Do You Believe In Bigfoot?

g

StankApe wrote:Not up for debate? lol, yes it is up for debate. There is NO VERIFIED EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF AN UNKNOWN PRIMATE IN NORTH AMERICA AT THIS TIME.

there just isn't. You can make all these claims about that there are, but show me the evidence.... please, show me where somebody has verified this. You can't, because IT HASN'T HAPPENED YET.


this lab can say that and this group can say this, but until the EVIDENCE has been peer reviewed AND THEN gone over by the scientific community at large it is nothing but conjecture.


see, this is the main problem with footers, you overstate EVERY DADBURN THING!!!

That doesn't mean that Sykes WON'T prove anything, not at all, I am on record as stating it's probably the best bet going forward at this time. But to try and make the claim that there is no debate is patently flawed. If the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature hasn't handed you a latin name , then NOTHING IS CONFIRMED!!!

stop letting what you WANT TO HAPPEN , dictate what HAS HAPPENED. Maybe Sykes will find something. But until some scientist confirms results and is awarded a name for the new species, you have exactly diddly squat.

Again your facts are wrong!

1.) Verifiable Evidence :
Foot castings of an unknown Creature. "Verified"
You don't believe then that your problem but the Evidence is their. Some Big footed creature is in the deep woods in some states.
Could this Creature be a Wildman, Hominid, or large Primate who knows but we do have Verifiable evidence of something we like to call Sasquatch.

2.) The eye witness accounts over the centuries. (Not direct evidence but taken in a group, they do confirm something is up in the deep woods)

3.) DNA
obviously you haven't been following the "Killing"
The Samples and many more have been sent to "At least 3 Independent Labs" Even if they come back as an Unkown.... This is still evidence of Something we have not yet classified living in the woods. this is verifiable.

Okay, I see where he got confused. The first link I sent was the most recent. (The one where you stated "does not speak of DNA" That is the page that speaks of it going through peer review.

The second link I posted (Where it does speak of DNA) was when the Oxford Project was first announced on the Bigfootevidence blog.

"Unknown DNA" has been found long ago. But up until now there was no method to figure it out. Samples would be tested, marked "unknown" and filed away.

Melba Ketchum started her project after finding that many of the "Unknowns" matched each other that were taken from different regions.

If you watch earlier Mosterquest episodes, you see this "Unknown" stuff a lot. Then the tests ended up always "contaminated" or "Human" but clearly not human hair thus contaminated.

Later on Robert Lendsay reported that Ketchums finding were that the Mitochondrial DNA was human but the nuclear DNA was not. After that was leaked, her project became more tight lipped than ever.

Now Oxford claims it as the technology to extract DNA from the hair it's self without the need for the root. But the rout that they are going (As stated in the first link) is matching the DNA to ancient hominid ancestors that are supposedly extinct.

So I guess here it is? Now that we may have "type-specimens" now all of the sudden we do not have the DNA?

g

First I must recant that last post of mine. It does not say their paper is ready nor that they are preparing for peer review. I seemed to have missed the part where he says "If all goes well, soon.". They are still collecting samples until sometime next month.

I am not saying that "Unknown" necessarily means "Bigfoot". I am saying it means "Unknown". Thus throwing out any skeptic who argues "If it were there we would have found it by now." "Unknown" means that something is there that we have not found. It's DNA we have no record of. It's not something we know of. But we do know it is big and we do know it is hairy because that is where the DNA came from. Reason to say "Bigfoot" is because it was samples taken around tracks. Stuck in bark too high for a deer or elk or bear to reach. Sometimes inside the track it's self.

g

you are attempting to jump ahead of the study and state you presumptive conclusions as fact. this is unscientific and wrong...

HYPOTHESIS is a Presumptive Conclusion
Science makes a conclusion then tests it to see if it is correct
THAT IS SCIENCE
Gawd Mister Wizard should have taught you this years ago or Bill, or Beakman's world.
you should know this if your claim your a PHYSICS person.

g

thank you for proving my point Stank!
Really you need to read it yourself.

Do you skeptics think there is no other life in the universe because we can't prove it with science?

g

Well.. Do you think Columbus said "I think the Earth might be round" to his crew?. I mean if I "thought" the earth was round when everyone else KNEW the earth was flat, I don't think I would have made that voyage and if I had the really strong gut feeling enough to do it, I don't think I would have told my crew that I did not know for sure lol.

Self Knowledge was once the staple of scientific discovery before we had lab animals. However with that said, many people who KNEW they could fly, met their death by splatting on the ground

g

Columbus was trying to get to the India and he did believe the earth was round.
So yes trying to find a passage to get to India quicker and safer was trying to prove that the earth was round.
If he still thought the earth was flat they would never have sailed that way to try to get to India.

Stank, they just discovered the Sugar Molecules out in Space near a forming star system.
This is one of the ingredients for LIFE as we know it.

Also do Skeptics like you believe in Multi-Dimensions?
Before you answer you will know that many Physic scientists and Einstein did calculate that the do exists and that you can use Einsteins Bridge to get to them.

g

(Removed by cmcmillan)

g

"As a scientist I must say that this species does not exist. It is not recognized by mainstream science. It has no zoological classification. There is no known biology. It is not recognized by anthropology. Today, the skeptics are 100% correct. Today it is a legend. I don't think that will be true in 2013. It's not a question of personal conviction - we can't bend the rules of science only when it favors us. It is the best measure of truth humans have every had, but it is cold - a necessity for objectivity."

Sorry but you gave a dense argument like that and you are a scientist???? Are you Sciences version of John Madden?

For one Science IS bending the rules. It is passing more and more crap as truth with less and less evidence for it. "It is not recognized by mainstream science." I rest my case I that one.

"It has no zoological classification.There is no known biology. " Yes there is, it's called Hominid

"It is not recognized by anthropology." Says who? Last I checked, Jeff Meldrum was an Anthropologist. Oh and speaking of Anthropology, that in it's self is a science based off of evolution that last I checked was still a Theory. (This goes back to "Mainstream Science.")

From Main Stream Science!!! The guys that brought you Brontosaurus, The Planet Pluto, and "Mars Has No Liquid Water!!!!!" (even thought at the time they proclaimed this as fact, we never went there), comes "Bigfoot is not real because we choose not to look at the physical evidence.!!!! And you all can rest assured that Mainstream Science is right folks! After all, they brought us such key scientific techniques such as Blood letting, Electroshock-Therapy, and DUCK AND COVER!!!!!? So How can they be wrong???? They are also they guys who brought you "Brontosaurus is NOT real because we had the wrong head on the wrong body!!!, Pluto is NOT a Planet!!!! And Mars DOES have liquid water because we finally landed there and found it!!!!"

Yeah keep making your case on Mainstream AKA "Popular" science.

GuidedByPandas wrote:I apologize in advance for the long post. For stealing your time reading it, I'm going to the hospital in a couple hours so that would be a good time to bash me. Feel the power of the Dark Side - let your anger flow!


As a scientist I must say that this species does not exist. It is not recognized by mainstream science. It has no zoological classification. There is no known biology. It is not recognized by anthropology. Today, the skeptics are 100% correct. Today it is a legend. I don't think that will be true in 2013. It's not a question of personal conviction - we can't bend the rules of science only when it favors us. It is the best measure of truth humans have every had, but it is cold - a necessity for objectivity.

It's not enough to see, photograph, or even videotape an unknown animal. Which makes 99% of this site's 'evidence' pointless as subjects for scientific debate. It is not even enough to prove a hypothesis - research studies prove hypotheses all the time. The problem is that many studies are deeply flawed. I know this - I was trained to devise (clinical) research studies and performed qualitative analysis for years; I switched to business intelligence 12 years ago. Unfortunately, the prize often isn't the hypothesis, but rather the grant money that comes with it. So rigor can be secondary to quick results. The proof isn't in the research, the proof comes in review and testing: a conclusion has to be replicable. Independent parties have to experience the same thing you do, have to see the same thing, have to describe the same thing, have to come to the same conclusion.

I think at best DNA will prompt better and/or long-term deep woods research - some funding sources just want rudimentary evidence to proceed. But I don't think even a body will quiet the debate. Scientists are human and thus can be swayed by beliefs and influenced by politics. Need proof? The debate over global warming. So a body may not be as cut and dry the answer people believe/hope it is.

All this said, I'm not concerned with proof for the world; I'm happy with my personal truth. This is tough because it diverts from my discipline and education: I know Sasquatch exists. I had an encounter that involved 3 of the 5 senses: I saw one - quite clearly: within 7 feet. I heard it. And I felt the affect of its strength. Between hunting when young and remote hiking since, I've seen bears in the wild. Before the experience I never thought about it at all. To me it was a Hollywood creation of a West coast legend; my only referential experience prior was 11 years earlier watching the 6-Million Dollar Man on TV. Even if it could exist, I lived in Pennsylvania, so no worries. I was wrong.

I have no evidence - it happened pre-cellphone - and I had no camera; I was just driving home. The whole thing was ridiculously chance - literally wrong place at wrong time. Given the proximity of the event, it was either a Sasquatch, a very tall gorilla, or FrankenBear.

In the eyes of science it's just a story. In the eyes of non-believers I'm full of shit. Since I have no evidence, I can't argue either position. Which is mainly why I told no one for 25 years. I'd like to see one again - but one of the happy fluffy Northwest kind this time. Mostly just to say hello and goodbye. I just want closure.

Reading this wonderful post keeps that little hope alive for me that maybe we will find a Sas soon. Thanks ))) And thank you also for sharing your perfectly-explained, sensible and logical scientific approach. Take care, GBP.

[img] [/img]


Note to Tzieth: Dense? Really? Please chill out; there's no need to be rude here.

StankApe wrote:many elements of string theory require multiple dimensions, but not in the way that we generally think of them (as alternate realities) they are more like folded areas of space that exists on very small scales but are ultimately very hard for 3 dimensional beings like us to conceive of(how do you explain something that exists neither up,down,right left, forwards and back?)

Is multiple dimensions like the episode of Family Guy called Road to Multiverse?

g

GuidedByPandas wrote:What is the topic of this thread: Do you Believe in Bigfoot?
And what was my response? I had an encounter.
Im thinking you didn't get that far. But in the paragraph you cited I did say that I didn't think that the former statements would still be true in 2013.

You don't have to worry though, I'm not a scientist anymore. And in a couple years I won't be a human either. You have a lot of anger so I'm, thinking you have been hurt by science. So have I. A misunderstanding in medical science is going to cost me my life. Science is not infallible - I never said it was. Science makes mistakes all the time - I even said that.

Because mainstream science does not recognize this animal doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I think there is plenty of evidence. But I don't decide that. And neither do you. If you want the world to believe, you need the support of science. If you don't care, then nothing I said matters anyway. I debated posting at all. My opinion is not worth getting angry over.

OK... now I am leaving to go to hospital. Peace.

Yes i did not read the whole post... but when it started out by warning to piss everyone off and then mentioned mainstream science... I figured it was best that I read no further. lol

When I was in the third grade, I was diagnosed as being mildly retarded with acute Attention Deficit Disorder/Non-hyperactivity type (they hadn't made up ADHD yet so you had ADD with and without hyperactivity.) I was put into special ED classes and remained in them until the 9th grade when a teacher who also taught "Gate" noticed that I seemed to have above average attention to detail and she felt my writing style was on par with her gifted kids. This came at a time when my mother could not afford my meds so I was off of them.

This teacher had my IQ tested and it was 148. I was made to believe that I was retarded when the whole time I was at low genius level. So yeah I guess that is when my attention to detail was directed at science it' self along with History and my own religion at the time. I am sorry I did not fully read your post

It's not your opinion or even a true skeptics opinion that sets me off.. it is "Mainstream science". It's a farce! There is far more to be skeptical about what we are force-fed/brainwashed from K-12 by main stream science than the existence of smurfs.

Mainstream Science is not science anymore. It's a religion. It's becoming Theory stacked on theory and rechecked based on theory and given fact status.

In the case of Psychology it has a clear money making agenda in pharmaceuticals.

Yes it gives technological results, but do we really know why? How many different ways can you make a fire? rub two sticks together, use a magnifying glass, strike two pieces of flint, or just pull out your lighter.. all achieve the same result. But the same Science based off of theory that gave us atomic energy also told us to duck and cover in the event of a nuclear attack. The same genetic Science that gave us Dolly the Cloned Sheep may have also given us Mad Cow Disease. Just because you find a puzzle piece that fits does not mean it's part of the same puzzle, eventually you will find one.

My problem with science all together is that we do not learn science, we are brainwashed into certain philosophies via text-books. I am not speaking about all science. Such things like Biology and for the most part Geology and Chemistry are exact.

But when it comes to fields that go against the common belief of mainstream science, it becomes ludicrous? How are we to ever make such a discovery if science is going to purposely turn a blind eye to it?

In the Sasquatch argument you have Scientists on both sides with these wild theories pro and con as to why or why not. An example is "Patty". an Anthropolgist who was making the argument that it was not a real creature stated that the breasts were hairy and no known primate has hair on it's breasts nor was there any evidence that early hominids did... And they blurt this crap out with no hard scientific fact to back them up. Of course their is no evidence that early hominids had hairy breasts. There is no evidence they had skin either lol. All we have are bones. But lets completely throw out common sense here. lol There is a Known Hominid that does have hair in this area... US!!!! And if Sasquatch is a Homo-Hominid, then why would you base it off an ape anymore than you would base our own physical traits off of an ape?

On the Flip side of that same coin you have Dr.Jeff Meldrum.. A Pro-Sasquatch Anthropologist who for the longest time and might still, thought/think Sasquatch is an ape... Again, common sense. What ape has or ever had feet shaped like that? And as I pointed out in the Foot-prints thread, Sasquatch Foot-Prints look exactly like those of early hominids

Then there is the "No fossil evidence" argument as if it is confirmed that Sasquatch are not the same early hominids on record. And we are taught as fact that they went extinct simply because they vanish from the fossil record? News flash!!! There is NO fossil record of chimpanzees either, and yet here they are.

That reminds me, do you guys remember this? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZbmywzGAVs) It was posted in the blog a while back. While this guy is an obvious idiot who does not know the definition of "Primate" he does have a point as to Mainstream Science using anthropomorphism to make it's case for human evolution. Make Neanderthals look just slightly different from Homo-Sapiens-Sapiens. Though I do not think they looked as this guy shows (Because they were Homo not Ape) I do think they were densely hairy and nocturnal. The skulls alone are proof they looked nothing like us, but the bodies even more so.

Hairy for the same point that guy made. They lived in Ice age Europe. And Nocturnal because of the eye orbits. (Same for all Hominids except humans) This has Bigfoot candidate written all over it. As do the others.

This is also why I think Science is looking the other way. Think of all the chaos it would cause if "Bigfoot" was indeed every hominid we have on record.

"This teacher had my IQ tested and it was 148."

Mine was 152 back in 8th grade in the early 80's, you know, when Pat Benatar was hot and famous!


Does it really mean anything though-the IQ test? Sometimes I'd rather just lay on the couch in boxers or jammies, eat a box of Suzy Qs (Dee-Licious!!!), not shower for like 3 days, and watch Hawaii 5-0 and Bonanza all afternoon on Me TV instead of applying myself to do any work since I'm retired.

Danny Squatchanini wrote:"This teacher had my IQ tested and it was 148."

Mine was 152 back in 8th grade in the early 80's, you know, when Pat Benatar was hot and famous!


Does it really mean anything though-the IQ test? Sometimes I'd rather just lay on the couch in boxers or jammies, eat a box of Suzy Qs (Dee-Licious!!!), not shower for like 3 days, and watch Hawaii 5-0 and Bonanza all afternoon on Me TV instead of applying myself to do any work since I'm retired.

Nope.. It did not mean a damned thing as far as making me any better than the next guy. But what it meant was I was not retarded, nor did I have ADD. I remember not understanding what my third grade teacher was telling me. Then I remember having to see some sort of "counselor" and next thing I knew I was going to a "special school" and was in a classroom with kids who already had a criminal record (This is third grade). The A.D.D-with hyperactivity kids and a few with downs-syndrome. There was never an IQ test ran on me back then (When Michael Jackson was still cool and Thriller topped the charts) yet I was diagnosed with crap I did not have (And am still skeptical if ADD/ADHD truly exists) and though obvious other possibilities existed, they were not even looked at. (such as testing my IQ).

The fallout from this seriously impacted my educational development. When I was in 9th grade, after my IQ was tested, I had a fifth grade math level, and college level English and writing. So one class would be a "Gate" class, and the other would be a "Resource" class while yet another would be regular and another basic.

If you thought I threw in my IQ as some sort of boasting, trust me, I was not.. To this day, I am probably the worlds worst speller. My point was how arrogant and agenda driven modern science was and is.

Later in 10th grade I was put into a then experimental program called "A.C.E" (Accelerated Classroom Environment) in which I was allowed to read a textbook then when I felt ready, take a test and if I passed the test, get a credit. In Texas at that time you needed 22 credits to graduate. If your took a college level coarse you could get up to four credits, where High-school level gave you either 1 or 0.5 credits depending on the class. So I was using college Phyce,Anth,History,and Geo. While reading the Psyche book, I learned that the whole science was based on Theory. But actually not even Theory but more of Philosophy. Especially when you get down to its basic factors of Id,ego and alter-ego... Talk about "Burden of Proof"??? And we commit people and prescribe drugs to people based on this? Then I read about the techniques such as electro-shock therapy and all the other barbaric practices committed in the name of science and was sickened. It was almost the same thing that happened to me. Diagnosed with some condition that may or may not exist simply because some guy who got his degree on a science based on a theory said so. (Most likely all in the name of pharmaceutical sales ultimately.)

As for people with these prodigy IQ's such as my Ex fiancée and my cousin... I have noticed that the higher the IQ, the lower the common sense and or empathy. They seem to become more Sociopathic judging right and wrong off of law and not moral compass. Neither seem to have a guilt factor. (and now I am becoming a complete Hypocrite and using a science I do not believe in to make my own diagnosis lol )

Anyway that is why I think the way I do about mainstream science. And no, IQ does not mean a damned thing.

Tzieth wrote:There is no question for belief for me.. I KNOW "Sasquatch" exists. My interest is in how many different types of Hominids are called "Bigfoot."

Though I grew up believing due to my mother and grandmother's stories of their encounters, I had one my self much later. I did not see it, just heard it walking back and fourth while making loud vocals. I did not even think "Bigfoot" at the time. Then a little later I came across an audio clip and realized it was making the exact same sounds. When i played these sounds to my mother, she said what she saw was not even close to sounding the same. Her encounter was in Missouri and mine was in Washington.

I notice most skeptics say "No conclusive evidence." and it dumbfounds me every time. How could it be any more conclusive? We have the DNA for Christs sake... And the very same ones who chime-in that "DNA means nothing without a type specimen." are not stating the obvious. What it means is that there IS a creature out there that we do not have record of. So though it may not "Prove" the existence of Sasquatch it does prove the existence of an unknown hairy creature which you would think would debunk the "If there was an unknown animal we would have found it by now." argument.

We have eye-witnesses and they are immediately pegged as either liars or misidentifying what they saw because of the fact that some Biology Professor who probably grew up in some large city and read or wrote X-amount of books knows more about the witnesses local wildlife than the witness who saw the creature in their own back yard?

But if the same witness was robbed and saw they robber then their testimony counts.

The Footprints them selves... The first thing skeptics say "Easily faked." This is the one thing that cannot be faked. You can make a wooden cut-out foot and the woodgrain might even look like dermal ridges if you are lucky. But what you will get is a hole in the ground shaped like a foot that may or may not show what looks like dermal ridges. And to some camper this might look convening. But to a hunter, the first thing they will see is that the prints are all wrong. They have steep walls. a real foot impression would make a gradual decline into the impression and not a steep wall. A tracker would not only notice the walls, but the fact that there is no articulation of bones. There is no weight being equally distributed as the bones of the foot are rolling through the step. Oh and most of these fake foots are mistakenly made to resemble a human foot as found in a human footprint complete with a ball and shape of an arch. A Sasquatch foot-print resembles the same fossilized hominid footprints found in Africa, Asia and Europe. (And yet nobody seems to notice this.) If you look at the Neanderthal footprints found in that cave in Spain and if you look at the footprints found in Africa that they think were made by Homo-Erectus , and then you look at what is said to be a true sasquatch foot-print, you will see they all look the same in shape with the main difference being mostly in size.

There is a serious double standard here. Biologists and Anthropologists readily dismiss the possibility of other Homo-Hominids surviving to the present, yet they seem to readily keep accepting new theories as facts about human origins all the time, the newest being that there were people here (Homo-Sapiens) before the Clovis based on possible tools found along with fossilized feces yet no bodies. So there is technically more hard evidence of Sasquatch than there is for these Pre-Clovis people being Homo-Sapiens. For that matter they think Clovis were homo-sapiens only because they found other Homo-Sapiens remains scattered along with Mammoth remains among Clovis tools with absolutely not mention of the possibility that Clovis could have just as easily been other Hominids that were hunting both Mammoths and Homo-Sapiens. (Not saying I believe this, but it should be at least a theory.)

Sorry for that rant lol. But when I see the "No evidence" argument and then I see what science says is fact with even less evidence, it bother me

Sincerely,

Heath

Wow. Just wow.

Because you think you heard a sasquatch you KNOW they exist. But you didn't actually see one. This is exactly why 'eyewitness' accounts are so easily dismissed.

Blasphemy aside, you do not have the DNA. Unidentified DNA does not automatically verify the existence of sasquatch.

Contrary to your BELIEF, footprints can be easily faked. Convincing prints may take longer to fake, but don't paint yourself into a corner and tell me it cannot be done, because I have seen it and have done it myself.