Cryptozoology

[The Tactical Strategist]

So what do you guys think about the chances of Sasquatch and his relatives, Loch Ness mosnter, Mokele Mbembe , etc

[Arete]

Negligibly above zero.

[The Tactical Strategist]

And why do you say that? Plenty of evidence supports at least some of these ANimals

[Arete]

Cool.

 

Should be easy to present then

[The Tactical Strategist]

Well, depends on which cryptid you want to know about

[Arete]

Which, in turn depends on what evidence you think you have....

[Gabriel Chase]

I would certainly like to see this

 

Plenty of evidence

 

which supports the existence of these fabled creatures.

[The Tactical Strategist]

Well, I guess I'm up for that. Shall we start with Sasquatch? This is probably the most likely creature to exist.

[ajb]

Well, I guess I'm up for that. Shall we start with Sasquatch? This is probably the most likely creature to exist.

But is there really much evidence of such an animal?

 

I wonder why in a country full of gun toting people no one has shot one yet. US citizens have no trouble shooting each other but not a sasquatch?

[The Tactical Strategist]

Well, first of all, you have to remember it's a shy, elusive, and rare creature. So you'll rarely see it anyway. Also, they are top predators, like mountain lions and bears, which you'll rarely ever see, even when dead. That explains why there are no bones. And in fact, there have been reports of Sasquatch being shot. One was shot in California a few years ago, and the government took the supposed body away. They did Dna tests and figured the creature is a hybrid between a prehistoric ape, and human

[andrewcellini]

Well, first of all, you have to remember it's a shy, elusive, and rare creature. So you'll rarely see it anyway. Also, they are top predators, like mountain lions and bears, which you'll rarely ever see, even when dead. That explains why there are no bones. And in fact, there have been reports of Sasquatch being shot. One was shot in California a few years ago, and the government took the supposed body away. They did Dna tests and figured the creature is a hybrid between a prehistoric ape, and human

citation needed.

[Arete]

They did Dna tests and figured the creature is a hybrid between a prehistoric ape, and human

 

Nope. They found it to be a mish-mash of different mammals - aka contamination. http://classic.rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1789/20140161.short

 

And there's no excuse for a complete lack of ANY physical specimens. Virtually every single extant species is characterized by a type specimen, even organism far more elusive than Sasquatch - including creatures from 10,000 meters under the ocean, Florida panthers, Snow leopards, etc.

[Phi for All]

Well, first of all, you have to remember it's a shy, elusive, and rare creature. So you'll rarely see it anyway.

Elusive and rare are descriptions you can use. Shy? How could you possibly know that?

 

Also, they are top predators, like mountain lions and bears, which you'll rarely ever see, even when dead. That explains why there are no bones.

But we do see mountain lions and bears. They require a certain population size in order to maintain the species, so this means sightings.

 

Why does it explain no bones? We find bones of top predators, like mountain lions and bears.

 

And in fact, there have been reports of Sasquatch being shot. One was shot in California a few years ago, and the government took the supposed body away. They did Dna tests and figured the creature is a hybrid between a prehistoric ape, and human

In fact? No.

 

Think about what you just said. The government took the body away, did tests, and discovered a transitional ancestor to man. Why wouldn't this be mainstream knowledge? And before you mention government coverup, why would they release data on testing after allegedly whisking the body away?

[andrewcellini]

Elusive and rare are descriptions you can use. Shy? How could you possibly know that?

bigfoot is hard to interview (from what i hear), but once you get him laughing and out his shell he's actually a pretty cool guy.

[Phi for All]

bigfoot is hard to interview (from what i hear), but once you get him laughing and out his shell he's actually a pretty cool guy.

 

... yeti's still just a myth.

[The Tactical Strategist]

@Arete: I think you may be looking at something different than me. And it hasn't been the first time we have found strange traces that point to a bigfoot.

@Phil for all: elusive and rare I think are fair terms to use. They it pretty much has to be that or else we would probably see a Sasquatch more often. Mountain lion and bear bones are very rarely found, as these animals tend to hide themselves before death. So actually you don't find them often. And they are still more common than Sasquatch by a large margin. Who knows why the government did what they did. I will admit it might not have been them, but I know it was a science organization of some sort at least.

 

Also, how can we account for so many sightings over so many centuries. Native Americans knew about it, from all around the world, and they knew the world much better than we. And there are many different sightings of Sasquatch in different forms. The most common is a tall figure with dark fur, but some have been said with different colors of fur, sizes, male and female, groups, young and old, and different places of the world. The orang pendek, yeti (three claimed species), alma, Chinese wild men, etc are other creatures that are supposed relatives.

[Moontanman]

Why no bigfoot road kill? I've seen everything from gators to bears as road kill, I found a live coral snake which is practically non existent where I live. People turn up as road kill, so intelligence isn't what is keeping them from being road kill. Cars are major predators of many rare animals, and not so rare as well, but no trucker has shown up at a truck stop with a bigfoot on his grill.

 

 

 

I have a picture that explains the human DNA in the bigfoot sample, it's barely PG but if the mods will allow it...

[Arete]

@Arete: I think you may be looking at something different than me. And it hasn't been the first time we have found strange traces that point to a bigfoot.

 

Well, the paper I cited looks at multiple "bigfoot" samples and conclusively shows that they don't point to any sort of unknown creature. All supposed bigfoot DNA samples to date have turned out to be not bigfoot - and easily identified as a well characterized extant species.

 

Also, how can we account for so many sightings...

 

A Sasquatch niche model, based on historical sighting localities, matches perfectly to the niche model of the black bear. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2009.02152.x/full

 

Mistaken identity seems like the most plausible explanation. Especially given the remarkable lack of samples, images on camera traps, footage not taken on a potato, etc.

[Phi for All]

@Phil for all: elusive and rare I think are fair terms to use.

And I agreed, although both words Beg the Question that it exists, it's hard to see and there aren't many of them. That's not a given.

 

They it pretty much has to be that or else we would probably see a Sasquatch more often.

False dilemma. There is another explanation: it doesn't exist.

 

Mountain lion and bear bones are very rarely found, as these animals tend to hide themselves before death. So actually you don't find them often. And they are still more common than Sasquatch by a large margin.

"Don't find them often" isn't the same as "never found a single one in over 200 years of searching".

 

Who knows why the government did what they did. I will admit it might not have been them, but I know it was a science organization of some sort at least.

Read the Snopes link. The whole thing was a hoax.

[Moontanman]

Lets try Mokele Mbembe, just because it would be cool if it was real and I love saying it...

[The Tactical Strategist]

Well, black bear do account for sightings, almost everyone can agree on that, but not all. Sasquatch is believed to imitate other animals, including black bear, in an attempt to stay concealed. Anyway, I'm sure native Americans could tell the difference between a bear and Sasquatch. Plus, there has been no black bear reported to make the noises made by Sasquatch, run upright for a extended period of time, etc. I honestly don't think black bear could account for everything. And what about sasquatchs sighted outside the western us. Almost every state has had sightings.

Ooooo! Moit an man, you have offered a subject I happen to love, since I really like paleontology. First off, does anyone know what the Mokele Mbembe is? I want to make sure everyone knows what the cryptid is.

Btw, I can still talk about Sasquatch too. I can double

[Arete]

Almost every state has had sightings.

 

Eyewitness testimony has been unequivocally shown to be unreliable in many cases.

http://people.howstuffworks.com/eyewitnesses-unreliable.htm

http://www.livescience.com/24598-bigfoot.html

 

The remarkable absence of other forms of evidence to corroborate these witnesses does not bode well for bigfoot. The plural of anecdote remains anecdotes, rather than evidence.

 

I'd also like to note you haven't provided a single reference to date, and I'll provide a friendly nudge to the rules of speculative posts: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

Edited February 17, 2015 by Arete

[The Tactical Strategist]

Sorry. I'm just not used to citing things. I'll try and do better, but it's one of my many flaws. So thanks for putting up with me. Anyway, I've heard both of those. Yes, eyewitness accounts may not be reliable, but you have to remember that these animals are usually on the run, and attempting to hide, which makes this more difficult then already is. And again, I'll state, that native Americans would know the difference between many animals and say there is a Sasquatch like creature out there.

[StringJunky]

 

.... The plural of anecdote remains anecdotes, rather than evidence.

QFT.

Edited February 18, 2015 by StringJunky

[Moontanman]

Well, black bear do account for sightings, almost everyone can agree on that, but not all. Sasquatch is believed to imitate other animals, including black bear, in an attempt to stay concealed. Anyway, I'm sure native Americans could tell the difference between a bear and Sasquatch. Plus, there has been no black bear reported to make the noises made by Sasquatch, run upright for a extended period of time, etc. I honestly don't think black bear could account for everything. And what about sasquatchs sighted outside the western us. Almost every state has had sightings.

Ooooo! Moit an man, you have offered a subject I happen to love, since I really like paleontology. First off, does anyone know what the Mokele Mbembe is? I want to make sure everyone knows what the cryptid is.

 

 

Black bears are not limited to the western US, I live on the east coast and i've seen them scavenging the beach.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mokele-mbembe

 

I am one of those "people" who think there might be something to UFOs so i can't really ridicule you but UFOs run up against the same problem as bigfoot, where is the evidence? Seeing something unusual is not evidence of something unusual, our brain plays tricks on us and we often see what our brain perceives as a pattern when the pattern is really not there.

 

The best thing bigfoot has going for it is footprints, if I saw one in the woods while hunting, as many hunters have claimed, I would shoot it, not come back with some story about it was too human to shoot.

 

The technology exists to track large animals from the air with infrared cameras yet no bigfoot has been seen. I have seen some trail cam pic that were suggestive of either a strange animal or a hoax. At some point you have to have to figure which is more likely. I don't know what it could be but a bigfoot is not a reasonable argument.

 

With the number of people of people actively hunting for a bigfoot I would expect much better evidence by now than a few scattered foot prints and the number of confirmed hoaxes puts those foot prints into question.

 

The idea of no bigfoot corpses or bones or hair really is telling, all extant large animals do leave behind traces when they die, the traces might be uncommon but they are found, if there are enough bigfoot to maintain a population eventually a dead one would turn up.

 

I am not willing to say there are no bigfoot roaming the wilds but if i had to bet I would bet against them existing...