Debunking Bigfoot or sasquatch

[asianboy]

This documentary seem to be Pro-Existence of Bigfoot. Now, if this was from bad documentary channels like the History Channel, I would have dismissed this almost immediately. However, this is the National Geographic, which seems to be more reliable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p66CBKo ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_fricG85nY&feature=fvw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMgoO_-W ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH_mo-SE ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mZ-EuVI ... re=related


I still disbelieve in the existence of bigfoot though. This is because I have a feeling that the documentary got some of its "facts" very wrong. I want to hear some of your thoughts though.

[Phier]

One does not need to debunk bigfoot any more than one needs to debunk the tooth fairy.

One needs to bunk bigfoot and so far the best bunking is a guy clearly in an ape suit.

[Maximus Macro]

One does not need to debunk bigfoot any more than one needs to debunk the tooth fairy.

just like with jesus

[Ludicus]

One does not need to debunk bigfoot any more than one needs to debunk the tooth fairy.

The tooth fair really exists, just ask my son.

[Zhangir]

Don't want to ramble or sound crazy, but my dad who has a very down to earth attitude to things, is an atheist, beieves in what he sees and doesn't believe in any controversial stuff, has seen tracks of what is called Big Foot.
That was in the 1960s, somewhere in the Tian Shan mountains, where he was with a skiing group. At that time there was barely anyone there except them for miles/kilometres...
Anyways, I believe in its existance (at least in the Tian Shan area)

[Gromovnik]

Don't want to ramble or sound crazy, but my dad who has a very down to earth attitude to things, is an atheist, beieves in what he sees and doesn't believe in any controversial stuff, has seen tracks of what is called Big Foot.
That was in the 1960s, somewhere in the Tian Shan mountains, where he was with a skiing group. At that time there was barely anyone there except them for miles/kilometres...
Anyways, I believe in its existance (at least in the Tian Shan area)

In the 60s, you say? Did he also saw Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds?

[asianboy]

Again, I also very much doubted the existence of bigfoot.

Can anybody just refute the documentary already?

[Bernem]

Has there ever been found a cadaver that could be described as big foot? NO? case closed

[Phier]

Better things to do.

Apparently bigfoot doesn't poo, shed, or die, while living in places with enough humans to have found it by now.

I'd love to be wrong on it, but give me some evidence, not plaster casts and second hand accounts.

[Tankbuster]

I'd love to be wrong on it, but give me some evidence, not plaster casts and second hand accounts.

Yep, exactly.

Want to prove the existence of a new species? Easy. Capture one (live or dead) and bring it into the laboratory to check its genome and details its features.

This crap about "Oh well they are very secretive and there's very few of them" won't fly: the rules for discovering a new species are simple. Stick to them and you'll be taken seriously; insist on exceptions for your particular nebulous creature and you're a crackpot.

[Copperknickers II]

Noone yet knows. There are plenty of extremely high profile people who believe in it, including David Attenborough. I would not be at all surprised if it did, i am not ignorant enough to think that humans know everything there is to know about nature after a mere 500 years or so of actual study. On the other hand, some of the stories are clearly false, and despite the Patterson-Gimlin film being 'proved' time and time again to be impossible to fake, we have as good as a confession from Patterson iirc that it was faked.

[Bernem]

Noone yet knows. There are plenty of extremely high profile people who believe in it, including David Attenborough. I would not be at all surprised if it did, i am not ignorant enough to think that humans know everything there is to know about nature after a mere 500 years or so of actual study. On the other hand, some of the stories are clearly false, and despite the Patterson-Gimlin film being 'proved' time and time again to be impossible to fake, we have as good as a confession from Patterson iirc that it was faked.

Authority is not evidence! If you want to describe a species you need at least a corpse (at least a tooth if it comes to anthropology )

[Phier]

On the other hand, some of the stories are clearly false, and despite the Patterson-Gimlin film being 'proved' time and time again to be impossible to fake, we have as good as a confession from Patterson iirc that it was faked.

Whenever an 'expert' claims something couldn't be faked, I am always reminded of the crop circles, and how a group set up a fake one, filmed them making it, brought in the "experts" who claimed it was authentic, and then showed them the video of them making it.

Lots of quiet experts.

[Elfdude]

I would say bigfoot is plausible but unlikely.

If we were to consider big foot from a logical perspective we would come to these conclusions:

1. Bigfoot is an Ape
2. Bigfoot walks upright
3. Bigfoot is large

From these things we can derive several things about bigfoot. The obvious parallel we can draw to real creatures is to Gigantopithecus, specificially Gigantopithecus Blacki. Including what we know about Gigantopithecus Blacki if bigfoot is a subspecies or rather a surviving lineage of Gigantopithecus we can make several inferances about bigfoot.

Gigantopithecus Blacki, unlike humans possesses a common ancestor with Orangutans about a million years ago. This giant Asian Ape survived until at least 100,000 years ago. Unfortunately the fossil record for Gigantopithecus is oddly incomplete with only a few bones being found in select caves.

From what we know about the fossils is that a potential Gigantopithecus could stand anywhere from 5-10 feet tall. Because of the significant sexual dimorphism of orangutans one would expect a similar situation to be present amongst Gigantopithecus with females being approximately half the size of adult males. However this size is concluded without any access to the lower body bones. Orangutans exhibit significantly long arms and extremely short legs so it would not be unreasonable to think Gigantopithecus looked similar.

It is unclear whether Gigantopithecus stands upright or not because of the lack of the lower half of the body however orangutans are fist walkers meaning they ball their hands into fists when they walk on all fours. They are not particularly good at walking upright however largely due to the length of their legs and their top heavy design. Gigantopithecus has several theories about his locomotion. On one hand many hominids were evolving during this time and the general gyst seems to be that apes were starting to walk upright. Although the more likely conclusion is that Gigantopithecus used a mix of the two.

Gigantopithecus' brain size has been estimated at a cranial capacity of over 1,000 cm³. This capacity could vary anywhere from more than a human's brain of 1,350cm³ to slightly smaller than 1,000cm³ assuming the shape is not a significant divergence from previous species. This means Gigantopithecus could have possessed intelligence on par with Homo Sapiens or Neanderthal. Judging from the jaw Gigantopithecus was most likely an herbivore although it's possible they were omnivorous.

An interesting observation from the orangutans is their ability to have culture and in turn have cultural influence upon other orangutans. Orangutans do not have a specifically established social order and many will live their entire lives solitary except to mate. For the most part however they live within an acceptable distance from their neighbors. Chimps are not observed to have this cultural exchange to such a level meaning Gigantopithecus could have had a leg up on culture well before homo sapien appeared.

Perhaps more interesting is the cute habits of orangutans to play hide and seek with each other teaching themselves how to hide from predators. It is unlikely that Gigantopithecus had any real predators when full grown except for homo erectus and later homo sapien. However, if a cultural association with humans being predators was established it is theoretically possible that populations are purposely isolating themselves and hiding from humans. In addition it seems plausible that Gigantopithecus could have had death rites which may have made recovering the bodies nearly impossible. The lack of fossil evidence could be seen as evidence that Gigantopithecus died in an unconventional way. Additionally Gigantopithecus could have been intelligent enough to hide his stool a potent reminder to predators of their presence, although unidentifiable and mysterious stool samples have been discovered in supposed bigfoot areas. Gigantopithecus's range could also plausibly extend from Asia to the western edges of the United States and Canada. Similar creatures are reported in each area resembling both Gigantopithecus and bigfoot in description.

Of particular interest is the location of supposed bigfoot sightings.




Though the detail of the map is low the concentration of sightings could show a contiguous area that bigfoot could inhabit. All of these areas possess a significant human population but all border wilderness areas. The rockies, cascades, and sierra nevada present ample opportunity for many large vegetarian animals to go unnoticed. The animal populations are thick and any activity could easily be hidden by the normal activity of other animals. Given the plausible humanity of Gigantopithecus it's also possible many hikers have actually found evidence only to ignore it or assume it had human origins. It is important to realize that human population is only concentrated near the cost in the west and that the vast majority of wilderness remains unexplored on foot and uncatalogued.

Still it is a heavy stretch in light of all of the suppositions which must be made that Gigantopithecus populations exist. It is further unlikely that such large apes could survive in the relatively barren forests of the western united states and canada due to the lack of natural fruits and vegatables that a Gigantopithecus could likely digest. If Gigantopithecus hunted it is far more unlikely that it would remain undiscovered or that it wouldn't come into conflict with humans though it does make the forest environments plausible habitats.

The common counter to this is that there exists plenty of food if you know how to get it. Lichens, flowers, tubers, and seeds (especially pine cones) could plausibly sustain a bigfoot population however they would need to have enormous territories to survive on such less than plentiful sources of food. Further there would exist high competition between bigfoot and bears for the same food sources. Even at the upper estimate of bigfoot's size it's very unlikely that a great ape would be able to survive an encounter with a grizzly.

So what 'evidence' do we have? Well first we have footprints. These are the most widely known examples of bigfoot. In fact many animals we know existed only from fossilized footprints we were so lucky to find. However of particular interest in what are considered to be most likely to be real footprints is a tarsal break. In humans the arch of our foot reduces the range of motion of our foot meaning we can only bend our foot towards our knees at the toe joints. The tarsal break however allows apes to more effectively grip uneven terrain as well as gives them distinct advantages in the trees. The design of the human foot allows us to run more effectively.

The Patterson video. The Patterson video is perhaps the most perplexing compelling and frustrating piece of evidence there is. With the original Patterson video far clearer and of far better quality than those shown to the public originally it is much harder to attack the authenticity of the video. Though Patterson's friend does swear Patterson offered him a thousand dollars to wear the suit. The thing that is irritating is the fact that the suit does not seem to exist.

More perplexing is the fact that musculature is clearly visible as well as the fact that the fur adheres to the contours of the underlying flesh. Although modern costumes can easily replicate this, the technology to do so when the Patterson video was shot did not exist for several more decades. Further costumes of this detail are ridiculously expensive and no evidence exists that patterson ever purchased one. The calf, Achilles tendon, lower back and upper back musculature is clearly visible. In addition the shoulder blade and two breasts are visible as the creature turns to look at the camera.

Also there's the fact that the video shows a creature walking with a so-called compliant gait. This is the walk of a great ape when they stand upright. The back is curved forward at a 5 degree angle, the head is upright, the knees are bent and the foot is placed flatly upon the ground as a creature with a tarsal break would. Though a human in a suit could theoretically replicate this walk the number of considerations the hoaxers would have needed to take into account (much of the science behind apes has only been discovered since) makes a hoax more and more unlikely. The hoaxers would have had to possess extensive knowledge of how apes move and walk upright as well as find a costume that was not of a typical ape made of expensive high quality fur that could contour to a muscle suit.

Perhaps most damning to the theory of a hoax is the fact that the proportions of the legs cannot be explained. The thigh is oversized. The calf is undersized. The fact that you cannot align the hips, feet, knee bend severely damages the idea that the video is of a man in a suit. One of the rules of holywood costume design that only recently is being rewritten is the need for a costume's knees and the actor's knees to align. Finally we come to the height of the individual within the film. At a standard 25mm lens for the camera the individual is a preposterously small 4 foot tall at this size it is. However the camera could have been set to 15mm as well which would have indicated a height of 7-8 feet tall aligning with the description of big foot and making the proportion of the suit far more difficult to reproduce.

Hair evidence provides another more compelling piece of evidence that cannot be explained. At least 14 samples of hair are known to be from area of bigfoot sightings which have primate characteristics (very different from the known fauna) yet do not match any known ape. Unfortunately without a carcass to compare the hair the hair alone is not seen as proof of a bigfoot's presence.

What of the remains? Unfortunately the lack of remains does not distinctly prove one way or the other the lack of a bigfoot's presence. A significant portion of evolutionary fossils have been lost to such environments that the bigfoot seems to prefer. A study I performed myself to refute the idea of animal mutilations by aliens also allowed me to observe the decay and eventual disappearance of an animal carcass. Although it was only for a highschool science fair project the methodology was sound if limited.

The experiment used a road killed deer carcass. The deer carcass was in good repair and it's likely that if the neck had not been broken the deer would have survived the incident with my car. After watching the carcuss for a day the carcass began to swell and grow. I did not expect this but rather expected the carcass to shrink and collapse on itself. As the smell from the carcass grew more intense local vultures began to clean it up. The deer hide seemed to be too thick for the first vultures and it took a larger vulture (possibly a different species) to tear open the hide before the vultures could devour the carcass. As the carcass was devoured the swelling ceased and reversed itself. The holes made by the vultures reduced in size that allowed their heads through to near pin pricks. The vultures had cleaned out most of the insides but had left the hide all but in tact.

As scavengers and insects moved in to clean up the left overs the carcass was pulled apart and devoured. Many small bones went missing all together and large bones possessed definite gnaw marks. By this point the flesh had more or less been removed however there were insects and other creatures that had managed to find their way into the bones themselves and within a month the bones literally crumbled. A few of the larger bones (the leg bones) remained strong and tough and I moved several throughout the area out of curiosity (my experiment finished with the vultures). Bones in dry areas managed to keep their strength for years and I still have a cleaned deer bone as a momento. On the other hands bones burried in moist dirt, placed in or near water, or layed upon the forest quickly disintegrated or were stolen and within a year I had lost track of any bones except the one I had kept.

Case in point a forest is about the worst possible place for a bone to be kept in good repair or to fossilize. Though bogs and swamps present opportunities to fossilize, loose packed soil and the natural creatures of the forest can easily recover bones from the forest. If you are to walk through the forest today it is unlikely you will find the bones of an animal despite the presence of millions. Thus it is not unreasonable to conclude that if any bones do exist that they would be exceedingly rare. This is complicated by the possibility of death rites.

As one might say the proof is in the pudding and no proof for sasquatch exists merely supposition and the mystery that surrounds the phenomena. As the war of the world's broadcast proved humans are quite capable of buying completely ridiculous stories en masse and like the war of the world's broadcast it is likely that many if not all of them are making up their stories or misinterpreting typical evidence to speak of a cyptrozoological origin. The evidence we do have is compelling though and the origin of some of it defies explanation as well as the idea of a hoax. However I don't know if we can discount the ability of humans to produce hoaxes.

In the end I must conclude it is possible but highly unlikely.

[Sphere]

You cannot really square the fact that a body has never been found. The US and Canada have been intensively hunted and trapped for 150+ years, and moderately hunted for many thousands before that. With the millions of hunters that venture out into the wilderness, you'd expect dozens if not hundreds to be killed each year, and thats not even considering road kills.

[Elfdude]

You cannot really square the fact that a body has never been found. The US and Canada have been intensively hunted and trapped for 150+ years, and moderately hunted for many thousands before that. With the millions of hunters that venture out into the wilderness, you'd expect dozens if not hundreds to be killed each year, and thats not even considering road kills.

This isn't necessarily true. Many monkeys and apes possess intelligences that allows them to easily avoid and escape traps. Not to mention possessing the same sense of sight that we humans do. You'll have a far more difficult time catching an ape. Combine this with stronger animalistic senses and a apish intelligence that could be significantly greater than other great apes I don't think it'd be unlikely to not catch any. This could be further complicated by either vast territories or sparse population or both.

[Phier]

The Patterson video. The Patterson video is perhaps the most perplexing compelling and frustrating piece of evidence there is. With the original Patterson video far clearer and of far better quality than those shown to the public originally it is much harder to attack the authenticity of the video. Though Patterson's friend does swear Patterson offered him a thousand dollars to wear the suit. The thing that is irritating is the fact that the suit does not seem to exist.

The reason I think so many academic 'experts' get fooled is they don't think like a criminal.

They assume anyone not in academia would not have the knowledge to fake something realistically. That is arrogance. It seems they don't realize that people will be able to read an anatomy book, or a book on animal behavior.

Likewise they don't think in terms of a criminal. They approach it from 'could this be real?' instead of 'how was this faked?' Rather than send in anatomists and "xeno-biologists" they would be far better sending in a police detective. If the detective can't find proof of a fake, THEN send in the academics. My favorite bigfoot prankster, which I dont' know if they covered in the video or not, was two guys who for something around 20+ years left tracks out in the middle of no where just to mess with people. After he died he son admitted to it and showed even his little workshop full of prints and ways they would make the prints without leaving human footprints as well.

[Lunar4]

The reason I think so many academic 'experts' get fooled is they don't think like a criminal.

They assume anyone not in academia would not have the knowledge to fake something realistically. That is arrogance. It seems they don't realize that people will be able to read an anatomy book, or a book on animal behavior.

If Patterson/whoever where that good at making an ape suit, they could have made MILLIONS by selling it to the film industry.

Instead, they go and make a crappy video, and the one guy got a 1000 dollars for it?

I call BS on that one. The videos real as far as im concerned.

[asianboy]

If Patterson/whoever where that good at making an ape suit, they could have made MILLIONS by selling it to the film industry.

Instead, they go and make a crappy video, and the one guy got a 1000 dollars for it?

I call BS on that one. The videos real as far as im concerned.

If I remember correctly, Patterson later got millions from the film. So no reason to sell the ape suit.

[Phier]

If Patterson/whoever where that good at making an ape suit, they could have made MILLIONS by selling it to the film industry.

Instead, they go and make a crappy video, and the one guy got a 1000 dollars for it?

I call BS on that one. The videos real as far as im concerned.

Are you serious?

Lets look again.....



Its not bad, nice an bulky though for a man to fit in, just think how much a creature that size would need to eat a day, but....



Thats better but if that is too modern.....




Released a year after the Patterson video....

You know I wonder if he had any friends who worked on film sets in Hollywood.