Bigfoot can not exist today I am sorry but science cannot support it.

reply to post by verylowfrequency


Thanks verylowfrequency.

The previous post seemed more factual, re the OP and science, rather than belief. The problem with cryptozoology (IMO) is that too much of it is based on assumption and belief and therefore isn't taken as seriously as it could be. This isn't helped when so called scientists claim a creature whose entire existence is anecdotal/speculative to begin with, is in fact another creature that disappeared from the fossil record 300k years ago, yet just happened to morph into something suspiciously resembling a man in an ape costume/ modern Bigfoot and magically show up in an entirely different continent!

While anything is possible, whether it is very likely is another thing. The problems with this scenario from an evolutionary/ biological point of view would not only be difficult to explain, it is also so completely speculative and unlikely to be true based on anything resembling facts, that it cannot even be considered pseudo science. Yet it is “firmly believed” by many “serious researchers”.

It is true my time in the American wilderness has been limited by the fact I don't live in the US. Though US residents tend to forget this is indeed a worldwide phenomena and that some areas have a far longer history of similar claims. Such as Orang pendek which does sound more plausible when we consider descriptions, in view of the creatures that are known and extant in the area. Also the fossil record in the region, with notably the archaic Homo Erectus - “Java man” and the recently extinct (in evolutionary terms) “Hobbit” being found on islands nearby, seeming to offer far more possibilities.

It is ok to site a particular area of wilderness as a suitable secluded habitat, yet I can see where that would be more problematic when you consider that sightings have been made in every mainland US state, have a look at BFRO “credible” reports in the link. Gorilla's couldn't manage to hide in the remote equatorial African wilderness in the 1800's (people simply went out, shot specimens and brought them back), yet Bigfoot, who has often been observed near civilisation, crossing roads, in people's back yards etc, has managed to evade genuine mainstream detection in every US state, for its entire colonised history.............? I don't think so.

The interest I have in this subject stems largely from a direct experience. Though I will never ask anyone to believe, largely because it is something I don't understand myself. If bigfoot seems unlikely, similar reports in this country seem even more so due to what is known as the “Wallace Line” that prevented large creatures making the short trip from the islands of south east Asia, until modern humans arrived.

I can see where it will be a puzzle until the end of my days. I know this subject is largely nonsense through having quietly spent a lot of time in certain areas steeped in claims and urban myth, day and night, armed with no more than a torch or camera. For this reason I am unlikely to take many of the normal vague shape or bump in the night type of claims, or generally accepted hairy man “facts”, too seriously.

There are some things that I can't find explanation for, however. It occurred to me one day while looking around an indigenous occupation site, marvelling at fact that it has been occupied for the last 22k years. Perhaps the worlds oldest continuous culture (at least 40k - 60k years, depending who you ask) would have some answers. Though often reinterpreted by researchers to suit their agenda, it appears these creatures (in this area at least) were regarded as something supernatural.

This would be an easy explanation if I were given to belief in the supernatural. Especially considering the supernatural element in many sightings. At least they realised they were not dealing with something real, in the normal sense of the word. Yeti, Yeren, Yowie, Almaste, Nguoi rung, Orang pendek, Bigfoot, Sasquatch etc etc seem to follow a certain pattern. Most notably nothing has ever turned up to show they physically exist in the sense of a normal biological creature. The common thread is not so much an unknown creature as it is people, who are known to be a complicated species. It seems more likely that this is where the answers will be. I find it more realistic to say that it is a worldwide cultural phenomena that isn't really understood at this stage.

Though I don't claim I must be right. Nothing much about this subject makes much sense to begin with.

www.bfro.net...

reply to post by theindependentjournal


No offense friend, but to hell with this "science can't support this" bs. There are some things out there that we can't explain, and Bigfoot is no different. I kno u will try to argue by using ur science facts and all that, and I am not taking sides here, but people are ignorant and will keep saying he exists. Personally, I believe in Bigfoot and aliens and the loch ness monster and all that because it's nice to think that we aren't alone and just the thought of some beast or creature out there that defies all we kno is pretty awesome to people like me.

Originally posted by mindblower23
reply to post by theindependentjournal

 

No offense friend, but to hell with this "science can't support this" bs. There are some things out there that we can't explain, and Bigfoot is no different. I kno u will try to argue by using ur science facts and all that, and I am not taking sides here, but people are ignorant and will keep saying he exists. Personally, I believe in Bigfoot and aliens and the loch ness monster and all that because it's nice to think that we aren't alone and just the thought of some beast or creature out there that defies all we kno is pretty awesome to people like me.

In the philosophy of science there are precise ways of calling something "scientific" or not. The fact that a majority of scientists accept something or not does not fit within the rubric of actually determining whether something is scientific or not.

In general, empirical evidence has to line up with the existing theory. If not, then the claim is called "extraordinary" and is believed to have an extraordinary requirement for evidence that a researcher must then provide. (Note that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is vague and does not quite fit so I re-arranged the words) In the case of Loch Ness, I believe that the claim is extraordinary. However, in the case of Bigfoot, the claim is less extraordinary. Bigfoot MIGHT fit an existing cladistic tree of hominids or pongids.

Also, another aspect of the philosophy of science is repeatability. Loch Ness is seen in only one place, or a few places, and is not common. Mister Foot, by contrast, is seen by enough people to be called "repeatable."

That is not to say Bigfoot "exists" or not, just that the claim is more believable than other paranormal zoology sightings that are less believable.

reply to post by EarthEvolves


It's a lot simpler than this IMO. Science will require a Bigfoot (or part thereof) to consider they exist.

No amount of "repeating" stories proves anything factual, other than the fact there are a lot of repeating stories. In this sense, the word "reproducible" could be more accurate. We know that Gorilla's exist in certain regions of Africa, this observation has proved to be physically reproducible by anyone, any time they like and due to this, we can also establish all manner of physical proofs (including specimens), facts and repeatable experiments regarding Gorillas. The opportunity exists for others to falsify theories and conclusions derived from repeatable experiments. Not so with Bigfoot.

Lots of people claim experience with God and aliens, possibly more than those who claim Bigfoot experiences, at one time the claimed existence of fairies gained prominence and was very poular. No amount of these stories matter in a scientific sense (despite alien lifeforms existing in the universe considered an almost certainty). Same with Bigfoot.

Actually, as the stories mount and the longer they persist without proof, it seems less and less likely that they do exist (in the physical, biological sense).

A possible unknown Ape/Human creature existing in every US state, versus a possible prehistoric aquatic creature existing in Loch Ness. I doubt that bigfoot can be supported, even as a possibility, any more than Nessie can. This is very arguable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Too much is made of claimed scientific studies regarding Bigfoot. They rely on the assumption that secondary "proofs" comes from bigfoot. Yet footprints are direct proof that something left an impression on the ground. The PG film is direct proof that someone filmed something that they claim is Bigfoot.

Bigfoot research is a misnomer. It amounts largely to those who collect Bigfoot stories. Even those who actively seek Bigfoot via expeditions (commendable ), have also only managed to come up with stories. It seems, due to the general conclusions not matching the facts, that there is not much open minded research in this area.

To focus entirely on obtaining proof that would validate the belief in bigfoot is to ignore facts in many ways and often amounts to the pathological type of research in the link. It seems that research into how or why people experience something with no known physical existence would be more in line with facts.

Whether Bigfoot actually does exist or not, the OP is basically correct.The only valid scientific way to study Bigfoot at the moment, would be from the point of view of Cultural Anthropology, more so than its physical counterpart (due to having nothing with which to focus any study on).


en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


The ethical question comes in to this. Is it ethically right to subject a possible living Bigfoot to potential danger? Discovery has often either meant conquest or salvation. Sparing our friends from the fate of either being killed or joining "Messianic Simianism" might be enough for scientists to forgo the actual scientific study that would prove this creature's existence.

Originally posted by EarthEvolves
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

 

The ethical question comes in to this. Is it ethically right to subject a possible living Bigfoot to potential danger? Discovery has often either meant conquest or salvation. Sparing our friends from the fate of either being killed or joining "Messianic Simianism" might be enough for scientists to forgo the actual scientific study that would prove this creature's existence.

It would be nice to think such altruism exists within the scientific community. Perhaps in certain instances, though overall, I have doubts. I find it more likely that scientists, in general, simply don't think the available facts point to such a creature existing.

It is a wonderful mystery though and whether it physically exists, or not, these thing do give a hint that in some ways (perhaps not understood at present) that nature still has kept some wonderful secrets.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


Neat response. Thanks. If you do see Mr. Foot try to keep it on the low for his sake.

Originally posted by EarthEvolves
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

 

Neat response. Thanks. If you do see Mr. Foot try to keep it on the low for his sake.

This will sound strange coming from a more skeptical type. Though I have seen the Aussie counterpart of Bigfoot. At close range, in daylight, stared into it's eyes, looked as real as any other creature does.

Though I find it hard to ignore facts and note that my best efforts to find anything that might validate this experience, futile. The same as everyone else. The ensuing search led me to exploding many myths though, which is why I generally view research very skeptically.

In the end I had to consider the obvious fact that I am fallible. It seems more logical (IMO) that like others, I saw something, for whatever reason, that doesn't really physically exist. It's been known to happen.

I don't doubt that people see such things, beyond that is still a mystery. A fascinating one at that.

reply to post by EarthEvolves


All I'm sayin is that he can exist. There are plenty of scientific theories that argue against it, but in actuality there are some things that science just can't explain

reply to post by mindblower23


Without exactly saying it, I gather that you probably accept the paranormal explanation. That is the interpretation that many Native Americans seem to give it.

The best way to prove bigfoots exsistince is to gain the creatures trust, wouldnt now how to do that but it could be like other primates and trust humans by certain means like if you scratch my back ill scratch yours. After you have gained the creatures trust it might let you take it to a scientist and do a few blood and hair samples and have it filmed for the whole world to see.

While the OP has made an honest attempt to explain the "Science" of why something does'nt exist, it is probably sobering to consider that probably 95% of what the science world say "Exists", has not physically been seen or touched by the OP. This goes for most humans. We know 20ft great white sharks exist, how many people have actually seen one face to face? The list is endless. Humans inhabit a small part of Earth, even though our destruction covers the globe. Yet we "See" very little, especially in our modern lives.

Interesting quote from the great Carl Sagan....

"The Absence of evidence, IS NOT the evidence of absence."

Something to consider....about EVERYTHING.

In other words, Science DOES NOT know EVERYTHING.

reply to post by gort51


Sagan may have said "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", but not originally it seems. It is attributed to Martin Rees, regarding whether or not there is alien life in the universe. Nothing to do with Bigfoot AFAIK. Though where Bigfoot is concerned, the complete lack of anything scientifically verifiable over the last 60 years or so is quite telling and seems a very good indicator.

Sagan also referred to another quote, namely... “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” This one seems far more relevant because Bigfoot is certainly an extraordinary claim and because the genuine scientific evidence for Bigfoot existence amounts to zero. Though there seems plenty of claims to the contrary, like Bigfoot himself, they appear to be claims only.

There is every bit as much genuine scientific evidence of fairies, as there is of Bigfoot. The photographic evidence for Fairies is actually much better than for Bigfoot and some very prominent people have believed in them. The “Cottingly fairies” for example. Similar to the PG film, there have been claims of fakery by those supposedly involved with many different "expert" opinions, then and now. They were even verified by photographic experts at the time.

Instead of traipsing the wilderness of the PNW, I wonder why “Squatchers don't just go to Hawaii. Surely he would be easier to find there. Unless the claims aren't taken seriously, which would seem to be cherry picking..? After all, claims are all there is and what the whole field is based on. In any scientific sense there is every bit as much reason to believe Bigfoot exists there (none).

Bigfoot might exist, though the OP is still correct. If all things are considered, no doubt Bigfoot is a cultural/psychological phenomenon.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.bigfootencounters.com...

en.wikiquote.org...

Bigfoot is beyond your suspect grasp of science... Conjecture is all you would have to go on, seeing as he is an extra dimensional nomad....

Originally posted by 5StarOracle
Bigfoot is beyond your suspect grasp of science... Conjecture is all you would have to go on, seeing as he is an extra dimensional nomad....

You might be right 5StarOracle, I don't know. Though IMO it is more likely to be an "as yet" unexplained cultural/psychological phenomenon. If you think you can sufficiently prove otherwise, without complete conjecture of your own, go for it. I'm all ears.

edit to note.
I do agree with you that they are not a normal, scientifically verifiable, biological creature, for obvious reasons . In this much I agree, though with a different opinion on what this might imply. In the end I have doubts that anyone truly knows.

Since there have been no bodies of a Big Foot found...some have decided that it does not exist. But then again...if this animal has something of an intelligence...it may well burry it's dead and there are many animals that have been spoted that people have thought did not exist or live ina specific area because they are elusive.

There are many credible witnesses that have seen a sasquatch and although I am on the fence...it is not out of the realm of possibility. Not too long ago...hair samples were analized that had many primate and even human Genetic associations but were not identifiable. There have been many hoaxters yet a cross reference of Sasquatch foot prints have shown dermal ridges and even scaring...this is one heck of a complex hoax if it is.

I have seen alot of things that I would never have believed...I think Big Foot maybe a reality. Split Infinity

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


I would be ready to believe Bigfoot was just fluff from the minds of delusional mountain men, if it was not for his legend spanning the entire written history of mankind....

Alas I have no evidence of my own, but I know there has to be more than mere myth and campfire stories behind BigFoot...

Originally posted by 5StarOracle
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

 

I would be ready to believe Bigfoot was just fluff from the minds of delusional mountain men, if it was not for his legend spanning the entire written history of mankind....

I see this as normal, though based on a complete lack of knowledge regarding the subject of human perception. Common among science buffs as well as believers. The cultural/ psychological angle in no way infers any such thing as delusion or illness out of necessity (doesn't rule them out by default either). It implies more that the psychology and perception of otherwise normal human beings could be responsible (based on scientific experiments in psychology/ neuroscience). IMO, more likely to be so, than inter dimensional nomads. Though each to their own opinion, I suppose.

It would make things so much easier to verify if it were not for the fact that some people have a need for attention and just like the tens of thousands...who proclaim to be abducted by E.T....the number is by the way a miniscule percentage...with all these people making up stories...it is near impossible to narrow down the real deals.

I mean with a Lie Detector we could narrow down the field but when the numbers are that high...plus a lie detector will show a person to be telling the truth if that person actually BELIEVES IT...whether it happened or not.

There is more going on in and around the Earth than most people know...but with all the made up stories...it is difficult to concentrate on the people who are legitimate witnesses.

I certainly would not want someone to shoot a sasquatch just to show it exists. But without a body...science will not confirm it...sort of like stories of Giant Squid told by Whale Hunters...not until one washed up on the shore...did science take it as a reality. This has to do with a scientists ability to get GRANY MONEY as no Scientist wants to be labeled as a NUT or on the Fringe. Split Infinity

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
Not too long ago...hair samples were analized that had many primate and even human Genetic associations but were not identifiable.

Do you have any links to these genuine scientific studies, or the journals where the results were published, underwent peer review etc? Surely Zoologists/Biologists from around the world would be all over such a discovery. Perhaps there is a reason why they aren't?

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
There have been many hoaxters yet a cross reference of Sasquatch foot prints have shown dermal ridges and even scaring...this is one heck of a complex hoax if it is.

Yet these are direct evidence of something (or someone) leaving an impression on the ground, not of Sasquatch. The link to something with no known existence (Sasquatch) is assumption, surely? They amount to an assumption based on an opinion, not much better than anecdote (in a scientific sense). There seems to be a general feeling that even trained people like Krantz, were easily fooled, regarding footprints.

Though I understand your position, which is really just being open minded. The fact that Bigfoot hasn't come close to being verified scientifically, doesn't mean the can't exist. It does seem to make it less likely though.