Let's Fling Some [Bigfoot] Poop

I have an interest in Bigfoot and its history in North America. Even parts of outer Mongolia.

I got drawn in as a child by a black and white Yeti scalp in a book. It culminated with a TV airing of the PGF. They stretched that sonofabitch out for a whole hour. For twenty seconds of film. It was then at the tender age of eight that I realized bigfootery is all about showmanship and redirecting the mark. Bigfoot is a product. Hell, Roger tried to obtain a patent on the word.

That intro aside, I think that believers are batshit crazy, and witnesses even moreso.

Grab a handful of bigfoot poo and sling it with me.

Unless I misunderstood the concept of unmoderated.

Okay, I'll play.. I think anyone who "believes" Bigfoot is not real is a fool.

g

I think you are wrong in the one aspect.. If we were dealing with this in court, Then Bigfoot WOULD be confirmed as you would be dealing with law and not close-minded, agenda-driven, arrogant-scientists.

In court eye-witness testimony, video, audio, and prints still mean something.

Hell there is actually more scientific evidence that supports modern Hominids than there is to support former cryptids that are now confirmed. And there is a Hell of a lot of those now. And in every case science was saying "They do not exist, there is no proof" despite the fact that there was evidence. If these dumb animals could stay hidden for so long than what could a creature that may be just a little dumber than us do? (Or maybe even smarter than us if you count Neanderthaloids)

CONFIRMED former cryptids:

KRAKEN
"From ancient times, sailors have reported seeing a huge sea monster with many tentacles, called the kraken. Sailors knew about the octupus and squid, real ocean animals that had tentacles. However, the kraken was considered to be a different species because it was much, much bigger. Sometimes it was thought to be a giant octopus, sometimes it was thought to be a giant squid. Much of the time, it was simply a big sea monster called the kraken.

During the early part of the scientific era, the kraken was considered just as likely to exist as sea serpents. In other words, it was laughed at. Serious scientists steered clear of the kraken question, refusing to study it even when presented with beached kraken carcasses. Then there came a time when everything changed. Several kraken carcasses were beached within a short time of each other, and there was such an uproar that the reluctant scientists were forced to pay attention.

The kraken was declared a real species. It was named the giant squid. The giant squid remains one of the most elusive large animals in the world. For many years, scientists tried to observe the giant squid in its habitat, but failed. Many people claimed to have seen giant squids, but they were mostly fishermen and sailors, the same people who are not believed when they report sea serpents. Every live sighting was unconfirmed and in each case the witness was not a scientist. Scientists spent millions of dollars on expeditions, but could not obtain video footage of a live squid. Everything that was known about giant squids was based on dead bodies. All expeditions into deep water in search of the natural habitat of giant squids had proved fruitless. The giant squid still had much in common with mythical creatures and true cryptids, even though the scientific community no longer had any doubt that giant squids exist.

In September of 2004, that finally changed. Japanese scientists attracted a giant squid with a baited line, and automatic cameras took more than 500 photographs of the giant squid before it ripped itself free, leaving an 18-foot length of tentacle still attached to the bait" from Cryptid Zoo

Bondegezou (or "Man of the Forests")
"The Moni tribe of Irian Jaya, in Indonesian New Guinea, have stories about a being they call the bondegezou, which roughly translates as "man of the forests." A little under three feet tall, this creature looks like a little man covered in bold patches of black and white fur. It can climb, but it is often seen on the ground, where it stands on its hind legs in a bipedal stance.

Even though the folklore has existed since time immemorial, and a clear photograph of a bondegezou even managed to find its way to an Australian scientist in the 1980s, the bondegezou wasn't the subject of any serious scientific inquiry until 1994, when a scientist managed to obtain skins and bones and it was declared a real, new species of mammal. The bondegezou wasn't a creature like Bigfoot. It wasn't even a primate. Instead, it was the oddest-looking species of tree kangaroo anyone had ever seen. It spent more time on the ground than in the trees, had a very short tail, and some oddly human mannerisms. It was often standing on its hind legs when sighted by humans, because this was its alarm posture.

The story of the bondegezou is a good example of how a perfectly real animal can remain hidden from science, especially if it lives in a remote area and is obscured by folklore. Even a clear photograph in the hands of a scientist is no guarantee that there will be a scientific inquiry anytime soon. It also shows that you need to be open-minded about cryptids. They might turn out to exist, but at the same time they might be a species you never imagined. Few people think that Bigfoot-type cryptids could be anything other than primates or primitive varieties of humans, but it is always possible that some could turn out to be something entirely different."



Ufiti (look this up.. this one was not yet declared "real at the time this was wrote, but it is the one that was just found in 2010)
"The ufiti is an animal that looks like something between a chimp and a gorilla, but closer to a chimp. It is reported in native folklore from Malawi, an area where chimps are not supposed to live. Similar creatures that seem halfway between chimp and gorilla have been reported from elsewhere in Africa, where they are given local names, such as the koolokamba, the choga, the bondo ape, the dodieka, and the Bili ape (of the Bili Forest in the Congo).

This creature was scoffed at until a single example was captured alive near the Limpasa River. A female, this animal proved to be a chimp, but one so different that it might count as a new subspecies. She was huge, black in color, and had a "silverback" like a silverback gorilla, a gray saddle-shaped marking that is only found in male gorillas, not in chimps, let alone female chimps. She certainly fit the ufiti described in folklore.

Unfortunately, she died in an English zoo in 1964 and there has not been much interest in discovering whether there are more ufitis in Malawi. In best circumstances, the ufiti might even be a new species, just as the bonobo was eventually declared a separate species after being thought a mere subspecies of chimp for a long time.

Other evidence for this animal includes skins and skulls collected near the border between Gabon and the Republic of Congo. These remains exhibit characteristics of both chimps and gorillas, so that experts remain divided over whether they represent anomalous, oversized mutant chimps or undersized, weird gorillas. So far, the physical remains and the single captive ufiti have not prompted any movement within the mainstream scientific establishment to declare the ufiti a new subspecies or species. The evidence has sometimes been explained by saying that such individuals represent chimp/gorilla hybrids, but such hybrids are not thought to be possible."


Pygmy Elephant
"The pgymy elephant is just what it sounds like: a very small elephant. Known to natives of the Congo as the red elephant, adults stand no more than six and a half feet tall at the shoulder, and many are smaller. There have been adult males less than five feet high. Newborns are the size of dogs. They have a reddish skin that is hairier than normal elephants.
Since they have been held in captivity, there is no doubt that these animals exist. The only question is whether they qualify as a new species, a new subspecies, or only as mutants within a known species (the African Forest Elephant). Most zoologists argue for the latter, but cryptozoologists hold out for formal recognition as a new species or subspecies.

There are a number of pieces of evidence to uphold the idea of a new subspecies or species. In the few observations of these animals in the wild, they are seen in family groups of just pygmy elephants, not mixed with larger elephants like they should be if they were something like midgets are among humans. In addition, they seem to have adaptations to a more aquatic lifestyle and they are found in a unique habitat, dense swamps, that are shunned by other types of elephant. These characteristics, if they prove true in later studies, should allow pygmy elephants to qualify as a new subspecies at the very least. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be interest and funding for further studies.

In addition to the pgymy African elephant, there are also reports of pygmy Asian elephants from the dense jungles of India and from certain islands in or near Indonesia. These claims of other possible types of pygmy elephant have been even less investigated by mainstream scientists than the claims of African pygmy elephants.

The possibility of a new species of elephant is not as outlandish as it sounds at first. After many years of familiarity with the African elephant, scientists decided that the African Forest Elephant was not a subspecies, as had been supposed for years, but was a separate species, with nearly as wide a gap between it and other African elephants (the African Bush Elephant) as the gap between African elephants and Asian elephants.

Also, this has happened before in zoology. Bonobos (pygmy chimps) used to be considered as just a subspecies of chimps, but now they are considered a unique species of their own. These lessons teach us that a new species can be declared many years after mainstream science has accepted that the animals in question truly exist, if what was considered to be just one species is found to be two or more."

from http://www.wyrdology.com/cryptozoology/found.html
The Komodo Dragon
The now well-known komodo dragon was considered by many to be simply a myth until 1912.

The Pygmy Chimpanzee (Bonobo)
The pygmy chimpanzee (bonobo) was only identified as being a seperate species in 1929.


The Coelacanth
The sea-dwelling coelacanth had been believed extinct for millions of years. Then in 1938 one was caught off the coast of South Africa, an event described as akin to finding a living dinosaur. Many more of these "living fossils" have since been caught.
More coelacanth information


The Chacoan Peccary
These boar-like creatures were believed extinct until rediscovered in the 1970s.


Gallotia Gomerana
The Gallotia gomerana lizard had been believed extinct for hundreds of years - then in 1999 it was rediscovered on the Canary Islands.


The Ivory-Billed Woodpecker
This wonderful bird was believed extinct since 1944. Then it was sighted in 2004. Its existence was officially confirmed in April 2005.

Now for two Cryptids that had skeptics just as devoted to their "Non-existance" as Bigfoot?

The Gorilla and the Panda Bear. Both were considered so absurd, that scientists did not feel that it was worthy to even try to look for them. In both cases, Natives had stories about them, and European traveler eye-witnesses were called "Bat-Shit". But Science did not feel the need to look for a Giant African Jungle man (In fact if you look up Bigfoot sightings from the 1800's and early 1900's people called them Gorillas as no one knew what a gorilla looked like back then, only that it was a giant ape-man.), nor an Elusive Bear that was both Black and White yet no one can find it in a Bamboo jungle of light green?

In both cases, the stories went on for 100's of years and both were not confirmed until the 20th century. Even funnier, the Gorilla was KNOWN to science by the latter part of the 19th century, but was not confirmed as a species until 1920.

So when I read about these other stories, and how Sciences arrogance prevented discovery... Well, Surviving relict Hominids seem THAT much more plausible.

Yes, I believe in Bigfoot anyway. I was sort of brain washed into believing it from the time I could walk and talk due to my family members sightings. Just as I was brainwashed into Christianity simply because my parents were Christian. Though I am still "Christian" as far as Philosophy I now question the Bible because I now know why it was created and who put it together and I will be honest, my faith has serious evidence issues. Bigfoot does not.

g

StankApe wrote:You are doing revisionist history AND trying to compare Victorian era exploration to now. Both are fallacious....

When they went and looked for the Mt Gorilla, they found them, when they went and looked for Komodo dragons, they found them. Creatures that live in the ocean depths are hardly comparable (though the tales of giant squid dragging ships to the depths have been dismissed as untrue).

None of the creatures you listed, have appeared on a an unsubstantiated bit of film (shot by a con man) , hunted by thousands of people, lives in a highly populated country loaded with camera, and is ,as yet, un-captured. Not a single one.


One more thing that you brought up that actually harms your case. All of those creatures presumed extinct that were later found to exist. Very few of them there were, elusive, rare, yet found they were. Where's the ape? Produce a body. without a corpse your beliefs are borderline religious.

Interesting how EVERY SINGLE TIME some sort of "breakthrough evidence" is going to be uncovered it either never appears, turns out to be garbage, or is a hoax.... I don't recall every hearing about "the great coelocanth hoax of 1919"........

For starters, all the things in italics are modern confirmations. The Bondegezou, had the very same skeptics that Bigfoot has and for the very same reasons.

As for "We looked for the Gorilla and found it"? lol Do you even know you just made my point about Bigfoot. We did not "Just find it" in fact there was a 200 year search. The search for the Gorilla started in the 1700's and did not conclude until the 1900's Scientists were cock-blocking scientists to prove it first. Like wise, look up what science was saying about the coelocanth before they got one in their hands. No "Hoax" because a hoax requires frivolous evidence. In the case of the coelocanth, there was no evidence at all.. Just African natives stating that they caught them all the time, and Scientists laughing at the very idea.

The ONLY difference between Victorian Science and "Modern" is who is pulling the strings. During Victorian times, Darwinism was not yet main-stream (But on the rise) and Creationists were calling the shots. Now it's vise versa. But the standard for this "factual" representation of evolution came from the very same Victorian era Darwinists.

You stated you were fed up with the Fringe stuff? Mainstream Science IS fringe. It operates by using a double-standard. When it comes to criptids (No matter how many times they are confirmed) They chant this "Burden of Proof" crap, while at the very same time teach that evolution is fact when there is no "Burden of Proof". We can see in real time animals adapting to their surrounding when it comes to certain species. We cannot see solid proof that one animal became another. "The other Hominids went extinct." And we know this is a fact because....? Oh because we don't see any running around in the street and the fossil record stops 20,000 years ago? Okay, they also say "Chimps and Humans evolved from a common ancestor." There IS NO FOSSIL RECORD of chimps. Because Chimps live in an environment that does not allow fossilization. The same type of environment that all these Hominid sightings from Sasquatch, to Yowie, to Almas and that little Orang-Pendeck are said to be seen in.

http://listverse.com/2010/04/16/10-beasts-that-used-to-be-mythical/ <---10 Mythical Beasts

I will admit.. when it comes to Sasquatch, I am religiously compromised, though I am certain I have had an encounter my self. I did not see it, but heard the vocals which matched supposed sasquatch vocals, and most of all what I heard was definately Bi-Pedal and while trying to justify in my mind that it was some sort of Owl at the time, the foot falls were more like a cow.

But as for the other stuff you deem as "fringe" I am agnostic towards as I feel Modern Science should also be.

~chuckles~

Good Post TZ

What some people seem to not get that many animals of Myth and Legend had "different Names" and tales told about them people didn't believe.
The Kraken - Gaint Squid. If we look back at the past and see stories of a Giant Squid even in 20,000 leagues under the sea, they had a Giant squid attack. Sure it was scifi/fantasy but the story did have a base in reality.
People seem to believe that the Forests are easily searchable in North America. Yet the data and the facts keep proving that it is in no way fully explored and that how vast the forests are even a small one. A person can still get lost even in the smallest forest in the US.
So to have creatures that seem to be intelligent which have adapted to their area and know how to hide in it. Would take a long time to find one.
Example: Ever watch the shows on Snipers?
Snipers train to HIDE in the environment, they are trained to sit and wait. to use their surrounding. To move when they can. I would ask some one like Stank to try to find a Sniper in the same forest he is in. He can have several days. I bet he would not find the sniper unless the sniper wanted himself to be found. The sniper could prob snag him multiple times with out Stank even knowing where he was.

This is the creature(s) that we call bigfoot can do. They can hide they have lived in the forests.
I believe the population is like that of the bears or mountain lion. Not like that of a raccoon.

Like any living creature they have made mistakes of them being seen or tracks left behind.
Just as we are not perfect these creatures would not be either.

g

We can see in real time animals adapting to their surrounding when it comes to certain species. We cannot see solid proof that one animal became another. "The other Hominids went extinct." And we know this is a fact because....? Oh because we don't see any running around in the street and the fossil record stops 20,000 years ago? Okay, they also say "Chimps and Humans evolved from a common ancestor." There IS NO FOSSIL RECORD of chimps. Because Chimps live in an environment that does not allow fossilization.

Where does he say he doesn't believe in evolution?
He says that we are assuming things because of Fossil's WE assume certain hominids are extinct because of fossil's, but we also have "branches" in the hominid line that are missing. From the common ancestor that Us and Chimps came from.
All he is saying is that the creature we call bigfoot may be one of these Hominids.
Since we don't have fossils of Chimps from the past did they exists in the past? what evidence do you have that Chimps evolved from the common ancestor, where are the fossils of the chimps who were from the past?

g

wow way to not read Stank.
When the theory of Evolution came about it was considered "FRINGE" science. That was what TZ was saying.
That the Fringe science does become fact at times. Theories of Wormholes "Fringe Science" String theory Fringe Science. Cybernetic Implants Fringe science. Genetics Fringe Science.



Where are the fossiles of Chimps or the decendents of the chimps from where we branched away from them?
I mean we have chimps now so where is there decendents?
Why have we not found fossiles?


Hominid Evolution tree


What I take from TZ post is that the creature or being we call bigfoot could be a Hominid that is part of the Evolutionary Process we came from. So they are in that tree. And like the Chimpanzie we will not find fossils of them because where they live.

g

Ok so Evolution we evolved right? So some of the things we have that were from our past that we do not use now are still around. So with evolution it is likely that Bigfoot has things we don't have correct?

Lets look at some of the item WE have via Evolution:

Plantaris Muscle:
The plantaris muscle is used by animals in gripping and manipulating objects with their feet – something you see with apes who seem to be able to use their feet as well as their hands. Humans have this muscle as well, but it is now so underdeveloped that it is often taken out by doctors when they need tissue for reconstruction in other parts of the body. The muscle is so unimportant to the human body that 9% of humans are now born without it.

The appendix:
The appendix has no known use in modern humans and is often removed when it becomes infected. While its original use is still speculated on, most scientists agree with Darwin’s suggestion that it once helped to process the cellulose found in the leaf-rich diet that we once had. Over the course of evolution, as our diet has changed, the appendix became less useful. What is particularly interesting is that many evolutionary theorists believe that natural selection (while removing all of the abilities of the appendix) selects larger appendices because they are less likely to become inflamed and diseased. So unlike the little toe, which may eventually vanish and is equally useless, the appendix is likely to stay with us for a long time – just hanging around doing nothing

Darwin’s Point
Darwin’s point is found in the majority of mammals, and humans are no exception. It is most likely used to help focus sounds in animals, but it no longer has a function in humans. Only 10.4% of the human population still has this visible left-over mark of our past, but it is possible that a much larger number of people carry the gene that produces it as it does not always cause the ear tubercle to appear. The point (shown in the picture above) is a small thick nodule at the junction of the upper and middle sections of the ear.

Third Eyelid
If you watch a cat blink, you will see a white membrane cross its eye – that is called its third eyelid. It is quite a rare thing in mammals, but common in birds, reptiles, and fish. Humans have a remnant (but non-working) third eyelid (you can see it in the picture above). It has become quite small in humans, but some populations have more visible portions than others. There is only one known species of primate that still has a functioning third eyelid, and that is the Calabar angwantibo (closely related to lorises) which lives in West Africa

Extra Ear Muscles
Also known as the extrinsic ear muscles, the auriculares muscles are used by animals to swivel and manipulate their ears (independently of their head) in order to focus their hearing on particular sounds. Humans still have the muscles that we would once have used for the very same reason – but our muscles are now so feeble that all they can do is give our ears a little wiggle. The use of these muscles in cats is very visible (as they can nearly turn their ears completely backwards) – particularly when they are stalking a bird and need to make the smallest movements possible so as to not frighten its future meal.

Jacobson’s Organ
Jacobson’s organ is a fascinating part of animal anatomy and it tells us a lot about our own sexual history. The organ is in the nose and it is a special “smell” organ which detects pheromones (the chemical that triggers sexual desire, alarm, or information about food trails). It is this organ that allows some animals to track others for sex and to know of potential dangers. Humans are born with the Jacobson’s organ, but in early development its abilities dwindle to a point that it is useless. Once upon a time, humans would have used this organ to locate mates when communication was not possible. Single’s evenings, chat rooms, and bars have now taken its place in the process of human mate-seeking.

Goose Bumps
Humans get goose bumps when they are cold, frightened, angry, or in awe. Many other creatures get goose bumps for the same reason, for example this is why a cat or dog’s hair stands on end and the cause behind a porcupine’s quills raising. In cold situations, the rising hair traps air between the hairs and skin, creating insulation and warmth. In response to fear, goose bumps make an animal appear larger – hopefully scaring away the enemy. Humans no longer benefit from goose bumps and they are simply left over from our past when we were not clothed and needed to scare our own natural enemies. Natural selection removed the thick hair but left behind the mechanism for controlling it.

So all these things we have, The served a purpose once in our evolution, so When you say things like Bigfoot can not have Infravision or other things. This is not true since if the Creature evolved differently it could have things that it developed over time.
So thank you for Proving that things are possible based off of Evolution

g

OK this is where you are flawed...
Look at your own Evolution tree
We all came from 1 Organism
So it IS POSSIBLE and LIKELY that Bigfoot could have traits of a Snake or another animal.
This is your own failed Logic.
If we all evolved from the same Organism and began branching off then WE all have the possibility to have the trait to see Infra-red or any thing another animal has.

I'm a committed Christian, and I've lived in a haunted House, I have seen 3 or 4 UFOs, and I've seen a Bigfoot. I accept that there is a world that we can't see, but does exist around us, and there is world full of mysteries to yet be discovered. I do have a college education, so I'm educated enough to make my own decisions. I believe in things that I see or experience, such as love for my spouse and my children and extended family members, and my friends whom I cherish. Every summer I feed the Hummingbirds, and I am sure that many are the same ones that were here the year before. Our world holds mysteries and wonders, and I adore every second of exploring the wonders our world, seen and unseen, holds.

+1 Sweet

I don't believe that we evolved from one celled organisms, nor from apes, we humans have a soul, and were created IMVOHO in an image of God..
IMVOHO= In my very own humble opinion..

CMcMillan wrote:+1 Sweet

's and love to you from me..

Tzieth. wrote:Okay, I'll play.. I think anyone who "believes" Bigfoot is not real is a fool.

Tzieth, Everyone has a right to their own opinion, whether everyone believes what you may think is true, or not. In America you are free to make your own decisions. Men and women have died to give you that right, and if you believe or not in BF is your choice, not someone else's to make for you..

g

Sweetsusiq wrote:

Tzieth. wrote:Okay, I'll play.. I think anyone who "believes" Bigfoot is not real is a fool.

Tzieth, Everyone has a right to their own opinion, whether everyone believes what you may think is true, or not. In America you are free to make your own decisions. Men and women have died to give you that right, and if you believe or not in BF is your choice, not someone else's to make for you..

You misunderstood me. To BELIEVE bigfoot is not real or for that matter than anything is not real, makes you a fool. My point is Science always takes a religious stand point of absolutes. When Christians were at the helm and now that Atheists are at the helm, you still have science being twisted towards some religious beliefe. Science should take an Agnostic approach "Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, lets find out."

Now Stank.. for the record, No I am not an evolutionist. Like anything else, I take an agnostic approach to it and I do believe in mutation. However one thing becoming another? THERE IS NO PROOF. Fossils are not proof. As I have stated before, They just throw in there that we evolved from monkeys, yet there is no proof that we did. "Humans and chimps split from a common ancestor." Where is the proof? We have no fossils of Chimps at all. Like wise, there is NOTHING in the fossil records that show Homo-Sapiens-Sapiens having any ancestor. Neanderthals are also "Homo-Sapiens-Neanderthal" But even they do not have features even remotely close to ours.

If Evolution worked that way, you would see proof of gradual changes and yet there are none. Each Hominid on fossil record is distinctively different from another. But all of them from Homo-Sapiens-Sapiens is the biggest jump of them all. Rounded skulls with huge foreheads (Compared to them) ,extremely long neck (Compared to them), Abnormal feet with an arch in the middle, A squared off rib-cage (They all have A-framed rib-cages), very thin bone mass (Compared to them.) And small eye-sockets (They all had huge orbits leading to the belief that they were all nocturnal.) Yet we are diurnal.

And you call me a religious crack pot? lol I am actually keeping my own religion out of this. Judeo-Christian creation does not satisfy this either. The Bible only speaks of "Giants".. most of these Hominids were shorter than us. But then again, the Bible does not speak of Tigers, or Rhino's or Dolphins either. The ONLY religion that does explain this, is Intelligent Design. Which is why were were having that "Fringe" discussion. But Scientifically speaking, Darwin Evolution is more fringe than Intelligent Design. At least Intelligent Design is open to all possibilities.

So again.. explain to me how evolution was proven. Explain to me where in the fossil record it shows this microbe, becoming that amoeba and that protozoa. And then that Protozoa becoming this plankton then that algae and then this kelp. And that Amoeba becoming this mollusk and then that crustacean that became this insect or that fish?

If that model for evolution and selective design actually worked, Mars would be teaming with life right now.

Tzieth, What I was saying is that people can make up their own minds and decisions regarding their their own personal beliefs, and I usually don't try to change their minds because they are adults, and thus making their own decisions about what they believe in. That's all I was saying, I think

The molecular level
Different species share genetic homologies as well as anatomical ones. Roundworms, for example, share 25% of their genes with humans. These genes are slightly different in each species, but their striking similarites nevertheless reveal their common ancestry. In fact, the DNA code itself is a homology that links all life on Earth to a common ancestor. DNA and RNA possess a simple four-base code that provides the recipe for all living things. In some cases, if we were to transfer genetic material from the cell of one living thing to the cell of another, the recipient would follow the new instructions as if they were its own.

Yea so lets see at the DNA and genetic level does show that we have a common ancestor so it is logical their is recessive trates that happen through out our Evolution or even bigfoots.
But sure totally throw out science when it doesn't fit your Model stank.

g