Big Foot: Fact or Fiction?

[LegionnaireX]

This article got me thinking about this subject:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19443010/

Of all the cryptozooligical mysteries Bigfoot seems to have the most evidence, yet mainstream science still dismisses it as a bunch of ********. I am torn on the subject. You would think that if there was a population of apes living somewhere they would yield evidence to their existence in the form of bones, bodies and remains. However very little physical evidence has been obtained, only a handful of tracks and strands of hair. On the other hand, though, thousands of credible eyewitness accounts shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. When such large numbers of sightings corraborate I can't help but believe there is truth to them. What are your thoughts?

[Da Skinna]

Bear bones are incredibly rare to find, but no one doubts their existence.

But here's the one sure way to find 'em, slash and burn all the forests! Productive AND progressive.

[Simetrical]

It's depressing that the Associated Press classifies cryptozoologists as "scientists". To clarify: they aren't. They hunt after mythical creatures that only have eyewitness evidence to support their existence, and they haven't had a success yet. There is no reasonable evidence in favor of Bigfoots. No Bigfoot specimen has been recovered that biologists have identified as any kind of unknown species, or any species thought to be extinct. The overwhelming majority of sitings must be bogus by sheer odds alone, for so many people to have "seen" Bigfoot without any definitive evidence being recoverable. People have seen Bigfoot in all sorts of places, so either it has a wide habitat and should have long ago been found, or most of them are either deceived or lying. And if most, why not all?

Bear bones are incredibly rare to find, but no one doubts their existence.

I hope this wasn't serious? In many places bears are plentiful enough that anyone can see them for themselves in the wild on demand. You can certainly see all the bears you want in any number of zoos. Bears have left many corpses on record that have been widely preserved, examined by scientists, stuffed, etc. Millions of hunters, biologists, farmers, taxonomists, and just plain country-dwellers (even suburbians) deal with bears on a regular basis. National and international agencies track bear populations for environmental reasons. Legislatures pass laws about hunting bears. Anyone who wants to spend a little time and money could get a bear corpse for personal inspection and comparison to any desired reference.

[Zodiac]

They hunt after mythical creatures that only have eyewitness evidence to support their existence, and they haven't had a success yet.

But Didin't they already find the Okapi? And if I remember right, the Gorilla was considered a Myth along time Ago.
They have had success. ( no matter how lucky their finds were) I will agree with on the Bigfoot part though. If Bigfoot did exist, it would require a large breeding population to even continue to exist. Until they find real definitive proof pops up (Dead Body or Live Specimen) I will continue to doubt their existence.

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

burn burn burn!

[chris_uk_83]

in favor of Bigfoots

Bigfoots or Bigfeet?

[Simetrical]

But Didin't they already find the Okapi? And if I remember right, the Gorilla was considered a Myth along time Ago.
They have had success.

Well, okay, depends what you want to call "they". Cryptozoologists are people who seek animals generally believed to be nonexistent or extinct. I shouldn't tar them all with the same brush. It's only the ones who seek more sensational pop-culture targets like Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster that are laughable.

Bigfoots or Bigfeet?

Bigfoots. The noun is headless (it's not referring to either a big or a foot) and so doesn't take on the irregular plural of its constituents, even if one with an irregular plural happens to occur at the end. Likewise members of the Maple Leaf sports team are Maple Leafs, not Maple Leaves, because they aren't actually leaves and so don't merit that irregular plural. This is an interestingly subtle rule that's consistently followed by children and less well-educated people, and is only sometimes consciously overridden by more educated people, who often try to rationalize grammar in a superficial and non-systematic way. I highly recommend Steven Pinker's book On Language for a discussion of this kind of thing.

[chris_uk_83]

Bigfoots. The noun is headless (it's not referring to either a big or a foot) and so doesn't take on the irregular plural of its constituents, even if one with an irregular plural happens to occur at the end.

I know, I just wanted to see if you'd respond with something educational again

[LegionnaireX]

Well, okay, depends what you want to call "they". Cryptozoologists are people who seek animals generally believed to be nonexistent or extinct.

Under those parimeters there are a lot of scientists that should be classified as cryptozoologists. There have been a number of animals thought to be extinct that have been rediscovered. The gorrilla was thought by mainstream science to be a myth and so was the okapi. Many people laughed at the idea of giant squid before specimens turned up.

I shouldn't tar them all with the same brush. It's only the ones who seek more sensational pop-culture targets like Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster that are laughable.

Bigfoot didn't start out as a pop culture icon. We get the term Sasquatch from Native American folklore about the beast. In other parts of the world there are legendary beasts of very similar nature such as the Tibetan Yeti. There have been thousands of sightings worldwide of such creatures, and many of come from credible individuals such as policeman and game wardens. I understand that in science anecdotal evidence carries much less weight than physical remains, but I also think that it would be irrational to dismiss all eye witnesses as liers or crazies.

It is these eye witness accounts that I believe make it necessary for science to investigate bigfoot and other scientific mysteries. It seems that mainstream science turns a blind eye to such phenomena and those that are bold enough to investigate, no matter how impartial and rational, are automatically labeled pseudoscientits and discredited. It is a sad era in the scientific community when investigation and open mindedness are forbidden, considering it is exactly those qualities that have advanced science to its current level.

[Simetrical]

Under those parimeters there are a lot of scientists that should be classified as cryptozoologists. There have been a number of animals thought to be extinct that have been rediscovered. The gorrilla was thought by mainstream science to be a myth and so was the okapi. Many people laughed at the idea of giant squid before specimens turned up.

There's rather a large difference between saying a species exists in some place basically unexplored by scientists, like the bottom of the ocean or a prescientific nation in the 19th century, and saying one exists right under our noses. I also suspect that the assumption among scientists that creatures such as gorillas or okapis were myths was a lot less strong and prevalent than the belief that Bigfoot does not.

I understand that in science anecdotal evidence carries much less weight than physical remains, but I also think that it would be irrational to dismiss all eye witnesses as liers or crazies.

Memory is a very fragile thing. It's remarkably easy for even the most upstanding people to hear about something and then, some time later, think that it actually happened to them. Human perception is also marred by wishful thinking, selective memory, and so on. Even perfectly intelligent, honest people are wrong a huge portion of the time when they recall memories. You simply cannot compare even the most reliable eyewitness evidence to actual, unambiguous physical traces. No one who seeks the truth can put much of any credence in eyewitness evidence. Scientists have always refused to take it at face value, and thankfully courts are now relying less and less on it.

It is these eye witness accounts that I believe make it necessary for science to investigate bigfoot and other scientific mysteries. It seems that mainstream science turns a blind eye to such phenomena and those that are bold enough to investigate, no matter how impartial and rational, are automatically labeled pseudoscientits and discredited.

It's not done by reputable scientists because they know a hopeless cause when they see one. It's not done by anyone reputable because far more resources have already been poured into trying to find such things as Bigfoot than could possibly be required to find them if they actually did exist. Every year many people set out in search of such mythical monsters, and they have never found unequivocal evidence in favor of their existence, when they supposedly live right next door in forests and mountains and so on. At a certain point you have to say that it's incredibly unlikely that they exist and searching for them is hopeless.

It is a sad era in the scientific community when investigation and open mindedness are forbidden, considering it is exactly those qualities that have advanced science to its current level.

Reasonable investigation and open-mindedness have done so. Chasing after things that have been proven wildly implausible after many attempts on them have done nothing. You can't compare the resources invested in trying to find okapi (practically none) to those invested in Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster (very large, over the years), and yet the okapi was found on practically no resources while Bigfoot and Nessie evade all pursuit.

Of course, such investigations should not be banned, and I think few scientists would advocate "forbidding" them as you say (straw man?). They should not receive research grants from governments or universities, surely, since we have better things to spend our money on. Most people also have far better things to spend their time on, personally, than reading about or commenting on investigations that will almost certainly prove completely fruitless. And when it comes to judging someone's worthiness as a scientist, surely you can't argue that ignoring all evidence and believing what has been shown to be massively improbable speaks well of one's merit.

But forbidden? Certainly not. No one has said that. Let people engage in what foolishness they will, and in the unlikely event they're right, we'll all be happy to apologize when they have the corpse in hand with DNA sampled.

[Chaigidel]

still its not unthinkable that an elusive great ape could exist in some places--- perhaps fairly recently even but I would think they would be extinct by now.

[LegionnaireX]

Memory is a very fragile thing. It's remarkably easy for even the most upstanding people to hear about something and then, some time later, think that it actually happened to them. Human perception is also marred by wishful thinking, selective memory, and so on. Even perfectly intelligent, honest people are wrong a huge portion of the time when they recall memories. You simply cannot compare even the most reliable eyewitness evidence to actual, unambiguous physical traces. No one who seeks the truth can put much of any credence in eyewitness evidence. Scientists have always refused to take it at face value, and thankfully courts are now relying less and less on it.

Most of what you said here is true, but I don't buy the "humans are too stupid to remember correctly" arguement at all. I agree whole heartedly that physical evidence is worth more that anecdotal evidence, but when you get a significant number of eye witness accounts that corraborate the weight they hold goes up.

Obviously if two tourists report similar sightings of bigfoot a year apart there are many factors that could be to blame. But if two game wardens report sightings of an unusual creature on the same night only minutes apart you have a real case on your hands. The same would go for airline pilots' corraborating reports of UFO's.

Every year many people set out in search of such mythical monsters, and they have never found unequivocal evidence in favor of their existence, when they supposedly live right next door in forests and mountains and so on. At a certain point you have to say that it's incredibly unlikely that they exist and searching for them is hopeless.

There is still vast wilderness in the world where human hands have yet to touch so it would not be improbable that a small population of previously undiscovered animals exist in some places. But an animal as big as an ape does seem to be a bit of a stretch. The fact is though that investigations into bigfoot have mostly been done with small ill-equiped teams that can't cover the necessary distances. According to the article at the top of the page, however, many of these smaller investigations have yeilding sightings. (just not hard evidence).

[Lunar4]

what about these bad boys??

[MaximiIian]

Personally, I think the bigfeet are just a relict and separated population of gigantopithecines, which adapted to the climate of the Pacific Northwest, migrating to the region and surviving while the original population of Gigantpithecus in Southeast Asia died out. Similar thing with the Yeti in the Himalayas.
By now, it's probably developed into a distinct species, or at least a different subspecies.

The legends and stories describing the bigfoot creature are too uniform, too consistent to totally disprove the existence of bigfoot. I think that the volume of very similar eyewitness reports, extending way back from the time when humans first migrated and settled in the region all the way up to the now and present day, are enough to suggest at the possibility, if not the probability of bigfoot's existence.

[Simetrical]

still its not unthinkable that an elusive great ape could exist in some places--- perhaps fairly recently even but I would think they would be extinct by now.

There's a difference between an elusive great ape and Bigfoot.

Most of what you said here is true, but I don't buy the "humans are too stupid to remember correctly" arguement at all. I agree whole heartedly that physical evidence is worth more that anecdotal evidence, but when you get a significant number of eye witness accounts that corraborate the weight they hold goes up.

Obviously if two tourists report similar sightings of bigfoot a year apart there are many factors that could be to blame. But if two game wardens report sightings of an unusual creature on the same night only minutes apart you have a real case on your hands. The same would go for airline pilots' corraborating reports of UFO's.

If they're independent, and that thing happens often, then that counts for something. But it's outweighed by persistent lack of physical evidence and consistent failure for followups to find any corroborating evidence.

There is still vast wilderness in the world where human hands have yet to touch so it would not be improbable that a small population of previously undiscovered animals exist in some places.

Vast wilderness that human hands have yet to touch? Even a century ago it would be hard to describe it as "vast", and now there's almost nowhere untouched by humans except the deep ocean. Even nature preserves have lots of tourists going in and out all the time.

Obviously there are many undiscovered animals. The question is whether any are Bigfoot, which would imply that a very large percentage of Bigfoot sightings were sightings of an actual single distinct species of creatures. It's far more likely that those sightings that aren't hoaxes are misidentifications of a wide variety of species, or confabulations. There's not going to be any one Bigfoot species.

Personally, I think the bigfeet are just a relict and separated population of gigantopithecines, which adapted to the climate of the Pacific Northwest, migrating to the region and surviving while the original population of Gigantpithecus in Southeast Asia died out. Similar thing with the Yeti in the Himalayas.
By now, it's probably developed into a distinct species, or at least a different subspecies.

And your evidence for this is . . .? You offer evidence (such as it is) that Bigfoot might possibly exist, not what species might be, let alone its historical migration patterns.

The legends and stories describing the bigfoot creature are too uniform, too consistent to totally disprove the existence of bigfoot. I think that the volume of very similar eyewitness reports, extending way back from the time when humans first migrated and settled in the region all the way up to the now and present day, are enough to suggest at the possibility, if not the probability of bigfoot's existence.

Elvis sightings tend to be highly consistent as well. Most people who describe having sighted Elvis Presley after he died gave extremely similar descriptions. All that proves is that they came from the same source, namely the real Elvis Presley. In the case of Bigfoot, that would be folklore and (later) popular culture. Consistency is not at all unexpected.

Besides, it's not like eyewitnesses are hugely consistent. They give all manner of fur colors, and they vary in things like how thick the fur is on various body parts, what color it is, whether it has visible ears or canines, the shape of the brow, the positioning of the shoulders, the size of the mouth, etc. Some Googling found me a description of Bigfoot by a believer, based on compilations of eyewitness reports. It assumes that the reports are referring to the same thing and the majority report is probably more correct, but if you actually look at what it says, the details differ greatly from teller to teller, even if there are some overarching patterns (and again I point to folklore and popular culture).

[LegionnaireX]

It assumes that the reports are referring to the same thing and the majority report is probably more correct, but if you actually look at what it says, the details differ greatly from teller to teller, even if there are some overarching patterns (and again I point to folklore and popular culture).

Folklore has to count for something, though. It seems that a lot of modern people hold double standards about a lot ancient peoples (when dealing with folklore and the paranormal): They were smart enough to develop math and science to erect huge stone structures, yet they were to primitive to accurately record the world around them. Not that north american indians built huge stone structures but the point still stands that they understood nature around them. If they believed a race of human-like animals co-existed with them in the pacific northwest, I see no reason to believe they were lying/crazy.

[lord o kelly]

Alright everyone.. I have gathered you all here to deliberate on the topic of whether or not the creature deemed Big foot actually exists.
Thoughts comments, just add them here...
Proof for big foot:



Proof#2

Proof #3

Proof#4:



Proof#5

Proof#6

proof #7




**Now you have seen the proof, What side are you on, the knowing or the ignorant?
PS post more big foot pics here

[Mulattothrasher]

I am 99% believer.

The sighting throughout the world, the similarities of their size, smell, nature, temperament, etc...seems too coincidental to be people dressing up in "gorilla suits" at 20,000 feet up on a blizzard ridden mountain, walking around, hoping people stumble across their tracks.

1% skeptical only because one has not been caught, so I guess "scientifically speaking" its not a proven part of the natural world. (See, science sucks sometime with its "handicap" demanding proof and experimentation all the time).

[Axe-Battler]

I suppose big foot exists...

but, something I find strange is that if all species are large in numbers, then why is big foot so much more...1 out of a billion?

I mean, we've seen photos of different hair colored big foots, so how is there only like so few?

[Thanatos]

If our technology is so advanced, that our spy satellites can read the bumper on a moving car on a highway, we can certainly find bigfoot if we really wanted to.