"Bigfoot" **Impossible** and not just non-existent?

[Correa Neto]

Correa Neto: I agree the arguments should be honed. However, I think skeptics play an important part in playing along with the footers games too. Instead of playing along with the silly games of "what if" we should be instead showing what is. I don't play along with the "it could be out there" because it's not. No matter how many ways it "could" be supported by the ecological system, or how it "could" survive winters etc ad nauseam...


The sea "could" support huge serpents. The land "could" support human reptiles with bat wings....

Do you see what I'm getting at here? Let' stick to what is, instead of playing the stupid/silly game of what if, or it "could be".

I understand your view. I just happen to not agree (sure, in some cases, depending on the issue and the debaters, I will agree). Its not just a matter of "what if". Its a matter of using the right arguments and eventually making the woo understand the weak points of his/hers position.

Let me try to explain. Lets suppose cryptospacestationlogy exists. These folks believe there are large space stations in orbit; they are larger than the ISS and secret. Now, one of these could be described as the classic cartwheel-type, like the one pictured in 2001 a Space Odissey. Now, saying its impossible to build one that's why there's no one in orbit would not be a good argument. Physically, its possible. In terms of engineering, it would be a hell of a challegenge, it would take time, it would be very expensive, lots of new techs and things such as heavy boosters and cargo ships would have to be developed. But its not impossible. The right argument would be along the lines "if such a station were in orbit, then we would be able to see it, detect it with radar, we would have seen the countless launches required to build it and all the associated building work in orbit".

To say its impossible to build one would not be the best way to debate, actually it would block it and reinforce that "skeptics are close minded persons" prejudice. Sure, the woo would say the station is painted black, radar signals are censored and/or the station has some sort of stealth technology...

 

[jerrywayne]

Meldrum has converted an ape mid-tarsal break, adapted for grasping feet, to a sasquatch mid-tarsal break, adapted to carry a heavy bi-pedal load.

The Patterson animal apparently weighed more than a horse, at over a thousand pounds. This seems highly improbable for a bi-pedal primate standing just over 6 ft. tall and able to move.

 

[mike3]

I understand your view. I just happen to not agree (sure, in some cases, depending on the issue and the debaters, I will agree). Its not just a matter of "what if". Its a matter of using the right arguments and eventually making the woo understand the weak points of his/hers position.

Let me try to explain. Lets suppose cryptospacestationlogy exists. These folks believe there are large space stations in orbit; they are larger than the ISS and secret. Now, one of these could be described as the classic cartwheel-type, like the one pictured in 2001 a Space Odissey. Now, saying its impossible to build one that's why there's no one in orbit would not be a good argument. Physically, its possible. In terms of engineering, it would be a hell of a challegenge, it would take time, it would be very expensive, lots of new techs and things such as heavy boosters and cargo ships would have to be developed. But its not impossible. The right argument would be along the lines "if such a station were in orbit, then we would be able to see it, detect it with radar, we would have seen the countless launches required to build it and all the associated building work in orbit".

To say its impossible to build one would not be the best way to debate, actually it would block it and reinforce that "skeptics are close minded persons" prejudice. Sure, the woo would say the station is painted black, radar signals are censored and/or the station has some sort of stealth technology...

However, what I was doing was trying out something that seemed like it might be usable to make a case for impossibility in addition to all the other arguments (no photos (i.e. no unambiguous and confirmed authentic photos), no body, no bones, no poop, etc.). But it seems now that with further examination and input that the impossibility argument I thought I had might not be viable after all. (though I'm still awaiting an answer on how one can use the weight argument to argue against bipedal Giganto but not BF)

In other words, the proposed impossibility argument would be a supplement, not the main thrust, to the counter-case against BF.

 

[The Shrike]

Well, the impossibility argument only applies if the alleged bipedal Giganto/bipedal bigfoot is impossibly large to be bipedal. What I tried to point out upthread is that bipedal primates can be much larger than average humans - big enough to weigh about as much as an adult gorilla yet much taller. A silverback gorilla in the wild weighs 300–400 lbs; there are dozens of NFL linemen playing at over 300 lbs. Andre the Giant was fully bipedal at more than 500 lbs.

Thus, we've got plenty of examples of bipedal primates that are/were larger than gorillas, so the quadrapedalism of gorillas is not a function of two legs being unable to support a creature that weighs 300–400 lbs. The actual weight at which bipedalism becomes untenable is quite a bit more than that, and I'd argue that it's more than 500 lbs.

 

[Delvo]

I'm curious: if these concerns don't make Bigfoot impossible, then how is it that they can be used to argue against a bipedal Gigantopithecus?

I don't follow Bigfoot claims much, but the only size descriptions for it that I'm aware of are not as big as Gigantopithecus. The upper size limit for a critter with a vertical spine could very well be between those two critters' sizes.

Also, although the question with Bigfoot is sometimes taken as a matter of possible or impossible, that's seldom the case with paleontological questions; the question is what's most likely. A paleontologist arguing that Gigantopithecus was quadrupedal could very well base that claim on evidence that that's the most likely/practical arrangement, not on anything completely ruling the alternative out.

 

[Delvo]

The actual weight at which bipedalism becomes untenable is quite a bit more than that, and I'd argue that it's more than 500 lbs.

It has to be well into multiple tons, since Tyrannosaurus skeletons are up to 40 feet long and 13 feet tall at the pelvis and Spinosaurus seems likely to have been even bigger. What we have to watch out for in apes is not the legs but the spine. Without the extra-large tail, apes don't have the option of balancing on two legs with a horizontal spine. Humans are the largest known critters with a vertical spine, so we don't really have much to go on in figuring out the size limit. We know that oversized humans tend to have serious spinal trouble, but a human with a deformity caused by a glandular malfunction is not informative of what might be normal for a hypothetical different species.

 

[Mike!]

Well, the impossibility argument only applies if the alleged bipedal Giganto/bipedal bigfoot is impossibly large to be bipedal. What I tried to point out upthread is that bipedal primates can be much larger than average humans - big enough to weigh about as much as an adult gorilla yet much taller. A silverback gorilla in the wild weighs 300–400 lbs; there are dozens of NFL linemen playing at over 300 lbs. Andre the Giant was fully bipedal at more than 500 lbs. Thus, we've got plenty of examples of bipedal primates that are/were larger than gorillas, so the quadrapedalism of gorillas is not a function of two legs being unable to support a creature that weighs 300–400 lbs. The actual weight at which bipedalism becomes untenable is quite a bit more than that, and I'd argue that it's more than 500 lbs.

Plus, Andre the Giant also played the bionic Figboot in a couple episodes of The Six Million Dollar Man. Coincidence?

 

[mike3]

I don't follow Bigfoot claims much, but the only size descriptions for it that I'm aware of are not as big as Gigantopithecus. The upper size limit for a critter with a vertical spine could very well be between those two critters' sizes.

Also, although the question with Bigfoot is sometimes taken as a matter of possible or impossible, that's seldom the case with paleontological questions; the question is what's most likely. A paleontologist arguing that Gigantopithecus was quadrupedal could very well base that claim on evidence that that's the most likely/practical arrangement, not on anything completely ruling the alternative out.

Hmm. So is it possible to make a weaker claim that this weight argument makes it even less likely?

 

[mike3]

(rm)

 

[Cuddles]

I'm curious: if these concerns don't make Bigfoot impossible, then how is it that they can be used to argue against a bipedal Gigantopithecus?

Because Gigantopithecus is a real thing that we have actual examples of. Given the specific size, shape, and so on of Gigantopithecus, it may well have been impossible for that specific animal to be bipedal. That says absolutely nothing about a completely different hypothetical animal which could have had completely different morphology. As other examples show (interesting that others have mentioned T. rex, since my first reply was originally just going to be a picture of one), it's entirely possible for an animal to be metres tall and weigh several tons, yet still be bipedal.

Hmm. So is it possible to make a weaker claim that this weight argument makes it even less likely?

It depends entirely on what claims you're trying to counter. As I, and others, have already noted, bigfoot is imaginary. It has no solidly defined characteristics that everyone agrees on, so it's impossible to argue against it in general based only on those characteristics. If someone claims bigfoot is 500m tall and breathes fire, it's certainly possible to argue that such an animal is unlikely to be physically possible. But if someone claims that it's basically just a bipedal gorilla there really can't be any sensible argument made that such a thing is impossible, or even particularly unlikely. There's no evidence to say such a thing couldn't exist, simply that it doesn't.

 

[River]

However, what I was doing was trying out something that seemed like it might be usable to make a case for impossibility in addition to all the other arguments (no photos (i.e. no unambiguous and confirmed authentic photos), no body, no bones, no poop, etc.). But it seems now that with further examination and input that the impossibility argument I thought I had might not be viable after all. (though I'm still awaiting an answer on how one can use the weight argument to argue against bipedal Giganto but not BF)

In other words, the proposed impossibility argument would be a supplement, not the main thrust, to the counter-case against BF.

The only remains found of Gigantopithecus are some teeth and part of a lower mandible. (jaw bone) To insist that it could or could not have been able to walk upright is just a guess, and cannot be confirmed by current information. It makes for a very weak case.

 

[River]

I understand your view. I just happen to not agree (sure, in some cases, depending on the issue and the debaters, I will agree). Its not just a matter of "what if". Its a matter of using the right arguments and eventually making the woo understand the weak points of his/hers position.

Let me try to explain. Lets suppose cryptospacestationlogy exists. These folks believe there are large space stations in orbit; they are larger than the ISS and secret. Now, one of these could be described as the classic cartwheel-type, like the one pictured in 2001 a Space Odissey. Now, saying its impossible to build one that's why there's no one in orbit would not be a good argument. Physically, its possible. In terms of engineering, it would be a hell of a challegenge, it would take time, it would be very expensive, lots of new techs and things such as heavy boosters and cargo ships would have to be developed. But its not impossible. The right argument would be along the lines "if such a station were in orbit, then we would be able to see it, detect it with radar, we would have seen the countless launches required to build it and all the associated building work in orbit".

To say its impossible to build one would not be the best way to debate, actually it would block it and reinforce that "skeptics are close minded persons" prejudice. Sure, the woo would say the station is painted black, radar signals are censored and/or the station has some sort of stealth technology...

We will have to disagree on this one. I'm of the opinion that it may be better to educate the woo meisters on what the evidence they present ACTUALLY is. Instead of playing the bigfoot game, lets present evidence showing that humans are the source of this claimed evidence. Either by misidentification, or by fabrication, humans are responsible for this phenomenon. We should be driving this home, with examples instead of talking about how something could, or would be "if" this or that or the other. We should be insisting on discussing the facts, instead of the raw speculation that is so rampant in bigfootology. Why indulge it? It will only lead to more BS.

We can prove with multiple examples what leaves this evidence. It has been "proven". The only thing that has never been proven is the silly idea that a huge, hairy, upright walking, ape like monster that is 8 feet tall and 600+ lbs is wandering around the planet undiscovered. Why even play the game? It only leads to more game.

Stick to the facts, and proof.

 

[Correa Neto]

Some Googling will return you with reconstructions as a biped, a knuckle-walker and even a giant panda-like quadruped. Add to this the fact that there were more than one species of gigantopithecus and we'll reach an inescapable conclusion: we don't know yet how they moved. Meldrum, Krantz and everybody else - those people are just adding fantasy layers over an unknown.

Now, how big can a humanoid biped be? I have no clue. I suppose the same software used to calculate maximum size of sauropods based on bone resistence to load could be used to provide some numbers. Again, I have no clue regarding the answer. I would not use large theropod dinosaurs as a refference because despite being bipeds, they had different builds. Their spine was nearly horizontal and ballance was kept with the aid of the tail. A bipedal humanoid would have a nearly vertical spine, so it would not be a good match, I believe. Neither would a knuckle-walker, using the forelimbs to hold part of the body's weight.

 

[The Shrike]

Why even play the game? It only leads to more game.

Personal preference of the skeptic plays a role here. Some prefer to ignore woo-claims, others prefer to engage the woo-peddlers directly.

With respect to bigfoot, I am one of the latter. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but I think I can do/have done more to promote critical thinking among the bigfooters through my participation at the BFF than I ever could have accomplished by not participating there. For many people, my input has not led to more game, it has led to decidedly less game and the realization that there is nothing more to bigfoot than some good storytelling, money-grubbing con-artists, and folks who need some medical care.

 

[RandFan]

And herein we come to the problem of trying to define something that doesn't exist.

Bigfoot doesn't exist because of X.
Well how do you know Bigfoot would exhibit trait X?
Well since he doesn't exist I can't provide evidence that he would have the traits that would provide evidence of his existence.
Oh God Now I've Gone Crosseyed.

Bigfoot is just an invisible dragon in the garage.

Those exist. Invisible dragon's that is. I've seen them.

 

[Correa Neto]

We will have to disagree on this one. I'm of the opinion that it may be better to educate the woo meisters on what the evidence they present ACTUALLY is. Instead of playing the bigfoot game, lets present evidence showing that humans are the source of this claimed evidence. Either by misidentification, or by fabrication, humans are responsible for this phenomenon. We should be driving this home, with examples instead of talking about how something could, or would be "if" this or that or the other. We should be insisting on discussing the facts, instead of the raw speculation that is so rampant in bigfootology. Why indulge it? It will only lead to more BS.

We can prove with multiple examples what leaves this evidence. It has been "proven". The only thing that has never been proven is the silly idea that a huge, hairy, upright walking, ape like monster that is 8 feet tall and 600+ lbs is wandering around the planet undiscovered. Why even play the game? It only leads to more game.

Stick to the facts, and proof.

Fact is, I am not completely disagreeing with you. The bottomline is that even if something is possible and plausible, if there is no reliable evidence the said something exists, then the said thing does not exist. Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence. We are not talking about evidence of aliens living on the other side of the Milky Way, after all...

Another analogy:
Lake monsters. Lets suppose someone believes in them and propose they could be giant salamanders, say above 1m-long. Nessie, Champ and ogopogo could be giant salamanders unknown to science. This would, for example, explain why they are not frequently seen breathing at the surface.

What would I say to this fictional cryptozoology enthusiast?
Giant (1m long) salamanders are real (some extinct amphibians were much larger) and the Japanese giant salamander lives in cold climate. So far, so good, a plausible creature was proposed. Its physically possible. Now, is there any bit of solid reliable evidence of such creatures in Loch Ness, Lake Champlain and Lake Okanagan? No. Would we be able to gather and recognize this evidence? Sure. So, what's the final conclusion? Not real.

I have not played his/hers game or indulged her/him, I merely acknowledged the part of the argument which was logical. And in the end, facts, evidence had the last word. As it should be.

 

[Cinnamon Life]

I hate to use the word "impossible", but I basically think it is. I mean, people have been saying Bigfoot is real for hundreds of years and not one shred of good physical evidence has ever been gathered. How could something so large go so undetected? It's a myth perpetuated by fools.

 

[mike3]

Because Gigantopithecus is a real thing that we have actual examples of. Given the specific size, shape, and so on of Gigantopithecus, it may well have been impossible for that specific animal to be bipedal. That says absolutely nothing about a completely different hypothetical animal which could have had completely different morphology. As other examples show (interesting that others have mentioned T. rex, since my first reply was originally just going to be a picture of one), it's entirely possible for an animal to be metres tall and weigh several tons, yet still be bipedal.



It depends entirely on what claims you're trying to counter. As I, and others, have already noted, bigfoot is imaginary. It has no solidly defined characteristics that everyone agrees on, so it's impossible to argue against it in general based only on those characteristics. If someone claims bigfoot is 500m tall and breathes fire, it's certainly possible to argue that such an animal is unlikely to be physically possible. But if someone claims that it's basically just a bipedal gorilla there really can't be any sensible argument made that such a thing is impossible, or even particularly unlikely. There's no evidence to say such a thing couldn't exist, simply that it doesn't.

So what if we try to formulate some general idea from the various claims? Or are they too inconsistent for that -- which of course itself would be even more evidence against the existence of BF since a real animal would produce more consistent reports, whereas misidentifications will depend on the specific perceptual/cognitive characteristics of the misidentifier and the situation in which the misidentified object is presented, and hoaxes will depend on the imagination of the hoaxer?

Note that formulating an idea from the various claims is not evidence of existence -- rather, it's just to get something to try the "biomechanical feasibility" argument with.

For example, here's some reports:
One:
http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=40542

Creature is described as 7-9' tall (avg: 8'), and at least 3' wide at the shoulders. Can one figure the weight from that? And it moves upright on two legs (bipedal and like a human).

Another:
http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=39825
initial report only says the reporter is 6'4 and the creature "much bigger" -- not very useful. But then there's a follow-up that says it was 7.5' and 350-400 lbs.

One more:
http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=40618

This says 9' tall, 4' wide. "Follow-up" says 8-9' tall, "very wide" (4'?) and walks on 2 legs, upright.
This one also says something about it being "4 times the size" of a 300 lb man. If that implies 4x the weight, then that's 1200 lbs!

So how biomechanically feasible are the supposed creatures here? It'd seem that report 2 might be feasible in this sense (note this does not mean it's real. We still only have an anecdotal report and no true evidence.). What about the other two? How heavy would they have to be? Note of course that the existence of one report that sounds feasible would obviously get rid of my initial impossibility argument (though finding a flaw in one argument still doesn't prove the creature real -- to argue otherwise is a fallacy).

I also note that a variation from between as little as 350 lbs to as much as 1200 lbs seems like it might be kind of extreme for what would theoretically be just a random sampling of a few "specimens" (I could be wrong, though.). Is it? If so, does this provide another supplementary argument against the cause of the reports being a real animal (i.e. the inconsistency I mentioned in my first paragraph)?

 

[Cainkane1]

I once long ago toyed with the idea that bigfoot was human with genetic abnormalities. However I believe that bigfoot stories were boogie man tales about a tribe of large indians who lived near mount Saint Helens. Stories told to native american children as entertainment. The tales grew with the telling and the boogie men became big and hairy and ape like.

Bigfoot doesn't exist because if they did they would have been captured or killed by now. Fossil evidence in the area has all the animals in the area but bigfoot.

 

[River]

Fact is, I am not completely disagreeing with you. The bottomline is that even if something is possible and plausible, if there is no reliable evidence the said something exists, then the said thing does not exist. Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence. We are not talking about evidence of aliens living on the other side of the Milky Way, after all...

Another analogy:
Lake monsters. Lets suppose someone believes in them and propose they could be giant salamanders, say above 1m-long. Nessie, Champ and ogopogo could be giant salamanders unknown to science. This would, for example, explain why they are not frequently seen breathing at the surface.

What would I say to this fictional cryptozoology enthusiast?
Giant (1m long) salamanders are real (some extinct amphibians were much larger) and the Japanese giant salamander lives in cold climate. So far, so good, a plausible creature was proposed. Its physically possible. Now, is there any bit of solid reliable evidence of such creatures in Loch Ness, Lake Champlain and Lake Okanagan? No. Would we be able to gather and recognize this evidence? Sure. So, what's the final conclusion? Not real.

I have not played his/hers game or indulged her/him, I merely acknowledged the part of the argument which was logical. And in the end, facts, evidence had the last word. As it should be.

One of the examples I like to use to address that is dinosaurs. To say something is extinct like a tyrannosaurus rex for example. Well, how can you prove it? The same way it can be proven that there is no bigfoot. It's simply not there and available for cataloging. The so called evidence that has been presented is extremely weak, and the source of those has been proven time and time again to come from humans. I feel like addressing the individual claims of the "best" evidence is a good way to go about it also.