weather you call it big foot,yeti or skunk ape this elusive creature is around the united states. so whats your take on this giant beast. i think it might be outthere but it might be an undescoverd primape
Printable View
weather you call it big foot,yeti or skunk ape this elusive creature is around the united states. so whats your take on this giant beast. i think it might be outthere but it might be an undescoverd primape
http://man-shirt.net/images/man-bear-pig-t-shirt-2.jpg
I personally think yetis are cooler.
Is this a joke thread or for real? I dont live in USA but I thought the big foot myth was debunked years ago. It was just a man in a suit playing pranks. Or has it resurfaced again? lol. I dont see how we could ever not notice a big ape. An insect or bird in the middle of the Amazones might go unnoticed but I highly doubt a big and undiscovered primate is lurking around the United States forests.
For over 50 years since the legends started, I'd say the guy must be pretty dead already. All we have left is manbearpig.
No this guy always makes threads about stuff like this you should have seen his other ones AND they got popular.Quote:
Originally Posted by mayushii
I've got Big Foot with me right here
He says he doesn't exist
Currently I reside in Seattle Washington where the whole Big Foot thing is a big deal but I have a little theory. It has been a while now that the big guy has popped up SOOOOOO what if he lost some weight (slandered up), shaved all of his hair, put on a suit, and now terrorizes aimless teenagers in forests. (cough) slender man (cough)
I got a big foot.
Made it and planted footprints. Trollin' all them cryptologists.
Lovely Well it's possible because I'm the slender manQuote:
Originally Posted by Albear
No, you're Periwinkle. Dat one fairy...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozette The Joker
I'm everything in the world. including you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Albear
Mr Udyr? Impossible! He shouldn't even exist in our universe!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.LeDoom!
I remember I once had a dream that I saw Bigfoot outside my window and offered him some of my birthday cake.
I felt like I needed to get that off my chest. Carry on.
What ifQuote:
Originally Posted by Dr.LeDoom!
I want proof of his existence. And by proof i don't mean that program om discovery channel where they "Hunt" sasquatches with the phrases like.
"Look over there, a heat source thats definitely a sasquatch"
"Oh, yeah. Thats a typical Sasquatch hiding spot."
"Where gonna search for sasquatch evidence, along with 100 people from the town"
"Did you hear that? That is without a doubt a sasquatch communication with the others."
"I feel like there are some sasquatches watching us, don't freak out."
.... I mean seriously?
(Oh and sasquatch is another name for bigfoot. Incase some didn't know.)
That's exactly when you freak out.Quote:
I feel like there are some sasquatches watching us, don't freak out.
With all that unexplored, dense forest in the pacific northwest I guess its possible. But most sightings are probably made up, so who knows if there are some real encounters mixed in there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanromml
Right? But they are just all like.. whateverrrr.
Women have smaller feet; it's new breed would be a 'big' foot no more.Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanromml
Primeape?Quote:
Originally Posted by darkrider21
http://i588.photobucket.com/albums/s...l/primeape.png
Nah. Something like five different guys have claimed to be the man in the suit in the Patterson film, and a few others have claimed to have made the costume, but a few of them weren't within hundreds of miles of the film site at the time, and nobody has produced the suit or other evidence- or even built a replica suit- to this day.Quote:
Originally Posted by mayushii
Keep in mind, the film isn't necessarily authentic just because a couple of seasonally-unemployed cowboys said it is, but the film also isn't necessarily a hoax just because a few others have claimed it is, after it became somewhat famous, I'd add.
Now, to be clear, there is an old video that was hoaxed by a guy and his wife- the wife being in that suit- but the iconic Patterson film, where the big lady (check the film sometime- it has breasts, swinging around freely) crosses a creek and looks back, has never been shown to be hoaxed. Unfortunately, it's also nothing more than intriguing by itself, since you can't verify its subject's identity, either, without a type specimen and such.
Never really went away. Arguments over the nature of the continued and reliably repeated sightings boil down to arguments over whether it's a real animal or whether the sightings are an artifact of human psychology, but it never went away, whatever the substance or lack thereof.Quote:
Or has it resurfaced again? lol.
You ever tried to find an ape in the forest? Whether we're talking gorillas or chimps, both hide pretty darned well from scientific teams who are looking for them actively, with proper expertise and funding. A bunch of amateurs and disinterested vacationers missing animals in the woods (until the sensationalized claim of a sighting, of course) doesn't strike me as bizarre at all, just interesting at best.Quote:
I dont see how we could ever not notice a big ape.
Maybe it isn't, but the people that claim they know it's there are only a tad bit more rash in their conclusions (objectively speaking) than those who dismiss it out of hand, like yourself. This has nothing to do with an "open mind" or anything, by the way, but has to do with the impossibility of proving a negative. I'd peg it at unlikely, but wholly within the realm of possibility. As I've said on AF before, Sassy is at least ahead of crap like the mothman or el chupacabras, because if nothing else you can begin to guess at taxonomy without upsetting our current cladistic classifications and model of ape evolutionary relations too much.Quote:
An insect or bird in the middle of the Amazones might go unnoticed but I highly doubt a big and undiscovered primate is lurking around the United States forests.
I'm with you there. Actually, there's a fair bit of proper evidence, albeit evidence that- again- means next to nothing definitive without a type specimen to compare against, but just as soon as I try to bring that up, or right when I finally get a chance to pore over some of that, a show like Finding Bigfoot makes it all look like a damn ghost hunt again, or some wacko in Kentucky crawls out of his double-wide in a bathrobe and claims to have had tea and crumpets with Johnny (that what he calls bigfoot) for three or four years. Makes it much harder to address the few tiny tidbits of real interest and import.Quote:
Originally Posted by Forbuki
All the hair samples from North America classified as an unknown primate (of which there are actually more than a few) prove nothing unless you can get a body (or a fairly big piece of a body) that can be studied and the samples compared against. Until then, it remains "unknown primate," not "bigfoot" or even necessarily a new species discovery or any kind.
Quick note: It's not a US thing or craze, really, since a lot of the really interesting stuff comes in from British Columbia, in Canada. More of a North American thing- again, whether actual or psychological artifact.
The really frustrating thing for me- because I am somewhat of a casual fan of bigfoot- is that it's almost impossible to deal with it rationally in conversation. Even if I am the most careful, thorough person ever, and I only bring up the (tidbits of) proper evidence, and I admit to the multitude that is not known, all the other screwballs involved in bigfoot as a hobby become a sort of burden. It's so easy for other people to dismiss the concept entirely because these morons actually make arguments so absurd that there's no need for strawmen when dismissing comments more like my own. It's almost like how there are chiropracters- medical professionals who treat the spine- and chiropracters- charlatans who espouse metaphysical nonsense about how they can center bodies and cure terminal illnesses with their woo. Same name, distantly related, but completely different.
Thank you, i forget that there is a lot more people who try to find bigfoot than a team who tries to become a media hype. I have to be honest here im not very much into researching Bigfoot or whatever, but i am somewhat interested in him/her/it. Its a coincidence that that show is one of the only things that i've seen/read that is about Bigfoot.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAsterisk!
But like you said there is alot of DNA found in North America and weither or not that is Bigfoot will remain questionable until we actually found one. Until that day.. we won't know.
That would explain some of the customers at my work.....Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanromml
@TheAsterisk! True we cant prove it doesnt exist and I cant say for 100% sure that it doesnt. But if it did exist, then there would have to be more than just one since they have to reproduce somehow. And to me it would seem that a species that would go unnoticed by humans would be high in numbers since in recent times humans are many times the cause of low animal populations. So if they were relatively high in numbers, whether it is in the hundreds or the thousands then it makes it even more unlikely for it to go unnoticed. Also I would assume they would leave traces of their lifestyle and habits if they indeed do exist.
Actually, to be pedantic, neither of us can actually put any quantifiable odds on it. I admit, it would be unlikely, but I qualify that as being unlikely given the current available empirical evidence. This is why something serious, like a type specimen (i.e., a body or big, readily identifiable parts of a body) would be needed to really prove anything. It just remains a fun thing to read up on and think about otherwise- or to look for in the wilderness, if you're so inclined.Quote:
Originally Posted by mayushii
Again, to be clear, I'm not arguing that they do exist, or even likely do, or even that the arguments of many bigfoot proponents are even vaguely sound. Instead, I'm pointing out that for all the idiot fanatic bigfoot lovers who can't handle basic reasoning, there are also many, many idiot fanatic dismissals wholly devoid of defensible reasoning.
Yup. I assumed anyone would give me credit enough to have realized that; I know few people agree with my opinions on here, but I like to flatter myself and think that it's apparent that I am at the least fairly intelligent. A population with males, females, young, and diseased individuals and the like would be required. (About that- there are actually some fun footprint casts of an allegedly and apparently disfigured individual's foot- looks like it got crushed & broken and didn't set and heal properly. Again, this means nothing, but it's nice to see a more complete population represented in casts, too. At least if it's a big hoax, then the hoaxers study population variations and statistical distributions.) You wouldn't necessarily need a terrifically large population, though, if they live as long as many of the other apes (up to maybe 40 years wild, roughly). A few thousand to several thousand- which you seem to think (below) is a huge number- over the appropriate habitats of the whole continent (absent Mexico) would be fairly spread out.Quote:
But if it did exist, then there would have to be more than just one since they have to reproduce somehow.
Firstly, most people don't realize how much space there is in the wilds of North America, because they don't go there. That's kinda why it's still wilderness- i.e., nobody's home. At best, most people might go to a park or a camp, or maybe hunt a bit here and there, but they stay in the park or on trails, or they have a favorite hunting spot that they don't deviate from, etc. The US and Canada have far more unpopulated private and public land, forested and with plenty of rainfall, than do some of the small African nations where other known great apes are found. Again, this means nothing, but well over half of the criticisms of the basic possibility of a North American ape are ignorant of the contemporary geographies of these regions. (No offense meant by the phrasing here, by the way; I'm working off of denotation here, not connotation.)Quote:
And to me it would seem that a species that would go unnoticed by humans would be high in numbers since in recent times humans are many times the cause of low animal populations. So if they were relatively high in numbers, whether it is in the hundreds or the thousands then it makes it even more unlikely for it to go unnoticed. Also I would assume they would leave traces of their lifestyle and habits if they indeed do exist.
Beyond that, apes are very good at hiding when they care to do so. Research teams have many times walked within maybe forty feet (a school bus's length, for reference) of whole groups of gorillas, and yet not seen that they were there until later.
And- yes- a population of bigfoots would indeed impact their environment and leave signs of their presence. This is why those tracks that can be informally assessed as unlikely-to-be-hoaxed are so interesting, and why bedded vegetation akin to gorilla nests is intriguing when found. If they can be proven to exist with a type specimen, then these things would be definite sign- but, again, without that body first, all the rest remains as unverifiable, incomparable, inconclusive and merely suggestive.
Nobody that really knows what they're doing- with perhaps a dozen exceptions worldwide- bother to make a concerted effort to search for these alleged apes or their sign, so the fact that none is found and also recognized by experts is all but a foregone conclusion. Some if allegedly found, but the experts don't go out and verify or refute it, citing as their cause that they haven't yet verified any of it. It toes the gray line of circular logic at times.
To put it another way: I'm sure bigfoots crap in the woods if they're real. If they're not, then it follows that there is no bigfoot crap to be found in the woods. Either way, though, how many people do you know of that are looking for bigfoot crap in the woods? How many of them might collect samples? I you answer between "none" and "a few dozen to a few hundred part-time amateurs who know far too little for their own good", then I don't think you can expect to get any good samples back whether or not bigfoots grace our forests with their poo.
My apologies for resurrecting an old thread, but I felt unjustifiably compelled, and I don't have enough sense to just let it go like I probably should.
He may exist he may not exist? I personally do not think he exists!