Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Yeti/Sasquatch/Bigfoot/Apeman

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Styygens
    replied
    Originally posted by Kid Miracleman View Post
    Frankly, I'm more concerned about that damned Skunk Ape... hairy bastard owes me five bucks.
    Awww... That stinks!

    :needpics:

    Leave a comment:


  • socratic
    replied
    Originally posted by Kid Miracleman View Post
    Frankly, I'm more concerned about that damned Skunk Ape... hairy bastard owes me five bucks.
    Frankly if you go wandering around in the woods in North America looking for Bigfoot I'd be more worried about disturbing and Mi-Go mining operation and waking up with your brain in a jar.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kid Miracleman
    replied
    Frankly, I'm more concerned about that damned Skunk Ape... hairy bastard owes me five bucks.

    Leave a comment:


  • socratic
    replied
    I begin to doubt if North America could even support ape life, particularly a species of that size, particularly in a territory known for very large and capable apex predators (bears, the no. 1 threat to America). South America can, but much of North America lacks the rainforest territory and tropical climate ape life tends to inhabit.

    Another problem with the Bigfoot thing is that there is absolutely no evidence for its existence beyond sightings and supposed footprints. Where is the dung? The nests? (again) the corpses? Why is there such a limited number of them? Why isn't their indications of their habitation beyond footprints? Even bears and other animals leave accidental indications they live in the area; damage to plantlife, dung, signs of feeding or tools, etc. At least there's the occasional indication for say, giant squids (ie: dead whales with sucker wounds), but we're yet to see a bear who lost a fight with a Bigfoot (or vice versa). None of these indications exists for bigfoot/yeti/sasquatch/whatever.

    Bipedal apes either culminated in humanity or died out. Why would a species biologically unsuited for survival continue without significant development since the Gigantopithicus?

    Leave a comment:


  • Conde Koma
    replied
    You may think that "NO SCIENTIST HAS EVER PROVEN THE PATTERSON FOOTAGE WRONG," but I think you're mistaken, misled by your own beliefs and biases. If this was the case, why are people still debating whether or not this is even real?

    Now I'll admit that I'm not a trained professional or scientist, so I suppose it's expected that I wouldn't see anything of merit in the film to say if it's real or not. What I do know is that if "real" scientists saw the footage and no one could say that it was fake, then we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. People would be doing expeditions, writing papers in journals, doing legitimate research, and all the other wheels of Science (tm) would be turning. And yet, here we are, with Bigfoot research nothing more than pseudoscience.

    You know that group of people, who have a lot of theories and ideas, but absolutely no evidence or real experience to support them? Those people that are so sure about what they believe in that they pour years and years of time, money, and energy into it, only to end up without anything real to show for it? It's like that. Bigfoot research is like the ninjutsu/chunner/yellow bamboo of science.

    Leave a comment:


  • socratic
    replied
    Originally posted by Alucard619 View Post
    That proves nothing. If an animal does not feel intimidated or threatened there won't be much of an aggressive response. Even predatory animals won't react violently sometimes to approaching humans. It did in fact respond, by turning and looking back at the men. If anything the one reaction by animals were the horses of both men who reared back in fear and surprise at the sight of the creature retreating. If you have any knowledge of reported Sasquatch encounters you will find there is little to no aggression towards humans. The most you get is intimidation behavior in the form of wood knocking, screaming and howling, stomping and pacing and tree shaking. All behavior to elicit one response: For the said person to flee.
    Even domestic animals freak out at loud noises. Are you honestly telling me that a wild animal would, when two men on horseback ride towards it, would only glance nonchalantly over its shoulder, then keep sauntering?

    Leave a comment:


  • Alucard619
    replied
    Originally posted by socratic View Post
    The problem with the Patterson video is that a wild animal would respond to horseback men approaching it with cameras, which the so-called bigfoot does not.
    That proves nothing. If an animal does not feel intimidated or threatened there won't be much of an aggressive response. Even predatory animals won't react violently sometimes to approaching humans. It did in fact respond, by turning and looking back at the men. If anything the one reaction by animals were the horses of both men who reared back in fear and surprise at the sight of the creature retreating. If you have any knowledge of reported Sasquatch encounters you will find there is little to no aggression towards humans. The most you get is intimidation behavior in the form of wood knocking, screaming and howling, stomping and pacing and tree shaking. All behavior to elicit one response: For the said person to flee.

    Leave a comment:


  • socratic
    replied
    I've even seen the edited Patterson video where the camera is still instead of shaking, and I didn't see any of the so-called musculature in the grainy-as-shit footage.

    Leave a comment:


  • socratic
    replied
    The problem with the Patterson video is that a wild animal would respond to horseback men approaching it with cameras, which the so-called bigfoot does not.

    Leave a comment:


  • Alucard619
    replied
    Originally posted by Conde Koma
    If wikipedia is out as a source, then so is "The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization." Looking at the bodycast research, there is still absolutely NO EVIDENCE of anything in particular. The same goes for the incredibly poor footage from the Patterson-Gimlin film. It has NOT been analyzed to the same conclusion, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation right now and people would be out to save the endangered Bigfoot species. Your evidence is shaky at best.
    Not comparable. Wikipedia is a source anyone and everyone can edit and change. This website has references to highly qualified experts and scientists. Jeff Meldrum for example is an anthropologist and is an expert on primate anatomy and locomotion and is very well recognized and respected. No one has debunked the Patterson footage. No one has shown it to be a fake. All attempts fail. People trying to debunk it can't even imitate the way the animal walks. Every expert that has ever examined the footage in clarity make several notes about the creature:

    -Based on measurements it is believed to be over 7 feet tall.
    -The creatures arm lengths is much longer then those of a human.
    -It's gait cannot be imitated. There have been several attempts (some in recent years) to imitate how the animal walks. This is done under the assumption that if a man can mimic how the animal moves then surely any other part of the video can be faked or imitated. No such conclusion has ever been reached. Every attempt has failed. To this date no person can successful imitate how the Patterson creature walks.
    -Muscular movement can be seen underneath the creatures skin indicating a biological organism and not a man in a costume.
    -The appearance of breasts, indicating the animal is a female.

    These are but a few of the conclusions drawn. Again no scientist has ever debunked the Patterson footage. There have been several attempts including some hoaxes that Robert Patterson confessed the film is a fake but such stories are just that, stories which have been debunked. The Skookum body cast is especially important because DNA was collected from a hair sample matching no animal species in the region, saliva and fecal samples. Primate anatomists have extensively examined the body cast concluding the impression left was not by a bear, an elk, a cougar or any other known animal species.

    Also there are the footprints (which Dr. Meldrum has probably one of the most extensive collection and references of Bigfoot castings and footprints). He has examined many thoroughly to the point he can tell if a casting is a hoax or if it appears to be genuine. Look into his credentials.

    Leave a comment:


  • Conde Koma
    replied
    If wikipedia is out as a source, then so is "The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization." Looking at the bodycast research, there is still absolutely NO EVIDENCE of anything in particular. The same goes for the incredibly poor footage from the Patterson-Gimlin film. It has NOT been analyzed to the same conclusion, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation right now and people would be out to save the endangered Bigfoot species. Your evidence is shaky at best.

    because no bones have been unearthed suggesting that they migrated in the same manner as humans proves nothing. Numerous animals species traveled between the continents in ancient times and likely have left either little or no fossilized evidence.
    You're right, it doesn't absolutely prove that they DID NOT cross over, but it's also not evidence that they DID cross over. I would say, looking at pool of evidence we have, there's a much stronger case AGAINST them crossing over. Then again, I can also say that I'm not a human being at all, but a genetically advanced shape-shifting alien living among you. There's no evidence that I am actually one, but there's no evidence that I'm NOT.

    Do you see the bogus logic in this?

    Leave a comment:


  • Alucard619
    replied
    Dude, as a rule of thumb. Never reference Wikipedia as a source. That aside the amount of fossils of Giganto found is very small, it is possible that their home range spanned even further then South Asia. Likewise, because no bones have been unearthed suggesting that they migrated in the same manner as humans proves nothing. Numerous animals species traveled between the continents in ancient times and likely have left either little or no fossilized evidence. Because fossilization is so rare to argue otherwise is a baseless claim because even the fossils of well known primates like Gorillas and Chimpanzees are exceedingly rare. Moving on, people DO search for evidence. There are a number of scientific organizations that travel the country in search of signs of reported Sasquatch activity. Do a search. You might be surprised by what you find. Lastly the strongest evidence in favor of the existence of Sasquatch I believe lies in two things:

    1) The infamous Patterson-Gimlin video- This video shows what seems to be a large, female Sasquatch retreating into the cover of forests. The video has been examined by everyone ranging from video analysts, forensic scientists, biologists, anthropologists, even down to police officers. All reach the same conclusion: It is not a man in a ape costume, it is not a fake footage and the creature in the film appears to be a living biological animal. There have been numerous attempts to discredit and prove it a hoax (even one laughable attempt by the BBC to re-create the costume). All have proven unsuccessful and there is not one thing that has ever disproven it. None. Nothing.

    2) The Skookum body cast- This body cast was formed in the Skookum Meadows area of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. A scientific team was investigating reports of activity within the area (Washington state is widely believed to have the richest and most abundant Sasquatch activity in all of the United States) when this partial body castw as formed in the mud. The team included several wildlife biologists and scientists and after examining the cast their conclusion was that the imprint was not attributable to any recognized animal species. The imprint was most likely made by a living sasquatch. Primate Anatomist Dr. Jeff Meldrum of Idaho State University (shown below) directed the final cleaning of the cast. The remaining mud was removed in a careful, painstaking manner. Hairs of various animals, including one unidentified primate, were extracted from this final layer of mud. For a more detailed and thorough examination including a layout of the bait set out to lure the animal, how it made the impression and the report of the entire investigation see this site:

    http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/BODYCAST/

    I could give other samples of evidence but these are my favorite and strongest to work with.

    Leave a comment:


  • Conde Koma
    replied
    A really quick check on Wikipedia shows that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus remains have only been found in South and Southeast Asia, nowhere near the land bridge that early humans used to migrate to North America. This suggests that even if a giant ape did migrate over, it would be vastly different from one adapted to the climates of India, Vietnam, and South China. Furthermore, there's absolutely no evidence to any sort of ape making the migration, much less appearing in North America at all. Fossilization is a rare occurrence, sure, but when there's no evidence to support such a claim, it doesn't really matter. By your logic, I could assert that magical pixies live around every corner, but we just haven't found any traces of them.

    As for finding the remains, the people who most want to find the remains should be the ones looking for them, since the onus of proof is on them. People have spent thousands of dollars on sophisticated equipment looking for Nessie in the Loch Ness, why not do it for Bigfoot? Would it have anything to do with the complete fruitlessness of such a search?

    I'll give you the point about hunters not being the "Shoot first, ask later" mentality, as I wasn't really asserting that as a serious argument. Still, considering the kind of scientific breakthrough, reward money, fame, etc. one would receive for bringing in the corpse of a "mythical" creature, I would think that at least one hunter would be willing to shoot it if he found it.
    Last edited by Conde Koma; 2/07/2010 12:40am, . Reason: clarification

    Leave a comment:


  • Alucard619
    replied
    Originally posted by Conde Koma View Post
    Apes have no relatives in North America, where exactly would ape-relatives come from? Even if we've never found living ones, where are all the remains of dead ones? You would think at least one or two would be hit by cars, shot by hunters, died of natural causes, or something over the last hundred or so years.

    I can't believe people actually buy into this stuff, it's no better than mystic chi believers.
    The theory is that Bigfoot/Sasquatch are surviving remnants of the extinct ape Gigantopithecus. It is believed that Gigantos migrated from Asia to the America via land bridge thousands of years ago. A short answer to the question "Why haven't we found a dead one?" is because no one is looking for a body. Likewise the objection of why haven't any bones been found is incredibly weak. Fossilization is extremely rare and occurs only under very specific and certain conditions. The fossilized evidence of Gigantopithecus is so small it could fit in a small suitcase.

    Also, the bodies of dead animals almost always become reabsorbed into the biomass if they are not destroyed by weather or consumed by scavengers. People wrongly assume the woods and forests are full of dead animals and skeletal remains. An animal carcass in a dense forest will be reabsorbed relatively quickly through weathering, decay and scavenging by other animals and insects. The odds are very very poor that bones of a rare, elusive, forest dwelling species will be found in some recognizable form by a hiker cruising along a trail.

    Ironically, the most vocal skeptics and scientists who rhetorically ask why no bones have been located and identified on this continent are the last people who would ever make an effort to look for them. And about being hit by cars, there are actually reports of people ramming their cars into a reported Bigfoot. Lastly, many people like yourself bring up the issues of hunters. They assume the woods and forests are full of hunters who would be more then happy to shoot one of these animals. This is an incorrect assumption. Hunters aren't out looking for these creatures. If you know anything about hunters or hunting patterns in regard to wild animals you would know this isn't a valid objection.

    First, hunters that report encountering a Bigfoot state their immediate reaction isn't one of "Shoot to kill" but of panic, confusion, curiosity and even intense fear and terror. They say that the animal at first appears like a very tall man and so they don't want to risk shooting a human being by mistake. As such once they finally have the nerve to reach for their weapon the animal either flees or merely watches in curiosity and then leaves. Next, most hunters focus their efforts and carry the proper equipment for only one type of animal on a given day. A hunter's choice of game animals is always restricted by law to particular animals at particular times of year. Unless you head out into public hunting areas in October or November you'll probably never come across a hunter. If you stay away from maintained trails in national and state parks you probably won't see anybody at all. In almost every state and province from coast to coast there are thousands and thousands of acres of forest, some more remote than others, that never see any human traffic at any time of year. To say "the woods are full of hunters" is to confess one's inexperience with North American forests.

    In most states a hunter can be arrested and prosecuted for poaching merely for being equipped to hunt animals not specifically permitted in that season. They can't always carry the largest caliber rifles with them. A hunter will pass on shooting a large dangerous looking animal if the hunter feels inadequately armed. Those few who hunt bear or mountain lion want to feel safe themselves, and adequately armed when shooting an animal that could turn and attack. Also take into consideration the behavior of Bigfoot/Sasquatch. Being apes they are likely very intelligent. If they exist then they've adapted to remaining elusive for many years. Encounters of Bigfoots don't last very long as the animals almost always retreats into the cover of forest or the person runs in sheer terror. Likewise it is believed they are largely nocturnal, a time when humans are least active. Anyone who actually carries a high caliber rifle while looking for a bigfoot gradually realizes how unlawful it is to merely carry a rifle in most forests during most seasons of the year. Even patrolling back country roads with a rifle in a vehicle can lead to some stiff fines and/or jail time.

    Bottom line is that the notion of brave and bold faced hunters who would be more then willing to shoot or kill a Sasquatch doesn't hold up to reality or facts.

    Leave a comment:


  • Conde Koma
    replied
    Apes have no relatives in North America, where exactly would ape-relatives come from? Even if we've never found living ones, where are all the remains of dead ones? You would think at least one or two would be hit by cars, shot by hunters, died of natural causes, or something over the last hundred or so years.

    I can't believe people actually buy into this stuff, it's no better than mystic chi believers.

    Leave a comment:

Collapse

Edit this module to specify a template to display.

Working...
X