Bigfoot?

[wvbig]

I believe Bigfoot exists for the following reasons:

 

1)There have been sighting reports by European settlers dating back to 1785 & I fail to see why, or even how, someone could come up with such a creature before the discovery of the Gorilla.

2)There have been at least 20 hair samples found that, after much analysis (Years in some cases) & compaeison to hair samples of known animals, have defied identification by Biologist Dr. Henner H. Fahrenbach. These are hairs found in the vicinity of reported sightings & discoveries of alleged Bigfoot tracks. Dr. Fahrenbach has determined these hairs to be primate & always absent of a medulla.

3)There are also scat samples that have, so far, defied identification.

4)There have been casts of alleged Bigfoot tracks found to contain dermal ridges. These were found by a forensic expert in fingerprint analysis with the Conroe, Texas police department named Jimmy Chilcutt. Mr. Chilcutt is also an expert in non-human primate fingerprint analysis who set out to debunk the legend of Bigfoot.

5)After years of intense scrutiny, including a two-ponged analysis in 2006, the Patterson/Gimlin film from 1967 has never been debunked. The first prong of the two-pronged analysis in 2006 concluded that a person couldn't replicate the walk of the subject of the film. The second prong was a frame-by-frame microscopic analysis of the film that failed to find any trace of a costume whatsoever.

6)There are alleged Bigfoot vocalizations recorded in the vicinity of other Bigfoot evidence that have, so far, defied identification.

7)Dr. Jeff Meldrum has studied numerous track casts & has noted such things as a mid-tarsal break & varying gaps between the toes of two or more casts from the same trackway. This of course indicates a flexible, living foot.

8)The Skookum Cast: The Skookum Cast is a plaster cast of an impression made in mud of a Bigfoot lying down to retreive an apple from the middle of the muddy area. Hair found in the impression was determined through microscopic analysis, by Dr. Fahrenbach, to be primate & one part of the impression was determined by the late Dr. Daris Swindler, to be the Achilles tendon of a large primate. What do you all think?

[mooeypoo]

It's hard to discuss this matter without the proper evidence.

 

In short, just saying "There are evidence" is not enough. You need to provide them, so we can go over them and see if they are valid or not. If there ARE evidence, then your case is made, isn't it?

 

The rest of what you're claiming is either anecdotal or nonproven. We need proofs to continue properly.

 

Post evidence, please, so we can go on.

 

~moo

[iNow]

I think people who believe in bigfoot are idiots who would do well to educate themselves on biology and at least come up with a scientific classification of the lifeform they think exists. I think every single piece of "evidence" ever put forth has been a hoax or completely bunk, and I have no idea why people cling to these fairy tale fantasies instead of focussing on the vast and intriguing real world all around us.

 

 

Hey... you asked.

[wvbig]

There is a video on the homepage of my website athttp://steventitchenell.tripod.com/wvbig that shows Mr. Chilcutt & Dr. Meldrum talking about their discoveries. There is also info about hair analysis & the Skookum cast on http://www.bigfootencounters.com The 1785 date comes from the documentary "Oregon Bigfoot" There may be more info on that on http://www.oregonbigfoot.com Besides these last two links, there are many other links on my website that contain lots of info.

P.S.

For more info on Dr. Meldrum's discoveries, you can read his book "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science"

 

I think people who believe in bigfoot are idiots who would do well to educate themselves on biology and at least come up with a scientific classification of the lifeform they think exists. I think every single piece of "evidence" ever put forth has been a hoax or completely bunk, and I have no idea why people cling to these fairy tale fantasies instead of focussing on the vast and intriguing real world all around us.

 

 

Hey... you asked.

Such as?

[mooeypoo]

I suggest you run a search about bigfoot in the forums; we've already dealt with this (and I believe this ACTUAL VIDEO) before, in length. We do every few weeks, it seems.

 

Short story long: It's bunk. The evidence are either incredibly unfounded, extremely bad, untrustworthy or anecdotal.

 

That, in conjunction with the fact that biology and evolution stands slightly against this "conspiracy theory", makes the odds against this 'theory' even bigger.

 

But again - I'm quite open minded. Everything I've seen in this reinstate the conclusion that it's bunk, but if you want to read through what we've already answered and post anything NEW I'll be happy to examine it.

 

~moo

[wvbig]

With all due respect. I'm sure everyone here is well educated & intelligent. But judging by the posts I found in the search for posts about Bigfoot here, the skeptics don't appear to be very well informed on this particular subject. Which I guess is normal. Most people aren't well informed about things they aren't interested in. But getting back to the problems I found with the skeptical posts about Bigfoot here.

1)I don't know of any researchers not involved in the recent Georgia hoax who fell for it. Tom Biscardi has a well established reputation in the Bigfoot research community for such things.

2)Someone stated the Bigfoot phenomenon started with the tracks found in 1958 that Ray Wallace confessed to hoaxing shortly before his death. This is not true. As I stated previously, sighting reports date back hundreds of years & two of the most famous reports came from 1924

3)Someone stated it's more likely that someone has been hoaxing than Bigfoot really exists. Come on. A series of hoaxes all over the entire continent over a span of hundreds of years? As Dr. Jeff Meldrum says "Who is handing out the instructions?"

4)Someone asked what Bigfoot hair looks like. I can only say what the hair believed to be Bigfoot hair looks like. As Dr. Fahrenbach describes it, it is mammalian, primate, always absent a medulla, & there was one other characteristic I can't recall at the moment. I'm sure you can read all about it at http://www.bigfootencounters.com Some of these hairs have been found snagged in tree twists 10'-12' off the ground in areas where there were no people & no Grizzly bears.

Edited September 7, 2008 by wvbig
I forgot something important in the original version

[iNow]

Evidence?

[mooeypoo]

We're not asking for much, wvbig, we're asking for proof. The burden of proof is on you because you are suggesting this theory; so live up to it and supply some, otherwise the discussion is quite vain.

[wvbig]

We're not asking for much, wvbig, we're asking for proof. The burden of proof is on you because you are suggesting this theory; so live up to it and supply some, otherwise the discussion is quite vain.

I've given you the resources for the evidence. What more do you want?

[mooeypoo]

We've answered on the video you've given on other forum threads.

 

The video is not proof, as it can be faked (and it looks fake), and the "supporting" evidence are anecdotal. That's not proof. It might have been supporting-evidence (not enough to prove a theory) if it was higher quality and had MORE supporting evidence to it, but far far far from enough to prove such a theory.

 

Perhaps this will help:

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

 

One observation of an unknown animal (even if proven to be true, hence even if the video is not fake) is not enough to conclude that the animal in the video is bigfoot, and it's far from enough to conclude that bigfoot exists.

 

Following the scientific method. That's what we want.

 

~moo

[Bignose]

I believe Bigfoot exists for the following reasons:

 

1)There have been sighting reports by European settlers dating back to 1785 & I fail to see why, or even how, someone could come up with such a creature before the discovery of the Gorilla.

2)There have been at least 20 hair samples found that, after much analysis (Years in some cases) & compaeison to hair samples of known animals, have defied identification by Biologist Dr. Henner H. Fahrenbach. These are hairs found in the vicinity of reported sightings & discoveries of alleged Bigfoot tracks. Dr. Fahrenbach has determined these hairs to be primate & always absent of a medulla.

3)There are also scat samples that have, so far, defied identification.

4)There have been casts of alleged Bigfoot tracks found to contain dermal ridges. These were found by a forensic expert in fingerprint analysis with the Conroe, Texas police department named Jimmy Chilcutt. Mr. Chilcutt is also an expert in non-human primate fingerprint analysis who set out to debunk the legend of Bigfoot.

5)After years of intense scrutiny, including a two-ponged analysis in 2006, the Patterson/Gimlin film from 1967 has never been debunked. The first prong of the two-pronged analysis in 2006 concluded that a person couldn't replicate the walk of the subject of the film. The second prong was a frame-by-frame microscopic analysis of the film that failed to find any trace of a costume whatsoever.

6)There are alleged Bigfoot vocalizations recorded in the vicinity of other Bigfoot evidence that have, so far, defied identification.

7)Dr. Jeff Meldrum has studied numerous track casts & has noted such things as a mid-tarsal break & varying gaps between the toes of two or more casts from the same trackway. This of course indicates a flexible, living foot.

8)The Skookum Cast: The Skookum Cast is a plaster cast of an impression made in mud of a Bigfoot lying down to retreive an apple from the middle of the muddy area. Hair found in the impression was determined through microscopic analysis, by Dr. Fahrenbach, to be primate & one part of the impression was determined by the late Dr. Daris Swindler, to be the Achilles tendon of a large primate. What do you all think?

 

1) There have also been reports of faeries, leprechauns, dragons, trolls, goblins, griffins, yeti, succubus, elves, etc. etc. Simple "reports" aren't evidence. Mistakes happen. Overactive imaginations happen. Things that are common objects seen under different lighting or unfamiliar circumstances makes us think things that aren't actually there. This kind of "evidence" really isn't evidence at all.

 

2) No hair sample is perfect. No test is perfect. Hair analysis can make mistakes. And if the sample is corrupted or imperfect in any way, the test method may not come up with results. No database is complete, either. They could be samples from a family of animals that have had a small genetic mutation and their hair grows differently than typical members of their species. There are many possibilities, rather than just assuming Bigfoot exits.

 

3) I think that scat identification is even harder than hair identification, so everything I said in 2) above holds for scat, too.

 

4) OK, nothing else has dermal ridges? Or they can't be faked?

 

5) There are many, many different interpretations of this film. First and foremost is it only a scant few frames and exceptionally grainy. If the costume was any good at all, the resolution of the film is not going to pick up a tiny zipper or snap. And, I guarantee that a person could be trained to mimic the movements of a creature that size. Have you seen the wide variety of unnatural things people can be trained to do? Did you watch any of the Olympics? If someone had the dedication and the knowledge of what a large creature should look like, it can be mimicked.

 

6) Voice identification may be even harder than scat and hair. There are many, many sounds that known creatures make that aren't perfectly cataloged. And, of course, each animal individual will have its own voice and noises. I mean, just as an example, we are still discovering the exact hows and why cats purr. I guarantee that there are many, many woodland creatures that make noises that have never been recorded yet.

 

7) Kind of like 5, if someone knew what impressions should or could look like -- what's to stop them from making several fake feet to give the impression of "living flexible toes". The very fact that someone knows what that should look like allows for the possibility that it can be faked.

 

8) That's awfully specific knowledge about what a supposed Bigfoot was doing. I suspect that there are many other possible interpretations about what this could be. Or faked again.

 

The problem is that there are enough people out there just to make fakes because they think it will be funny. Look how long the people making crop circles kept it up before they came clean.

 

The really big problem is that none of the evidence is very conclusive at all. And in all likelihood nothing is going to be very conclusive until one is actually caught. Science doesn't just go on hunches and what someone really want to believe in. There has to be conclusive evidence. Without conclusive evidence, the most logical choice is that Bigfoot doesn't exist. Is there a chance Bigfoot does exist? Sure, but without conclusive evidence, the most logical conclusion is that there is no such thing as Bigfoot.

[wvbig]

I know the video alone isn't proof & nobody is saying it is. Just that it's evidence. As I stated before, the video has undergone intense scientific scrutinization & hasn't yet been debunked. To me, the video itself isn't as interesting as the other evidence surrounding it.

 

1)14.5" footprints deeper than those made by the horses being ridden by Roger Patterson & Bob Gimlin

2)People went back to the location within a couple days & two scientific estimates were made for the height of the subject based on a piece of wood in the film that could be measured. One estimate was 7'3" & the other was 7'3.25"

 

One of the best things the film has going for it in my opinion is it's age. It was shot on 10/20/67. When special effects videography & makeup/costuming were both rather primative

 

1) There have also been reports of faeries, leprechauns, dragons, trolls, goblins, griffins, yeti, succubus, elves, etc. etc. Simple "reports" aren't evidence. Mistakes happen. Overactive imaginations happen. Things that are common objects seen under different lighting or unfamiliar circumstances makes us think things that aren't actually there. This kind of "evidence" really isn't evidence at all.

 

2) No hair sample is perfect. No test is perfect. Hair analysis can make mistakes. And if the sample is corrupted or imperfect in any way, the test method may not come up with results. No database is complete, either. They could be samples from a family of animals that have had a small genetic mutation and their hair grows differently than typical members of their species. There are many possibilities, rather than just assuming Bigfoot exits.

 

3) I think that scat identification is even harder than hair identification, so everything I said in 2) above holds for scat, too.

 

4) OK, nothing else has dermal ridges? Or they can't be faked?

 

5) There are many, many different interpretations of this film. First and foremost is it only a scant few frames and exceptionally grainy. If the costume was any good at all, the resolution of the film is not going to pick up a tiny zipper or snap. And, I guarantee that a person could be trained to mimic the movements of a creature that size. Have you seen the wide variety of unnatural things people can be trained to do? Did you watch any of the Olympics? If someone had the dedication and the knowledge of what a large creature should look like, it can be mimicked.

 

6) Voice identification may be even harder than scat and hair. There are many, many sounds that known creatures make that aren't perfectly cataloged. And, of course, each animal individual will have its own voice and noises. I mean, just as an example, we are still discovering the exact hows and why cats purr. I guarantee that there are many, many woodland creatures that make noises that have never been recorded yet.

 

7) Kind of like 5, if someone knew what impressions should or could look like -- what's to stop them from making several fake feet to give the impression of "living flexible toes". The very fact that someone knows what that should look like allows for the possibility that it can be faked.

 

8) That's awfully specific knowledge about what a supposed Bigfoot was doing. I suspect that there are many other possible interpretations about what this could be. Or faked again.

 

The problem is that there are enough people out there just to make fakes because they think it will be funny. Look how long the people making crop circles kept it up before they came clean.

 

The really big problem is that none of the evidence is very conclusive at all. And in all likelihood nothing is going to be very conclusive until one is actually caught. Science doesn't just go on hunches and what someone really want to believe in. There has to be conclusive evidence. Without conclusive evidence, the most logical choice is that Bigfoot doesn't exist. Is there a chance Bigfoot does exist? Sure, but without conclusive evidence, the most logical conclusion is that there is no such thing as Bigfoot.

Sure they could be faked. But several scientists have examined these various things extensively & don't believe they are faked. Plus another problem with the hoax theory, particularly when the hoaxer is able to pull one over on thousands of people, they have a really hard time not bragging about their accomplishment.

Edited September 7, 2008 by wvbig
I forgot something

[iNow]

I think far fewer people believe in this than you might assume, hence the hoax really hasn't been all that successful. That is true whether the hoaxers brag about their actions or not.

 

Also, since the video has been debunked and is (by no means) clear, calling it evidence is rather questionable.

 

I eagerly await the evidence in your next response, and hope it will not simply be another post such as, "Yeah, but...!!"

[Bignose]

Plus another problem with the hoax theory, particularly when the hoaxer is able to pull one over on thousands of people, they have a really hard time not bragging about their accomplishment.

 

This is hardly conclusive enough in any way, shape, or form to rationally and logically fall on the side of "Bigfoot exists". Many pranksters have taken their jokes to the grave.

 

The evidence for existence is exceptionally shaky, at its very best. The logical conclusion is nonexistence. Believe whatever you personally choose to believe in, but science demands much, much clearer conclusive evidence.

[wvbig]

The video has never been debunked. You've probably been mislead by a poorly researched article done on Ray Wallace shortly after his death. During the interview with the Wallace family, the reporter was told about or possi9bly even shown, a film Mr. Wallace made with his wife wearing a Gorilla suit. This was not the Patterson/Gimlin film. But the reporter didn't do his homework & just assumed it was. Ray Wallace's son has been quoted in at least two articles as saying his dad told him he had nothing whatsoever to do with the Patterson/Gimlin film. Or possibly you fell for Bob Heronimous' claim of being in "the suit" in the Patterson/Gimlin film. There are two major problems with his claim:

1)He has told two different versions of the events of that day. In the first version, he said he never told anyone about it until a few years ago & in the second version, he said he stopped off in the local bar that evening & showed the costume to all the other patrons of the bar.

2)He doesn't even know where the film location is.

 

Bignose said: "Many pranksters have taken their jokes to the grave"

And how may I ask, do you conclusively prove such a claim as this?

Edited September 8, 2008 by wvbig
Mistakenly used an upper case letter

[iNow]

...

Edited September 8, 2008 by iNow
too harsh

[Bignose]

Bignose said: "Many pranksters have taken their jokes to the grave"

And how may I ask, do you conclusively prove such a claim as this?

 

You find out what they wrote or told a few confidants later. The point is that not everyone brags about the con job they've pulled on people. Sure, many do, but hardly means that everyone does.

 

One of the best examples I think is L. Ron Hubbard. He was on record saying "The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion." (See proof of this http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/scientology/start.a.religion.html ) Then he started Scientology. After starting Scientology, he never said he did it just to make money, but in light of his previous comments, it sure is suspicious. If Scientiology was a con job, he never admitted it as such.

 

Obviously, nothing will be 100% conclusive about this.

 

All I can personally cite is myself, and say that I have pulled several practical jokes on friends and coworkers that I will never, ever tell anybody that I did. Is that the same level as putting Bigfoot tracks down? No, but I'm just saying that it is certainly not impossible for someone to pull an elaborate stunt, and never acknowledge their involvement.

 

Which is the harder to believe: That a person can pull a joke/hoax and never tell anybody about it? Or that there is a creature that there has never left any kind of clear evidence of its existence?

 

And, there are rebuttals to the Patterson/Gimlin film:

Here's just one I found in about 2 seconds of Googling.

http://www.bigfootmustdie.com/patterson-bigfoot-film-fake.html

(This critique is actually even written by person who claims to be a Bigfoot believer!)

 

The point isn't so much that the film itself hasn't ever been "completely debunked". The point is that there are many, many valid questions about the film that demand answers that probably cannot ever be answered. The film is hardly conclusive. The film, because of the many issues with it, doesn't really help support a pro-Bigfoot-believer case.

 

You can personally believe whatever you want. But, until some much stronger evidence comes forward, don't count on the scientific community or logically, rationally minded people to fall in behind you.

[ydoaPs]

What about this video? And the dermal ridges: why are dermal ridges COMPLETELY ABSENT in the Patterson video? We've discussed all of this before; the video is clearly a fake.

[wvbig]

What about this video? And the dermal ridges: why are dermal ridges COMPLETELY ABSENT in the Patterson video? We've discussed all of this before; the video is clearly a fake.

Dermal ridges in a film? lol. Actually one of the first casts Jimmy Chilcutt found dermal ridges in was one of the 1967 Bluff Creek casts.

 

Someone asked if dermal ridges could be faked. I suppose someone could create lines on the bottom of a fake foot. But Mr Chilcutt has found a consistent unique ridge pattern. A pattern running vertically along the foot & the right thickness for something the approximate size of a Bigfoot. He also has noted a known characteristic in dermal ridges that is indicative of scarring that is not common knowledge to the average person. In his examinations of casts, he has found two casts with a completely identical dermal ridge pattern, right down to the scarring indications. One was cast in California in 1967 & the other in either Oregon or Washington in 1987. Two completely identical casts with the unique vertical dermal ridge pattern made over 200 miles & 20 years apart.

[JohnB]

That, in conjunction with the fact that biology and evolution stands slightly against this "conspiracy theory", makes the odds against this 'theory' even bigger.

Mooey, could you expand on this please? I wasn't aware that the idea of multiple hominid lines was against evolutionary theory.

[insane_alien]

Mooey, could you expand on this please? I wasn't aware that the idea of multiple hominid lines was against evolutionary theory.

 

well, that isn't but the fact that bigfoot's species is so rare that it means they'd be so inbred they would be little more than drooling vegetables.

 

evolution does not favour small populations very well at all.

[wvbig]

I'd like to make something clear. We are not saying that any of the evidence we have gathered is proof of the existence of Bigfoot. We are merely saying that it is evidence that warrants further investigation. As far as the eye witness reports themselves are concerned, we only use them as a starting point to determine the best areas for further research in the same way homicide detectives first question those people closest to the victim.

 

well, that isn't but the fact that bigfoot's species is so rare that it means they'd be so inbred they would be little more than drooling vegetables.

 

evolution does not favour small populations very well at all.

What do you consider a small population? Various Bigfoot population estimates run from 2,000-10,000

[insane_alien]

and what is your reference on that? is anything more than 'holy crap this number just fell out of my ass, might as well use it'

[wvbig]

The estimates are based on the plotting of sighting reports & eliminating multiple sighting/evidence reports that most likely were from one creature. I personally feel, based on my estimation of the population in my state, that the overall population is in the 4,000-6,000 range.

[insane_alien]

so how did you come to this estimation? show us the method.