Moderated Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?

[Castro]

...An 800 pound hairy biped does not exist, nor does any species of such, in North America, and it has no record of existence....

Yes, and If told people that a super elusive giant brown bear living undetected in the heart of Congo could exist, I would expect them to ask for good evidence before taking me seriously, therefore I would think about providing good evidence if I expected to be taken seriously.

edited for accuracy

 

[Resume]

Yes, I'm familiar with traffic in national parks, but over half of the forested land is in private hands. I'm also pretty familiar with how empty most of the places are once you get off the trails. If you get lost in these places, there is a better than fair chance you won't be found, even if a lot people are trying. If you are in there and don't want to be found, that's easy.

You're also saying that this creature is "unheard of." That's not the case at all, as you've mentioned a significant number of sightings. Clearly many, if not most, of the sightings are most likely BS or misidentifications. There are however others that don't necessarily come across that way and are from people that would normally be considered knowledgable. I personally have met 3 or 4 Forest Service employees that claim to have seen one. They weren't bragging and were honestly pretty hesitant to talk about it. These are people that spend every day in these woods and have nothing to gain from this. Then you have the historical accounts. Those accounts aren't just from native Americans, but early settlers as well, so you're using "unheard of" fairly liberally. Just because no one has dragged one out of the woods doesn't mean something isn't there if the population is small. I would be hesitant to shoot ANYTHING on two legs, even if I thought it was probably a bear. If looks at the thing don't last long, a hunter may not even have time to know what he's looking at, much less shoot it.

I also saw that there was some discussion about the term "wood ape" referring to this, yes I'm still catching up on the thread some. Just for reference, that's a pretty old term, at least in the South. I've heard men older than my grandfather use it, so it has been around since at least the Depression era, if not longer.

As you say, you're still catching up on the thread. So do, and perhaps other threads on this subject; you'll find many of your points have been addressed a number of times, done to death as a matter of fact. Still no footie though.

 

[Jodie]

Until I see a body, then it doesn't exist. All the stories in the world are just that. We aren't talking about just North America, we are talking about the globe. It doesn't seem logical that absolutely no one on this planet has managed to hit one, kill one, or find a corpse.

 

[FatOldTrapper]

Yes, and If told people that a super elusive giant brown bear living undetected in the heart of Congo could exist, I would expect them to ask for good evidence before taking me seriously.

I agree completely. There has been evidence presented, and a fair bit of it from my understanding. Some of it is garbage and some at the least warrants further examination. Have you dismissed it by saying, "show me the body?" or have you looked at it objectively? I'll admit that I don't know everything that is out there.

The PGF for instance, kind of looks like a guy in a suit. I totally get that. It has been analyzed to death from every technical standpoint. Have you really looked at those analyses, or have only looked at the fact that numerous people say they are the guy in the suit, even if they can't find where it was filmed? I do know that Disney, Hollywood costume designers, and even at least one creature creator from Weta Workshops have said they couldn't do it. Does that mean its real? No, but it does mean it should be looked at further and their reasons weighed heavily.

Tracks are another great example. I know some of them show toe and bone movement. Some appear to show dermal ridges and some even indicate injuries. These have been looked at by anthropologists, fingerprint experts, and even podiatrists and they have said you can't fake what they are seeing. Does that mean all of the tracks are real? Of course not.

Hair samples have been taken and analyzed too, if I've read correctly. Hairs are pretty easily analyzed for morphology to identify species, or at the very least genus. I read higher up that there is a DNA study going for the hairs. Maybe that will turn something up.

Scat, well that's kind of a bunch of crap. Finding rare animal scat in the woods is often more rare than finding the animal itself. Even if you find it, it doesn't guarantee DNA. The bacteria in the turd break things down pretty fast. Throw in that UV exposure degrades DNA very, very quickly and you're not likely to get much unless you find a really fresh one and freeze it quickly. Then you have to consider an omnivore will have more than one type of DNA in the feces. So that isn't ideal. Now if you DO have a fresh steamy one, then heck yeah you can get DNA and it would be expected.

When you weigh the number of sightings, even if you assume 90-95% of them are totally nuts, you still have others that don't appear that way. You have to take each piece and evaluate it separately, rather than just lumping everything into one category.

I'm just trying to figure out if the evidence has really been weighed, or if folks are making assumptions on limited exposure to information.

 

[FatOldTrapper]

Your request to "show you the body" is perfectly reasonable. I would expect nothing less, as that is the standard for scientific classification. It looks like some folks are trying, but very few. That tends to make things take longer. Even when you know where an animal is, it isn't always easy to get one. Especially if they have the ability to travel large areas quickly.

I've been catching up on the thread some more and yes, I see a lot of discussion, but most of what I see as rebuttals are very elementary and based on opinion rather than fact. So my questions still stand. Can you explain the anomolous evidence that appears to be authentic? Or are you just going to continue saying, "It can't be real because this is 2012, in America, and we know EVERYTHING."? At least three of the world's foremost primatologists disagree with your assessment, as do a fair number of biologists, Forest Service employees, college professors, doctors, and law enforcement officers. Does that bear no weight at all, when they have actually reviewed some of this evidence first hand? It seems to me, that you have a "belief" that it doesn't exist, as much as some have a "belief" that it does.

 

[Jodie]

Well you know what would fix the limited exposure? People sharing what they have when they claim it, Trapper, do you happen to have some you would like to share with us? That is a serious question, I'm not trying to be provocative here.

You talk about the evidence but unless you have seen it for yourself your just reading about it, are you not? Taking someone else word because they are speaking from authority? I don;t do that anymore, not much gets by me, you know?

 

[LTC8K6]

So far, all of the claimed evidence for bigfoot has boiled down to nothing useable.

Even things like the much celebrated dermal ridges have turned out to be useless once someone other than believers looked at them.

We have been discussing every aspect of bigfoot ad nauseum here at JREF for a long time.

We've heard and discussed everything available many times over.

If anyone has discussed bigfoot evidence more than here at JREF, I have no idea where that would be.

Feel free to read back over the many and lengthy threads at your leisure.

 

[Cbengalensis]

As much as I've gotten into this so far, it seems that there is an everpresent chorus demanding good science prove it's real, but no concern for good science to prove why it isn't real.

Good science should be able to prove either one, in other words, prove the truth.

In the matter of that Patterson movie, as one example, good science should be able to prove it's a fake, if it is one, instead of just a bunch of people calling it a cheap fake and thinking that suffices. And if there are experts in the field of costumes, special effects and such, would it be to much to ask how they proved the film is a fake, if they say it is? Same for footprints, etc.

Or biologists who can offer some well-reasoned analysis of why this thing can't exist, as some here like to insist.

Seems good science should be able to accommodate that simple request, and settle the issue.

What intrigues me about this is why good science either can't or doesn't want to, why it can't seem to be solved.

But then, I guess I've got a weak spot for curious things that can't be solved, like why Green Magpies often turn blue in captivity but stay green in the wild.

CB

 

[Castro]

Until I see a body, then it doesn't exist. All the stories in the world are just that. We aren't talking about just North America, we are talking about the globe. It doesn't seem logical that absolutely no one on this planet has managed to hit one, kill one, or find a corpse.

Yes, a body might do the trick for me...I have to think about it.

 

[rockinkt]

^Your questions have been covered extensively in numerous threads on this forum. Please read them for the details because it really isn't fair to ask somebody to do your research for you.
Here are the short answers.
Only one person has come forward and said that he was the man in the suit.
The so-called analysis that state no human being could walk like that, etc. have been blown out of the water by actual scientific demonstrations.
The majority of experts in Hollywood FX actually state that it is obviously a suit.

Tracks are useless as evidence without a sasquatch standing in them.
There is not one analysis of a purported sasquatch track that can stand the rigorous test of science and that can be shown by the fact that no scientific papers have been published in any reputable journal. Only intellectually dishonest scientists are the ones who try and keep the myth alive. (Intellectually dishonest scientists are the ones who pretend to give expert opinions while refusing to have their opinions subjected to the rigors of peer review).

Dermal ridges are not proven to exist on any purported track cast and the ones brought forward as examples have been shown to be identical in nature to casting artifacts. There has been no answer to the fact of casting artifacts given by the fingerprint expert who made the initial claim of finding dermal ridges.

Hair morphology is a very inexact science. Period.

Eyewitness reports are incredibly unreliable.
Science does not rely on anecdotal evidence.
Pick any number you want out of thin air for your assumptions. The onus is not on the skeptic to prove reports of sighting false. However, the person who wants to use reports as evidence must be able to prove them true.

The evidence has been weighed and found to be non-existent.

 

[Castro]

Anybody has a link about proselytism and bigfoot or maybe marketing and bigfoot ?
I saw two guys from the LDS church some time ago, that's why I ask.

 

[Resume]

I agree completely. There has been evidence presented, and a fair bit of it from my understanding. Some of it is garbage and some at the least warrants further examination. Have you dismissed it by saying, "show me the body?" or have you looked at it objectively?

Show me the monkey is perfectly valid skeptical position given the poor quality of evidence for said monkey, and the extreme subjective nature of the anecdotal sightings.

 

[GeeMack]

As much as I've gotten into this so far, it seems that there is an everpresent chorus demanding good science prove it's real, [...]

Yes.

[...] but no concern for good science to prove why it isn't real.

Good science should be able to prove either one, in other words, prove the truth.

No. The burden of proof rests on those who claim the creature exists. Shifting the burden of proof is dishonest.

In the matter of that Patterson movie, as one example, good science should be able to prove it's a fake, if it is one, instead of just a bunch of people calling it a cheap fake and thinking that suffices. And if there are experts in the field of costumes, special effects and such, would it be to much to ask how they proved the film is a fake, if they say it is? Same for footprints, etc.

No. Again to request people prove the creature isn't real, or to prove the film isn't real, or to prove the footprints aren't real, is a dishonest attempt to deflect the burden of proof.

Or biologists who can offer some well-reasoned analysis of why this thing can't exist, as some here like to insist.

Seems good science should be able to accommodate that simple request, and settle the issue.

What intrigues me about this is why good science either can't or doesn't want to, why it can't seem to be solved.

No, and no again. What intrigues at least some skeptics is that people believe Bigfoot exists in light of the wholesale failure to objectively demonstrate the claim. It's also intriguing that those who believe in its existence think someone else should do the work. It's easy to believe. Science is somewhat more difficult. Believers who hold other people responsible for disproving their fantasies are simply intellectually lazy.

But then, I guess I've got a weak spot for curious things that can't be solved, like why Green Magpies often turn blue in captivity but stay green in the wild.

The issue of Bigfoot's existence can be solved if someone brings one back from the woods. But until there is objective evidence to support the alleged existence of such a creature, it's not just good science to provisionally reject the claims, it is the only reasonable position to take.

 

[Correa Neto]

So I would simply like to ask, even though I know the question has been asked many times before, “why is a biological entity often called Bigfoot” impossible to exist?” I ask because I’ve never read what I find to be a persuasive answer.

First of all, you must define exactly what do you mean by “bigfoot”. Despite what footers will tell you, if you look at bigfoot lore, the descriptions and renderings of bigfoot are very variable when it comes down to size, color, face, etc. The descriptions can only be considered consistent is you restrict yourself to “humanoid”, “bipedal” and “hairy”. Even if you stick to these three words, the relatively recent “4x4 locomotion mode” presented will damage your bigfoot concept, not to mention some sighting reports of non-hairy (or not so hairy) bigfoot-like creatures… You must also justify the methods you used to build your bigfoot model based on the available lore. Why you discounted this or that feature, report, etc.

This put, for some of the descriptions, there are really not much reasosn to wonder why that particular image is considered impossible. For example, are you aware of any mammal with glowing eyes? No, its not about eyes reflecting lights, its about eyes actually glowing.

But let us keep a minimalist approach. Are large bipedal apes impossible? No. Want proof? Look in the mirror. The fossil register contains a number of bipedal apes. Most of them were, however, not as tall as we are nowadays and regarding the largest one, no one actually knows if it was bipedal or a knuckle-walker.

So, bigfoot-like creatures are not impossible. You’ll have a hard time finding someone here who would say the opposite. However, there is not a single reliable bit of evidence supporting the actual existence of bigfoot. Here’s when bigfoot becomes impossible. There are too many bits of reliable evidence that the existence of these creatures would generate, but they are not present. You can even find an explanation for the absence of this or that expected bit of evidence. We could perhaps find reasonable, for example, to consider as possible the present existence of these creatures in North America in the absence of recent specimens if some fossils and/or old specimens existed. But no specimen at all, no sharp reliable imagery… Nothing but tales and unreliable imagery? Sorry, but it becomes so improbable, so unlikely that can be it labeled impossible for all practical reasons. The animal, as a concept, as a possible product of evolution is not impossible. Its actual existence, leaving no reliable evidence behind, however, is impossible.

 

[Cbengalensis]

^Your questions have been covered extensively in numerous threads on this forum. Please read them for the details because it really isn't fair to ask somebody to do your research for you.
Here are the short answers.
Only one person has come forward and said that he was the man in the suit.
The so-called analysis that state no human being could walk like that, etc. have been blown out of the water by actual scientific demonstrations.
The majority of experts in Hollywood FX actually state that it is obviously a suit.

Tracks are useless as evidence without a sasquatch standing in them.
There is not one analysis of a purported sasquatch track that can stand the rigorous test of science and that can be shown by the fact that no scientific papers have been published in any reputable journal. Only intellectually dishonest scientists are the ones who try and keep the myth alive. (Intellectually dishonest scientists are the ones who pretend to give expert opinions while refusing to have their opinions subjected to the rigors of peer review).

Dermal ridges are not proven to exist on any purported track cast and the ones brought forward as examples have been shown to be identical in nature to casting artifacts. There has been no answer to the fact of casting artifacts given by the fingerprint expert who made the initial claim of finding dermal ridges.

Hair morphology is a very inexact science. Period.

Eyewitness reports are incredibly unreliable.
Science does not rely on anecdotal evidence.
Pick any number you want out of thin air for your assumptions. The onus is not on the skeptic to prove reports of sighting false. However, the person who wants to use reports as evidence must be able to prove them true.

The evidence has been weighed and found to be non-existent.

I'm curious. How do you weigh something that is non-existent?

When you say something has been weighed, it seems it must exist first to be subjected to the process of weighing (even if the term is the figurative for evaluating, not the literal of determining weight with a scale device). Are you saying something which exists is found to not exist?

Just curious.

CB

 

[FatOldTrapper]

Some of you should really work on the manners. I'm sure you've gone over this before, but it doesn't mean you should behave poorly. Patience is a virtue. This thread alone is 147 pages long at the moment, that takes time.

Of the folks in "Hollywood FX", please name three that have said it is definitively a suit and that it could have been done in 1967. And I'm not talking about that costume shop guy that can't even make a decent looking gorilla suit. I'm not saying the PGF is real, by the way. I honestly don't know. As for the gait, a compliant gait is not uncommon in heavy people. That isn't enough to say anything. The keys would have to come from anatomy, not just the walk.

You are correct in that hair morphology isn't an exact science. That's why I stated that it can normally get you the genus, if not the species. By using that, it can eliminate a lot of the BS and narrow things down to better possibilities. Once that is done, DNA testing can begin for final identification. There aren't that many hair samples out there that can even stand up to the hair morphology test for a primate. If they do, wouldn't it be prudent to look at them? That's really all I'm saying.

Saying that scientists don't use anecdotal evidence is an absolute falsehood. I've worked with field biologists on many occasions. The use of anecdotal evidence and working with the public is extremely common in wildlife science and many other branches.

Saying that there are no tracks with dermal ridges not shown to be casting artifacts is also incorrect. There aren't many, but there are several documented cases of this, which were verified by fingerprint experts. One of which, I believe, is even purported to have documented sweat glands. You've obviously not studied any kind of tracks, or you would know that they aren't useless by any stretch of the imagination. Its called ichnology. I've spent a lot of time casting and studying tracks of the animals I trapped over the years. There is a lot to learn by looking at casts.

Eye witness accounts are definitely notoriously inaccurate. That's why I stated that 90-95% of them have to be completely disregarded. That doesn't explain why people that are trained observers and very familiar with local wildlife report seeing an animal fitting that description. Once again, you're dismissing everything based on partial assessment.

The fact stands that "scientists" dismiss any possible evidence without even reviewing it. So, you can't say that scientists have tested the evidence and deemed it fake. That's simply not true in the vast majority of cases. It doesn't seem like there is as much interest in reviewing evidence, be it good or bad, as there is in saying it is useless. That's not skepticism. I get the whole "turd in the punch bowl" concept. That is fine in public arenas, but is not acceptable by scientific standards. It just seems that standards should not be allowed to slip on either side of the discussion.

 

[tube]

An interesting development in Bigfootery with the discovery of what is being called the "Elbe trackway" in Washington.

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/09/exclusive-photographs-from-record.html

It's hard to be definitive about what really made the tracks, especially from an "armchair" perspective. Rick Noll posted a number of high quality photographs that lead me to suspect human fabrication.

1. The stride length seems at odds with the length of the tracks. Why does Bigfoot waddle at the water's edge?

2. Several photos show a "digging" by the toes, which suggests a rigid prosthetic.

3. Images Noll has labeled 1877 and particularly 1993 show the kind of "monolithic margin" that we see in certain Bluff Creek tracks. A further discussion of this characteristic is found here:

http://orgoneresearch.com/2009/10/19/fake-feet-and-monolithic-margins-2/

4. What appears to be a longitudinal flexion crease is found in several tracks and resulting casts. What I find strange is while flexion creases are to be expected on apes, the lack of a ~lateral~ flexion crease is puzzling considering Bigfoot's alleged mid-tarsal break. Additional material on flexion creases found here:

http://orgoneresearch.com/2012/02/08/dermal-ridges-updated-review-material/

5. I'm unable to determine what track the texture claimed to be dermal ridges corresponds to. Some of the tracks certainly look human, and it's now being admitted that one "researcher" walked with bare feet:

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/09/elbe-trackway-derek-randles-cliff.html

I think Noll is right, that the textures are indeed dermal ridges, at least in the photo he's posted entitled simply "dermals." More interesting if this corresponds to a Bigfoot-sized track, less so if it corresponds to a human-sized track.

6. My best guess is that these tracks were hoaxed by someone using a rigid casting compound. It's much easier to create a mold in clay than hogging out solid wood Wallace style. The mold included flexion creases, and possibly dermal ridges. The final prosthetic may not have picked up detail as fine as the dermals, but did pick up the longitudinal flexion crease. The hoaxer chose an excellent substrate, and a site near a major roadway. My guess is that the hoaxer embedded a shoe or boot into the casting compound as it set, to avoid the suction that might flummox a flimsy Wallace-style strap attachment. The hoaxer concentrated his efforts on the morphology and surface textures of the bottom of the mold, and either over filled the mold or crudely rounded off the dorsal surface, resulting in the straight sides and abrupt corners we see in some photographs. At points the hoaxer concentrated on depth, or perhaps simply not slipping in the mud on a sloped surface, and was unable to stride out.

 

[River]

Some of you should really work on the manners. I'm sure you've gone over this before, but it doesn't mean you should behave poorly. Patience is a virtue. This thread alone is 147 pages long at the moment, that takes time.

Of the folks in "Hollywood FX", please name three that have said it is definitively a suit and that it could have been done in 1967. And I'm not talking about that costume shop guy that can't even make a decent looking gorilla suit. I'm not saying the PGF is real, by the way. I honestly don't know. As for the gait, a compliant gait is not uncommon in heavy people. That isn't enough to say anything. The keys would have to come from anatomy, not just the walk.

You are correct in that hair morphology isn't an exact science. That's why I stated that it can normally get you the genus, if not the species. By using that, it can eliminate a lot of the BS and narrow things down to better possibilities. Once that is done, DNA testing can begin for final identification. There aren't that many hair samples out there that can even stand up to the hair morphology test for a primate. If they do, wouldn't it be prudent to look at them? That's really all I'm saying.

Saying that scientists don't use anecdotal evidence is an absolute falsehood. I've worked with field biologists on many occasions. The use of anecdotal evidence and working with the public is extremely common in wildlife science and many other branches.

Saying that there are no tracks with dermal ridges not shown to be casting artifacts is also incorrect. There aren't many, but there are several documented cases of this, which were verified by fingerprint experts. One of which, I believe, is even purported to have documented sweat glands. You've obviously not studied any kind of tracks, or you would know that they aren't useless by any stretch of the imagination. Its called ichnology. I've spent a lot of time casting and studying tracks of the animals I trapped over the years. There is a lot to learn by looking at casts.

Eye witness accounts are definitely notoriously inaccurate. That's why I stated that 90-95% of them have to be completely disregarded. That doesn't explain why people that are trained observers and very familiar with local wildlife report seeing an animal fitting that description. Once again, you're dismissing everything based on partial assessment.

The fact stands that "scientists" dismiss any possible evidence without even reviewing it. So, you can't say that scientists have tested the evidence and deemed it fake. That's simply not true in the vast majority of cases. It doesn't seem like there is as much interest in reviewing evidence, be it good or bad, as there is in saying it is useless. That's not skepticism. I get the whole "turd in the punch bowl" concept. That is fine in public arenas, but is not acceptable by scientific standards. It just seems that standards should not be allowed to slip on either side of the discussion.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8626350#post8626350

 

[River]

I agree completely tube. This photo really shows that well.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xUwUqOZ1cIs/UFzEsav7YjI/AAAAAAABBRo/ph5TCQCI84s/s1600/derek3.jpg

 

[River]

I'd like to add (since I can't edit with the moderation lol!) Notice the smaller toes area, and how they do not show these same issues in that image. It's because they wouldnt be used on the "push off" on the rigid prosthetic. Only the toes sticking most forward dug in. The outter two toes left a flatter impression.