Yeti/Sasquatch/Bigfoot/Apeman

[Kid Miracleman]

I don't know about you guys, but I think "Megafauna" would make a great name for an all-female heavy metal band.

[socratic]

I don't know about you guys, but I think "Megafauna" would make a great name for an all-female heavy metal band.

Only if they do Motorhead covers.

[Sushi-Boy]

If Sasquatch has BIG feet does that mean he has a big dick?

[Alucard619]

^LOL. Wouldn't that give the appearance the said band would be eh...dykish?

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...

Because you account for an entire state right?

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.

Well, I never argued otherwise. Granted a handful of scientists seriously give it thought this however doesn't mean anything substantial has never been found.

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".

Already done here:

http://www.wpromote.com/blog/wp-cont.../bigfoot-2.jpg

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?

Yes! I was hoping someone would bring up this argument. First off if you know what to look for then you CAN find subtle signs of their existence in the areas they feed in. Those signs may be "observable," but they are only noticeable if you know what you are looking for. When skeptical scientists talk about an "observable effect on the environment," they mean destructive effects that are so pronounced and dramatic that anyone would immediately notice the aftermath of foraging bigfoots. people that raise this objection do so under the mindset that if Sasquatch exist their impact on the ecosystem would be a) easily recognized and b) comparable to other ape species. This is hardly the case.

The following is a passage from a scientific text which addresses the Giganto-Bigfoot Theory. It mentions the "observable effect" argument as it typically presented -- with no substantiation:

• Some suggest that [gigantos] did not in fact become extinct, and continue to exist as the Sasquatch and the Yeti. [Gigantos] could have crossed the Bering Land Bridge, the same way humans are thought to have entered the New World (Geoffrey Bourne, 1975, cited in Ciochon et al., 1990). So far, though there have been many alleged sightings, no physical evidence has been recovered. One is led to suspect that the question of Sasquatch (and related entities) is more for comparative mythology, cultural anthropology, or psychology, since an actual creature the size of [giganto] existing in numbers sufficient to qualify as a breeding population would not only leave physical remains, but would have an observable effect on their environment.
  
  (From the Teeth of the Dragon - Gigantopithecus blacki by Eric Pettifor)

This is based off the behavior of other apes. Gorillas and Chimpanzees for example will leave varying signs of their existence through their environment. However to compare a Sasquatch to it wrongly assumes that:

• Surviving gigantos would live in sizeable troupes like African mountain gorillas.
• Troupes of gigantos would stick to the same mountain sides for generations, like African mountain gorillas.
• Gigantos would be basically strict herbivores like African mountain gorillas.
• African plants and trees are like North American plants and trees.
• Gigantos would forage in North American coniferous forests the same way mountain gorillas forage in tropical African forests.

Stepping away from the presumption this argument is incorrect or at the least flawed let's consider this. Some theorize that Bigfoot/Sasquatch number within the range of 2000-6000 across all of North America. With a minimal breeding population of a little over 300 then there are exponentially more deer and elk sharing the same environment. Deer and elk, therefore, have an exponentially greater effect on the natural environment than bigfoots.

North American forests have the type of foliage that is mainly the soft tips of mature plants and trees, wild fruits and berries - things that are not very noticeable when they are gone. Animals feeding off these don't leave a noticeable effect in the same manner as gorilla troops do when they forage. Bigfoots apparently target the same choice parts of plants and trees as deer. Calorie for calorie it's the most efficient use of their foraging energy in North American forests -- forests that don't have bamboo groves, or the fleshy tropical broad-leafed trees and plants that mountain gorillas tend to tear apart. Reports and other evidence suggest they are predatory also, and seem to become more predatory in the winter months when the forage options are reduced. Their apparent omnivorous diet indicates they have more then an abundant food supply in North American forests, more than enough for a breeding population, without having to tear apart trees or cause any other "observable effect on the environment." Bigfoots do break branches and saplings occasionally, seemingly to mark trails, but that is nothing like the forest demolition performed by troupes of mountain gorillas in Africa.

There are far more plausible explanations for the vast majority of Yeti/bigfoot/whatever sightings.

Please share some.

[Conde Koma]

http://www.wpromote.com/blog/wp-cont.../bigfoot-2.jpg

Um, what exactly is this a picture of? Where did it come from? Who did the autopsy? Or is this a joke?

Yes! I was hoping someone would bring up this argument. First off if you know what to look for then you CAN find subtle signs of their existence in the areas they feed in. Those signs may be "observable," but they are only noticeable if you know what you are looking for. When skeptical scientists talk about an "observable effect on the environment," they mean destructive effects that are so pronounced and dramatic that anyone would immediately notice the aftermath of foraging bigfoots. people that raise this objection do so under the mindset that if Sasquatch exist their impact on the ecosystem would be a) easily recognized and b) comparable to other ape species. This is hardly the case.

The following is a passage from a scientific text which addresses the Giganto-Bigfoot Theory. It mentions the "observable effect" argument as it typically presented -- with no substantiation:

• Some suggest that [gigantos] did not in fact become extinct, and continue to exist as the Sasquatch and the Yeti. [Gigantos] could have crossed the Bering Land Bridge, the same way humans are thought to have entered the New World (Geoffrey Bourne, 1975, cited in Ciochon et al., 1990). So far, though there have been many alleged sightings, no physical evidence has been recovered. One is led to suspect that the question of Sasquatch (and related entities) is more for comparative mythology, cultural anthropology, or psychology, since an actual creature the size of [giganto] existing in numbers sufficient to qualify as a breeding population would not only leave physical remains, but would have an observable effect on their environment.
  
  (From the Teeth of the Dragon - Gigantopithecus blacki by Eric Pettifor)

This is based off the behavior of other apes. Gorillas and Chimpanzees for example will leave varying signs of their existence through their environment. However to compare a Sasquatch to it wrongly assumes that:

• Surviving gigantos would live in sizeable troupes like African mountain gorillas.
• Troupes of gigantos would stick to the same mountain sides for generations, like African mountain gorillas.
• Gigantos would be basically strict herbivores like African mountain gorillas.
• African plants and trees are like North American plants and trees.
• Gigantos would forage in North American coniferous forests the same way mountain gorillas forage in tropical African forests.

Stepping away from the presumption this argument is incorrect or at the least flawed let's consider this. Some theorize that Bigfoot/Sasquatch number within the range of 2000-6000 across all of North America. With a minimal breeding population of a little over 300 then there are exponentially more deer and elk sharing the same environment. Deer and elk, therefore, have an exponentially greater effect on the natural environment than bigfoots.

There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that Bigfoot differs this much from any other ape species on the planet. You're tailoring your monster to fit the existing circumstances. Why SHOULDN'T Bigfoot behave like other apes? If it doesn't, what animal behavior are you comparing it to? Or does the Bigfoot community just make it up as they go along? Pretty soon the argument will be "Well, obviously the reason we haven't found any Bigfoot in the wild is because they have integrated into human society!"

North American forests have the type of foliage that is mainly the soft tips of mature plants and trees, wild fruits and berries - things that are not very noticeable when they are gone. Animals feeding off these don't leave a noticeable effect in the same manner as gorilla troops do when they forage. Bigfoots apparently target the same choice parts of plants and trees as deer. Calorie for calorie it's the most efficient use of their foraging energy in North American forests -- forests that don't have bamboo groves, or the fleshy tropical broad-leafed trees and plants that mountain gorillas tend to tear apart. Reports and other evidence suggest they are predatory also, and seem to become more predatory in the winter months when the forage options are reduced. Their apparent omnivorous diet indicates they have more then an abundant food supply in North American forests, more than enough for a breeding population, without having to tear apart trees or cause any other "observable effect on the environment." Bigfoots do break branches and saplings occasionally, seemingly to mark trails, but that is nothing like the forest demolition performed by troupes of mountain gorillas in Africa.

Again, you're changing the monster to fit the evidence. A deer's diet is best for DEER, not APES. Don't go around assuming there's one magic diet for all species, otherwise we'd be eating it too. There's more to it than just calories. How much animal physiology do you know? Hell, I'd accept studies that you've read (read: CREDIBLE, LEGITIMATE SCIENTIFIC ESSAYS IN A PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL) that explains how you can come to the conclusion that a theoretic pre-historic ape would be able to survive on the same diet as a deer. You say "apparent," "reports," and "evidence," but I wonder what these really mean to you. You're already arguing as if the creature exists, but again, there isn't any real evidence to prove this.

[socratic]

Please share some.

A fucking bear. Bears exist in every place that a sasquatch/yeti/wildman has been sighted. A raggy looking bear on its hind legs would sure look like an apeman.

Hey Alucard, if you want to know if there's an animal in the territory, what do you look for? Dung, consistent tracks and signs of consuming. We've found none of these things.

[Nicko1]

Sasquatch if they exist would likely be the largest species in our forests.

This argues against your point, not for it. The larger an animal is, the harder it is to hide. This is because, as the size of the animal increases, the area it needs to range over increases as well.

You really think they'd have much to fear from the occasional black or brown bear?

Yes. Most of the estimates that I have seen place the size of sasquatches at around 8 foot. Flogging the piss out of a sasquatch would be definitely within an adult brown's capabilities. To say nothing about the fact that bears have clawed paws, not hands.

But let's just assume for the moment that a Sasquatch can reliably take on a bear. In this case, the behaviour of bears would be radically different. The proverbial fearlessness and agression of a threatened bear is predicated on them being the biggest thing around. If bears were not the biggest thing in N American forests, their behaviour would not be the same.

And what exactly would indicate that abear lost an encounter with a Sasquatch?

Think. How would a Sasquatch kill a bear? Even if we accept that the Sasquatch is the stronger of the two, the only weapon it would have is it's teeth. These would leave marks substantialy different to any known N American predator.

The point you refuse to consider, is that the Sasquatch could not exist in a vacum. It is extremely likely that a species of insect could evade detection. It is possible that a small bird or mammal could do the same (particularly if it is very similar to more common species). You, however, ask us to believe that the largest predator in North America is an animal that has evaded all attempts at capture, despite having every behavioural reason to be inquisitive, aggressive and territorial.

[Da Pope]

For some reason this reminds me of the Congo forrest devil thing (forget what exactly they called it). For years reports of a large mamal capble of all sorts of feats of strength, throwing tress about like they were match sticks, grabbing humans and tossing them in the air then stamping on them....

Biologists hunted them for years until one of the locals (who was scared to death of the monster) finally plucked up the courage to show them one.

Turns out they were elephants!

[WhiteShark]

If it exists I'm pretty sure we would have seen it on Google maps by now. I mean we found LARPers actively "sparring".

[Ducktoes]

Because you account for an entire state right?

What, and you do? Don't be a hypocrite.

Well, I never argued otherwise. Granted a handful of scientists seriously give it thought this however doesn't mean anything substantial has never been found.

Has it not occured to you that the scientific community doesn't take bigfoot seriously because the evidence is dubious at best? I am sure that many scientists would love to find an upright walking ape in our own backyard as it would probably provide incredible insight into our prehistoric past. It would be awesome if it existed, but it seems unlikely.

Already done here:

http://www.wpromote.com/blog/wp-cont.../bigfoot-2.jpg

I recognize the picture. It was in the news.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...gfoot-dna.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/08/21/bigfoot.hoax/

This is another in the long series of bigfoot hoaxes.

[Ducktoes]

There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that Bigfoot differs this much from any other ape species on the planet. You're tailoring your monster to fit the existing circumstances. Why SHOULDN'T Bigfoot behave like other apes? If it doesn't, what animal behavior are you comparing it to? Or does the Bigfoot community just make it up as they go along? Pretty soon the argument will be "Well, obviously the reason we haven't found any Bigfoot in the wild is because they have integrated into human society!"

I can't find the link now, but I found a serious page that claims that bigfoot is capable of existing between multiple dimensions of reality.

[socratic]

I suppose a bigfoot could beat a bear to death; but then again, we've never found a bear that died of blunt force trauma, have we?

[Nicko1]

I can't find the link now, but I found a serious page that claims that bigfoot is capable of existing between multiple dimensions of reality.

So their argument for bigfoot's existence is that it does not "exist" as such? This just opens up a bigger can of worms. Now, instead of just looking for an animal, they must prove that there are multiple "dimensoins of reality" and that a creature is capable of existing "between" them. As far as I am aware there are only two dimensions of reality: real and not.

As they run out of places for bigfoot to theoretically live, and niches in the environment for it to theoretically occupy, the Sasqatchologists postulate a new "reality" for it to inhabit.
:beatdead:

[Alucard619]

Um, what exactly is this a picture of? Where did it come from? Who did the autopsy? Or is this a joke?

The latter. I wasn't serious but merely making a joke. That's just an ape costume stuffed with possum entrails.

There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that Bigfoot differs this much from any other ape species on the planet. You're tailoring your monster to fit the existing circumstances. Why SHOULDN'T Bigfoot behave like other apes? If it doesn't, what animal behavior are you comparing it to? Or does the Bigfoot community just make it up as they go along? Pretty soon the argument will be "Well, obviously the reason we haven't found any Bigfoot in the wild is because they have integrated into human society!"

Why shouldn't they? Well that's like asking why don't wolves act like foxes or gorillas like chimpanzees. Biologically they share similarities (Canind and ape) but behaviorally are very different. Again if you go under the assumption they'd just be big nasty gorillas on two legs then obviously you'd see the objection in that manner.

Again, you're changing the monster to fit the evidence. A deer's diet is best for DEER, not APES. Don't go around assuming there's one magic diet for all species, otherwise we'd be eating it too. There's more to it than just calories. How much animal physiology do you know? Hell, I'd accept studies that you've read (read: CREDIBLE, LEGITIMATE SCIENTIFIC ESSAYS IN A PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL) that explains how you can come to the conclusion that a theoretic pre-historic ape would be able to survive on the same diet as a deer. You say "apparent," "reports," and "evidence," but I wonder what these really mean to you. You're already arguing as if the creature exists, but again, there isn't any real evidence to prove this.

First off there isn't anything to "change" really. Bigfoot research and investigation as a whole is still relatively new to science.

A fucking bear. Bears exist in every place that a sasquatch/yeti/wildman has been sighted. A raggy looking bear on its hind legs would sure look like an apeman.

Sure. If the person doesn't know a single thing about bears or how they look or move. One problem with this is the presumption that every reported encounter is just some person that saw a bear, got spooked and attributed an entirely different description. A good number of people that report Bigfoot encounters are hunters, whom obviously know the local wildlife and would know a bear when they saw it. Even if the bear were indeed fucked up as you described and suffered from mange people would be able to tell the difference. Descriptions of bears simply aren't an accurate assessment of what witnesses to Sasquatch encounters describe. I will however admit that some encounters may indeed be mistaken identity. Part of the problem with this is that it smugly assume every reported Bigfoot encounter (going back to the 1960's when reports began widespread circulation through the country) is just mistaken identity.

Has it not occured to you that the scientific community doesn't take bigfoot seriously because the evidence is dubious at best? I am sure that many scientists would love to find an upright walking ape in our own backyard as it would probably provide incredible insight into our prehistoric past. It would be awesome if it existed, but it seems unlikely.

Honestly, I think part of the reason why most scientists don't even consider the possibility is due to arrogance. If you don't believe they exist that is totally fine. But there's this overbearing sense of obnoxiousness and arrogance that most scientists display that bothers me. This notion of "We know everything and we have discovered and solved every mystery in life. If you don't believe us then you are wrong and foolish." Scientists are supposed to use good testable methods to investigate a claim but on this subject that is hardly the case. I remember reading about one skeptic who wrote "If you believe Bigfoot exists then you must believe in pixies, fairies and unicorns." What so belief in a possible bipedal ape equates to belief in childhood fantasy's?

Also I previously stated that the only way scientists as a whole will be convinced is with a body, a skeleton or possibly even a live one. Maybe some big hotshot Rambo-esque bad ass will go out and skewer one of the SOB's with a boning knife.

That aside I am curious. Are there any other type of cryptozoological creatures you guys believe/disbelieve in?

[Conde Koma]

If there was more in the way of actual evidence, the scientific community would probably be more open to doing more research. However, as it stands, it's really not much more than

1.) a bunch of anecdotal evidence
2.) shaky (literally and figuratively) recorded footage
3.) inconsistent casts of footprints and body prints

Trying to get anyone to take something seriously based on this is a tall order in and of itself. But, so you don't think I'm biased against Bigfoot, I also don't believe in any of that cryptozoology/fringe pseudoscience. There's no Nessie, there's no mothman, there's no spontaneous combustion, there's no rods, there's no space aliens, there's no 2012, there's no scientology, none of it. At all. It's fun to postulate and wonder, sure, but in the end, it's a bunch of people who are chasing after fantasy. Eventually, you've got to grow the fuck up.