prohibiting carcass discovery is fairly sound.
Click to expand...

But Cotter, if bigfoot is a real animal, the chances of our finding its remains, either fossil or mortal, do not vanish to zero. Whatever the "fractions of a percent" are that some evidence of a tiny population of animals will be discovered, it is not 0.0000. Yet that is precisely the quantity of evidence we have for this supposed animal.

While responding to other forum members you've inexplicably ignored my earlier points about the wildernesses of North America being combed over by biologists (botanists, zoologists, ornithologists), archeologists, paleontologists, wildlife enthusiasts, park rangers, hunters, hikers, campers, fishers, lumber men, hydrologists, geologists, satellite photography and trail cameras, and bigfoot researchers in all seasons. And yet none of them has ever discovered so much as trace of the animal. There are no expert observation reports, no hair, no scat, no DNA, no blood, no tissue, no unambiguous photography, no fossils, no bones. Why do you suppose this is?
 
How did we get from that cast to the ones Roger is holding up? They are completely different.

Believers are going to have to say the casts in the NW and Argosy mags are not from the PGF site...
 
Vortigern99 said:
But Cotter, if bigfoot is a real animal, the chances of our finding its remains, either fossil or mortal, do not vanish to zero. Whatever the "fractions of a percent" are that some evidence of a tiny population of animals will be discovered, it is not 0.0000. Yet that is precisely the quantity of evidence we have for this supposed animal.

While responding to other forum members you've inexplicably ignored my earlier points about the wildernesses of North America being combed over by biologists (botanists, zoologists, ornithologists), archeologists, paleontologists, wildlife enthusiasts, park rangers, hunters, hikers, campers, fishers, lumber men, hydrologists, geologists, satellite photography and trail cameras, and bigfoot researchers in all seasons. And yet none of them has ever discovered so much as trace of the animal. There are no expert observation reports, no hair, no scat, no DNA, no blood, no tissue, no unambiguous photography, no fossils, no bones. Why do you suppose this is?
Click to expand...

It's because these people don't know the area.
 
Cotter said:
And I don't believe I've ever come across ANYONE (bf'r or not) that claims that NO bones are ever found in the wild.
Click to expand...

Sigh, semantics. Ok, if you're going to take it literally, then never is the wrong word. Or maybe not:

"Here’s what Stocking and three other well-respected believers — Dan Jackson, who spent 20 years tracking Bigfoot, Longwood primate researcher Pat Rance, and www.bigfootencounters.com owner and editor Bobbie Short — say to critics.

Why hasn’t anyone produced a dead Bigfoot?

Jackson: “Go to any state with a bear population, and go the fish-and-game department and ask how many dead-bear carcasses they find each year, and you’ll get the same answer from everyone one of them: ‘none.’"
http://www.bigfootreferenceguide.com/archive/index.php/t-415.html

His answer is false.

How about the great Meldrum himself, a scientist who should know better:

"Meldrum said the fact that Bigfoot bones haven’t been found doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Johnson himself pointed out that in his 20 years living in Alaska he never saw a bear skeleton or bones. Acidic soils and moisture can decompose remains quickly.

“Matt was on the right track,” Meldrum said. “You don’t just find remains. We wouldn’t know about gigantapithicus if porcupines hadn’t dragged them into limestone caves. "

http://www.thedailycourier.com/bigfoot/

Meanwhile, the only wolverine in Michigan has died, and somehow, they found the body. By accident.
http://www.mlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2010/03/thumb_wolverine_dead_michigan.html

Still no bigfoot body though.....
 
Last edited:
I am going to start using one argument for all Bigfoot related questions, 'There is no Bigfoot'

Q. Why don't you think Patty is real?
A. There is no Bigfoot

Q. Why don't you accept footprint evidence?
A. There is no Bigfoot

Q. Oh, so you don't have an open mind about Bigfoot?
A. Yes I do, and there is no Bigfoot.

Q. What about people who have seen one?
A. There is no Bigfoot.

Until someone can put one on a slab, that will be my default argument.
 
More from NC:
"I was just jumping over the creek, and as soon as I jumped, I saw a footprint, and I yelled, 'Footprint,'" Ackerman said.
Animal Planet researcher Cliff Barackman was called in to look at the footprint.
"A lot of people would see this as the front part and back part of the foot, but I think we're looking at a quadripedal animal here," Barackman said. "I think this is probably a deer."
When Moneymaker arrived on the scene, he disagreed and said that it was possible that the prints were made by something else.
A little further down the stream, a deer carcass was found. The researchers gathered around the carcass discovered gnaw marks on the bones.
According to Barackman and Moneymaker, deer is Bigfoot's main source of food.
"That's exactly what a deer kill looks like," Moneymaker said of the carcass.
"A Sasquatch [Bigfoot] will grab the front leg and break it. The break has a particular look to it, and that's exactly what I saw there."
 
parnassus said:
More from NC:
"I was just jumping over the creek, and as soon as I jumped, I saw a footprint, and I yelled, 'Footprint,'" Ackerman said.
Animal Planet researcher Cliff Barackman was called in to look at the footprint.
"A lot of people would see this as the front part and back part of the foot, but I think we're looking at a quadripedal animal here," Barackman said. "I think this is probably a deer."
When Moneymaker arrived on the scene, he disagreed and said that it was possible that the prints were made by something else.
A little further down the stream, a deer carcass was found. The researchers gathered around the carcass discovered gnaw marks on the bones.
According to Barackman and Moneymaker, deer is Bigfoot's main source of food.
"That's exactly what a deer kill looks like," Moneymaker said of the carcass.
"A Sasquatch [Bigfoot] will grab the front leg and break it. The break has a particular look to it, and that's exactly what I saw there."
Click to expand...

I realize I'm creating a strawman by compositing multiple bigfooters, but I find it head-smackingly frustrating that one minute they can justify no evidence of bigfoot by claiming large mammal carcasses are never found in the wild and then turn around and tell you how to identify a found deer carcass as a bigfoot kill.
 
I guess I'm struck by the apparent inability of these bigfoot experts to recognize the footprint of a white-tailed deer.

I suppose we'll hear next that bigfoots have ridges on their incisors that leave "gnaw marks" on bones that look a lot like those of white-footed mouse . . . to the uninitiated, that is.
 
I have two bear skulls.

I had a total of six at one time. In 25 years you lose track of things and the dogs/varmints are always after your stuff.

I shot five of them. Like bigfoot, most of them came after me while I was on a moose kill. Grizzlies. One was trying to knock down the front door of the cabin. That was a big 'ole black bear. I thought it was an earthquake waking me up.

But y'know these guys would find more bones if they'd blow a hole in a bigfoot with a .375 H&H magnum or something.

That black bear was really determined to get in. I opened the door with him standing up, pushing with his paws. Timed it to open right after the push. I let him have it point-blank with a .44 magnum right in the chest.

He sat down and looked around like "WTF?" So I shot him again. Wow, he lurched up sideways and careened over to the woodpile, and then whump! Deader than a doornail.

Like I was saying too, it wasn't very difficult finding his remains.
 
So, not only does sasquatch "front leg" a deer, but he "front legs" it a specific way?

When I imagine myself, for some odd reason, chasing a deer for food, I see myself tripping it from behind with a stout stick, possibly breaking a back leg.

Can't see how I break a front leg first.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom