Yeti/Sasquatch/Bigfoot/Apeman

[Kid Miracleman]

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

[socratic]

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.

[Styygens]

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

Awww... That stinks!

:needpics:

[Alucard619]

Saw Bigfoot once in Central Park. He lived underneath a bridge and scared away the small children before stealing their lunches. A bit more serious:

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?

I never said it was conclusive. Obviously for the scientific community as a whole, nothing short of a body, or some other type of tangible physical proof would convince them. I did however say it is merely strong evidence in favor of their existence. The fact that people have attempted to debunk it and come up empty at least counts for something.

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.

Again you mistake it being strong evidence with it being conclusive. For the scientists that have examined it and formed their conclusions it is but merely strong evidence in favor of Sasquatch. If a body is discovered one day, then most definitely it will mark a tremendous occasion for biological science.

It's like that. Bigfoot research is like the ninjutsu/chunner/yellow bamboo of science.

Hardly. It's not merely just a bunch of old pals that get together in the woods, drink beer, cook steaks and tell tales of the terrifying wild man of the hills. These are real people, mostly scientists that use good scientific methods and apply it to investigating the Bigfoot/Sasquatch phenomenon. Might I suggest the program "Sasquatch:Legend Meets Science?" Before you scoff if you are curious I seriously recommend a look into it.

Also, I admit. I am biased. My strong belief in the existence of Bigfoot is due to my research into and my own personal experiences. However that doesn't mean everything. EVERYONE has their biases that doesn't invalidate their efforts.

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?

Where did I say anything about loud noises? The story behind the film is that both were searching the area after hearing reports of activity when they saw the animal drinking from a stream. As it stood and walked that's when their horses flipped out and Robert Patterson grabbed his camera. What type of reaction do you expect it to have? Scream and howl then charge both men and tear them apart?

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?

Answered this about the lack of corpses. Also, if you know what to look for there is SOME indication of their existence on the environment. But people that ask this wrongly assume Sasquatches would impact their habitat the same fashion as other ape species. Not the case at all. For starters they are believed to be nomadic, maintaining low population densities and small family units of no more then 4 members. As such it would be incredibly difficult to track them let alone monitor a change on the habitat. I'll go more into this in a bit.

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.

Sasquatch if they exist would likely be the largest species in our forests. You really think they'd have much to fear from the occasional black or brown bear? And what exactly would indicate that abear lost an encounter with a Sasquatch?

[Conde Koma]

Here's a couple of scientists who, without proving that the video is FAKE, have substantial evidence that calls into question it's AUTHENTICITY. Not sure if this is part of your research material already, or if you plan on dismissing it.

http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/papers/screen.html
"David Daegling is associate professor of anthropology at Yale University. Daniel Schmitt is assistant professor in the Department of Biological Anthropology and Anatomy and heads the Vertebrate Movement Laborotory at Duke University Medical Center"

The point is, all of the evidence for Bigfoot is not only few in number, but incredibly shaky. You would have an unbelievably easy time, by comparison, finding and providing solid, conclusive evidence for any other large animal on the planet. Silverback gorillas are also difficult to track down, as are mountain lions, tigers, and bears (oh my!). And yet, we find stool samples, consistent tracks, carcasses, and plenty of other traces. What makes Bigfoot so different that we can't find anything?

And as for the bit about scientists; remember that a lot of these guys have staked their careers on this, and yet are still not taken very seriously in the scientific community. There's still people out there who teach Yellow Bamboo and all that crap too, people who have spent years of time, money, and study into it. Having the title of "teacher," "scientist," or whatever doesn't really matter; what matters is the proof you can turn up for your claims.

[Archetype]

You guys want evidence? Just shoot the damn thing and drag its carcass to a scientist so he/she can declare it to be real! It's been centuries, how is it that nobody has killed one yet?

[socratic]

The point is, all of the evidence for Bigfoot is not only few in number, but incredibly shaky. You would have an unbelievably easy time, by comparison, finding and providing solid, conclusive evidence for any other large animal on the planet. Silverback gorillas are also difficult to track down, as are mountain lions, tigers, and bears (oh my!). And yet, we find stool samples, consistent tracks, carcasses, and plenty of other traces. What makes Bigfoot so different that we can't find anything?

This is what's most important. Read this carefully, Alucard. Even if there were very few in number, eventually one, or indications of one existing, are found.

People have been wondering if maybe the Indochinese tiger was extinct in China because no signs of one had been seen for a while now. Turns out it wasn't extinct just yet, since one was killed recently. Apparently it's probably extinct in China now. The point is even if JUST ONE is left one turns up eventually...

[Alucard619]

I took a brief look at that link. I'll respond to it later thought what I did see was interesting.

[punkguy03]

Well maybe they bury each other. They could be really smart for all we know. They are constantly finding new species of animals, or species they thought were extinct. So, the possibility of them existing could be possible. Although, I do wish they'd get some proof.

[Conde Koma]

New species are being discovered, yes, but there's a couple things to that.

1.) Usually they're REALLY REALLY small. Insects mostly, along with plenty of microorganisms. Because of our mostly industrialized world, the chances of finding new species large terrestrial fauna (especially at the scale of Bigfoot) are pretty much impossible. This brings me to the next point.
2.) It's generally in places with incredibly high biodiversity. This means rainforests and jungles, places that aren't well-traveled and known. The Amazon is full of species we haven't discovered yet, due to it being rather remote and untouched by development (although this is rapidly changing in a bad way) and its tropical climate, which leads to high biodiversity. Washington state, on the other hand, is much more explored, with low biodiversity. And yet, based on a little shaky evidence, people think it can support a population of thousands of these 8 foot tall apes?

Again, the possibilities for existence are incredibly low. Not impossible, of course, but it might as well be.

[resolve]

Which is why certain outlets like the BBC are hoping they are in remote areas of Indochina or the outlying islands or that Tibet will finally show some fruit (hey it took some guy almost 3 months of sitting on a rock in a purported "home" mountain range in afghanistan with a telescope every day to even get a short glimpse of a snow leopard and capture it on film).

I think any populations that exist or existed in North America have either found the one spot where humans just don't go in the wilderness or they have died out recently. Kind of like how those tigers in China everyone thought were extinct until a guy shot the last one (and is now doing hard time for) rumored to exist. Very well could be that the Patterson creature was an elderly one and couldn't be arsed to bother with a bunch of humans on its deathwalk. Animal behavior is more complex than most people think and changes with age and seasons of life.

I think that they could possibly be some kind of bipedal ape that clashed with early humans throughout history and due to that are extremely wary of their neighborhood friendly "spear chuckers" as that's probably all they see us as. It's interesting to note that the few samples retrieved (the hand, the scalp, footprint casts, few other precious things) were often considered "more akin to neanderthal remains". But who really knows? I for one would just like to see some kind of massively funded expeditions like the Nessie ones undertaken by several big corps to finally either confirm or debunk its presence. The biggest problem being is apparently they have, or creatures like them, have been reported by "native populations" to exist around the world in the Americas and the Asian continent.

EDIT:

Also I think if they do exist they are probably in isolated populations of dozens or hundreds and severely endangered and probably already succumb to disease for the most part.

[Alucard619]

Washington state, on the other hand, is much more explored, with low biodiversity. And yet, based on a little shaky evidence, people think it can support a population of thousands of these 8 foot tall apes?

Funny you mention Washington. It along with Northern California and Vancouver/B.C. have what is believed to be the highest concentration of Sasquatch activity in all of North America. Residents of these areas consistently report encounters with the animals. To them the existence of these creatures is as much a fact as the existence of any other wildlife in these regions. It makes sense. The Pacific Northwest is incredibly dense and there is literally thousands of forest area that receives little to no human visitation or activity. Contrary to popular belief, human encroachment hasn't entirely destroyed our forest nor is every area explored.

Because of our mostly industrialized world, the chances of finding new species large terrestrial fauna (especially at the scale of Bigfoot) are pretty much impossible. This brings me to the next point.

Mostly industrialized? Where? In urban areas? We aren't talking about finding the occasional coyote, raccoon or possum in Central Park. Many of the forests in North America are largely unexplored and are much bigger then people give credit.

For a species to exist it needs to maintain at the least a minimal breeding population.

[Ducktoes]

The biggest problem being is apparently they have, or creatures like them, have been reported by "native populations" to exist around the world in the Americas and the Asian continent.

So have vampires and ghosts.

Though I know that you are referring to difficulties in putting together a practical expedition to find them, I thought I should mention such widespread belief doesn't add anything to bigfoot's case.

The fact of the matter is that there is at least as much evidence to support the existence of ghosts and vampires as there is the bigfoot. The only reason that bigfoot seems more plausible is that it isn't considered a "supernatural being".

[Ducktoes]

Funny you mention Washington. It along with Northern California and Vancouver/B.C. have what is believed to be the highest concentration of Sasquatch activity in all of North America. Residents of these areas consistently report encounters with the animals. To them the existence of these creatures is as much a fact as the existence of any other wildlife in these regions.

Who the hell have you been talking to?! I don't know a single person living where I do, or in the area you cited who even take the concept seriously. A more accurate statement would be...

:nobodycar

It seems from the stuff I have read that the vast majority of the scientific community disagree with you. Nearly all of the evidence has been debunked or endlessly debated, and the few bits that haven't been conclusively disproven are not enough to confirm bigfoot's existence, at least from an unbiased perspective.

Also, there are no confirmed ape species that live in temperate climates.

So, I'll believe it when they drag in a corpse and have it analysed by someone who isn't part of "Searching for Bigfoot, Inc".

[socratic]

Also I think if they do exist they are probably in isolated populations of dozens or hundreds and severely endangered and probably already succumb to disease for the most part.

1. Humanity killed and ate whatever megafauna were left after the ice ages.
2. A population that small would be entirely inbred and probably sterile (for example there is a species of Tiger of which there are only about 60 left, and all of which are so imbred the males are sterile).
3. I wonder if there's enough woods to actually support 100+ 8-foot tall apes. If there is, why haven't we noticed deforestation or signs of intense grazing?
4. Neanderthals were either a) killed and eaten b) just plain killed or c) interbred with homo sapien sapiens and ceased to exist as an independent species. There's no reason why a surviving neanderthal, even if there was one, would wander about in the forests/himalayas, rather than say, a human civilisation.

There are far more plausible explanations for the vast majority of Yeti/bigfoot/whatever sightings. Remember that in folklore it's usually described as "a hairy man" or something similar; anything bipedal will look like a human to a human. A particularly fucked up bear in the middle of a snowstorm would seriously look like a yeti, for example.