Bigfoot, an evolutionary argument for it's non-existence.

Well, its not a great argument IMHO.

Footers can easilly try to get away through the "its an unknown species" escape route. Yes, there are many objections to that, but they will not acknowledge this fact. Some will be smarter and dump the extreme reported sizes, staying within the top 2.5 m height, adding a couple of evolutionary adaptations which are not impossible and cherry-picking evidence for these adaptations within footer lore.

I am not a biologist, but I think mid-tarsal breaks would by highly unlikely for such extreme critters, especially on the higher end. The tendency would be massive feet and legs, not unlike the column-like legs seen in elephants, rhinos and hippos. A more likely humanoid-like critter of this size would be, I believe, a knuckle-walker. Something like the Elcor from Mass Effect games. There are, by the way, large knuckle-walkers on the fossil register and I am not talking just about gigantopithecus. They were the Anisodons, extinct ungulates and also maybe some giant ground sloths.
 
All the "believers" stories seem to revolve around a rather gracile humanoid of great size, not bear-like in any way. 7-8 feet tall (or more) moving with a typically-human gait.
No huge muscular limbs or weapons for attacking large prey; likely too slow for small critters... Again, what does the thing eat? And even more, what does it eat that we wouldn't see distinctive sign of?
If it's a vegetarian, there isn't much in the way of nutritious plant foods in that environment, and the "leavings" would be large and bulky typical of plant-eaters.
Unlikely a humanoid-relative would have the necessary gastrointestinal tract to handle the sorts of roughage that moose, elk, and similar creatures live on.
 
I tried to argue on the BFF that bigfoot has no natural weapons. Cats and bears have large claws and teeth, deer have antlers, skunks have spray, etc. All animals have something but bigfoot has nothing.

As exptected that point was met with the sound of crickets.
 
Bikewer said:
Again, what does the thing eat? And even more, what does it eat that we wouldn't see distinctive sign of?
Click to expand...

Omnivore, as smart as we are, but faster, much stronger, and with bigger jaws and chewing musculature. They can break down much more roughage than we can, but they also supplement their diet with meat. Basically, they eat what black bears eat and live like black bears do - take advantage of seasonally and opportunistically available food sources and can exhibit great bursts of activity that punctuate long periods of chilling out.

Bikewer said:
If it's a vegetarian, there isn't much in the way of nutritious plant foods in that environment, and the "leavings" would be large and bulky typical of plant-eaters.
Click to expand...

People do report odd piles of feces they suspect are bigfoot, but the bigger issue is that these creatures occur at very low population density, so the likelihood that their droppings are found is quite small. Given that the species has not been described, there is also a dearth of credible information on how exactly to discern bigfoot poop from bear poop.

(All devil's advocate, of course . . . )
 
GT/CS said:
I tried to argue on the BFF that bigfoot has no natural weapons.
Click to expand...

Immense strength, speed, and intelligence on par with our own isn't enough for you? A lack of obvious weaponry doesn't keep chimps from being highly effective predators. They rely on stealth and cooperation to trap their quarry, but the killing blows seem to be come simply from pounding fists, bites, and arm strength capable of dismemberment.

(devil's advocate again) Trust me, hard core 'footers would snicker at such elementary objections as "what do they eat?" or "how do they get their food?" They've seen them all before, and they have the advantage of inventing any biological capability for their bigfoot that has any kind of precedent in the natural world.
 
I mean doesn't the fossil record pretty much show a complete lack of giant bipedal hominids of these proportions?

Bigfoot would be an entirely new genus of hominid, and you'd think we'd have noticed fossils of it or its earlier relatives with similar features somewhere no?
 
How about this ...

When was the last large mammal of Bigfoot mass discovered in the areas in which Bigfoot is believed to exist? And by this, I mean how long has such an animal evaded detection, not only in direct documentation, but from any evidence at all? And if it's been a long time, then why all the concern over Bigfoot and none over the concerns of some other, more dangerous animal?
 
GT/CS said:
I tried to argue on the BFF that bigfoot has no natural weapons. Cats and bears have large claws and teeth, deer have antlers, skunks have spray, etc. All animals have something but bigfoot has nothing.

As exptected that point was met with the sound of crickets.
Click to expand...
Or perhaps it was merely the sound of gorillas being silent as they moved through the mist?
 
Last edited:
GT/CS said:
Here's a much smaller critter that was discovered in the PNW forests.

http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/
Click to expand...

This actually addresses two points against such an animal like Bigfoot. One, that is is far from Bigfoot's size, and thus making detection all that more difficult. (These are the types of animals still left to be discovered.) But two, and I think this is the more important, is that in the U.S., there is no animal like Bigfoot. In other words, we have various sizes of wild cats and canines --- thus finding one of a large size is not all that unusual. The same goes for your octopus, there are many varieties that are known to exist. But just what do we see that is similar to Bigfoot? ... living in the wild that is similar?

Where we find Moose we find their smaller relatives, deer. Find wolves and you find foxes, coyotes. Mountain lions found with bobcats.
 
Last edited:
The Shrike said:
Omnivore, as smart as we are, but faster, much stronger, and with bigger jaws and chewing musculature. They can break down much more roughage than we can, but they also supplement their diet with meat. Basically, they eat what black bears eat and live like black bears do - take advantage of seasonally and opportunistically available food sources and can exhibit great bursts of activity that punctuate long periods of chilling out.



People do report odd piles of feces they suspect are bigfoot, but the bigger issue is that these creatures occur at very low population density, so the likelihood that their droppings are found is quite small. Given that the species has not been described, there is also a dearth of credible information on how exactly to discern bigfoot poop from bear poop.

(All devil's advocate, of course . . . )
Click to expand...
Stools can be identified a couple of ways including DNA.
The feet are ridiculous for anything but stomping out forest fires. But you have "true believer since childhood" Meldrum saying it makes sense.
The niche makes no sense....Competing with bears and man isn't a reasonable task.


Wadr I think perhaps it is more exact to say one doesn t know the reasons why bigfoot doesn't exist rather to say "there's no reason Bigfoot couldn't exist.".
 
Last edited:
Saw the footprint cast.

I talked with one an expert of latent print examination. (you know, the CSI guys who can get fingerprints from just about anything).

He had a cast of one of the footprints. Using examination techniques, and knowing how underlying bone structure affects how skin thickness and flexibility acts when taking a step, he concluded that this is evidence of a large bipedal primate.

This is the similar technique used to define structures of dinosaurs based on their footprints found in rock. We know how the dinosaurs walked based on how they made their footprints.

It's not whether I believe there are large bipedal primates, it's that there is evidence that they exist. You may dismiss the evidence, but you have to ask yourself why? Is it because "it's just ridiculous!" or is it because you claim the evidence is flawed? If you think the evidence is flawed, why is it flawed?
 
Let's see the results of his examination of the cast and we'll decide for ourselves if what you claim is credible.
 
I remember seeing a post here one time (I think it was by Corea Neto, but I could be wrong) that went into great detail in trying to determine the impact that a breeding population of large bipedal apes would have on the resources available in the Pacific NW. It turned out that the amount of food required to keep even a small number of these things alive was so large that there is no way they could go unnoticed.

I think that might be a good way to look at the whole problem from a biological point of view.
 
OldBlueMoon said:
I talked with one an expert of latent print examination. (you know, the CSI guys who can get fingerprints from just about anything).

He had a cast of one of the footprints. Using examination techniques, and knowing how underlying bone structure affects how skin thickness and flexibility acts when taking a step, he concluded that this is evidence of a large bipedal primate.

This is the similar technique used to define structures of dinosaurs based on their footprints found in rock. We know how the dinosaurs walked based on how they made their footprints.

It's not whether I believe there are large bipedal primates, it's that there is evidence that they exist. You may dismiss the evidence, but you have to ask yourself why? Is it because "it's just ridiculous!" or is it because you claim the evidence is flawed? If you think the evidence is flawed, why is it flawed?
Click to expand...

Which expert? How did he confirm it was a genuine footprint? If it was Chilcutt, well, that ends that.

Please leave out the silly CSI references. You can't get fingerprints from "anything".

Which dinosaur's walk or structure is based on their footprint? Can you name a couple?

What evidence are you referring to? Can't be the footprints because no one knows what they look like so no one can confirm that they are genuine.

I am not aware of any confirmed sasquatch evidence.
 
Last edited:
OldBlueMoon said:
I talked with one an expert of latent print examination. (you know, the CSI guys who can get fingerprints from just about anything).

He had a cast of one of the footprints. Using examination techniques, and knowing how underlying bone structure affects how skin thickness and flexibility acts when taking a step, he concluded that this is evidence of a large bipedal primate.

This is the similar technique used to define structures of dinosaurs based on their footprints found in rock. We know how the dinosaurs walked based on how they made their footprints.

It's not whether I believe there are large bipedal primates, it's that there is evidence that they exist. You may dismiss the evidence, but you have to ask yourself why? Is it because "it's just ridiculous!" or is it because you claim the evidence is flawed? If you think the evidence is flawed, why is it flawed?
Click to expand...
It is flawed because there is no such thing as a bigfoot.
 
OldBlueMoon said:
I talked with one an expert of latent print examination. (you know, the CSI guys who can get fingerprints from just about anything).

He had a cast of one of the footprints. Using examination techniques, and knowing how underlying bone structure affects how skin thickness and flexibility acts when taking a step, he concluded that this is evidence of a large bipedal primate.

This is the similar technique used to define structures of dinosaurs based on their footprints found in rock. We know how the dinosaurs walked based on how they made their footprints.

It's not whether I believe there are large bipedal primates, it's that there is evidence that they exist. You may dismiss the evidence, but you have to ask yourself why? Is it because "it's just ridiculous!" or is it because you claim the evidence is flawed? If you think the evidence is flawed, why is it flawed?
Click to expand...

What expert, where?
 
I recall much being made of finding "dermal ridges" in the casts made from some of the footprints, with the attendant claim that such markings couldn't be faked.

Unless, of course, one is passingly familiar with Hollywood make-up techniques, where latex moulds can quite accurately reproduce such ridges.
The Mythbusters managed to produce fingerprint casts accurate enough to fool biometric devices with very simple technology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom