Mine would have to be that they are generally agressive and violent.Any animal that feels threatened will lash out.

How about you?

I just can't understand how any creature that large is able to sustain itself in the wild.

I think we don't have enough information to assume there are misconceptions.

the one that really grinds my gears is people who refer to bigfoot as him and ask stupid question like " did you see him" their is more then 1 buddy did u see one.


and that's what really grinds my gears!

The bigest one is that people still think they are not real . Poor souls are in for a big surprize soon

Great - I love surprises!


I'd have to say that the greatest misconception is the idea that "bigfoot was proven to be a fake because some guy admitted it and even produced the suit."

That (paraphrased) is what I just heard from a graduate student on a trip back from a meeting a few hours ago. Yep, there were 3 professors and 3 grad students in the van, and we were all talking about bigfoot. I pointed out to the graduate student that the story to which he referred was pure nonsense, and he was rather intrigued. I guess y'all are rubbing off on me.

Good for us.

The biggest misconception I've read is that there's only one and it's lived for hundreds of years.

An MIT grad on an AOL board used Ishi to show "it" can't exist.

We use Ishi to show a whole tribe could live on the edge of civilization for fifteen years without being detected. Ishi was the last of them.

"They would have had a body by now"

I guess if I were to call it a misconception it would be that they are as a whole so elusive, each one is a master at avoiding human contact. I would think that one would have gotten itself into a bad situation by now.

LAL,my uncle said the same thing "How can one creature travel around the country for so long? It would be dead by now." Not one of the brightest in the family.

I suppose mine would be that they are only found either in the Himalayas, or in the PNW. The reality is, there have been sightings in all parts of north america with the exception of Hawaii....

Here is an interesting link to some guys running all around the pacific redwood forests hunting and cataloging tall redwoods. They have found 4 (there are only 4 known) redwoods over 370 feet tall

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/04/D8MEPKQG1.html


Too bad these guys can't be recruited to also keep an eye out for you-know-who, since they are out there being foolish and compulsive anyway.

Incidentally, I read a report recently about a BF sighting in trees . They were occupied in propping a BF corpse in the limbs of the tree. Although I did not find this particularly credible, I have often wondered if BF might spend days dozing way up in giant redwoods. Even if BF researchers hiked around constantly looking up, BF could easily conceal itself from view by resting on a giant limb 200 feet up in a thick redwood canopy. At least its an idea about where they might hide.

A possible misconception I had was that Saskeptic was not as 'open' to the idea of Bigfoot™ as it appears he is. I do know you've never poo-poo-ed the idea outright, but was maybe under the assumption you'd use any and all negative input from any of your 'learned brethren' to bolster your skepticism (as opposed to what you apparently did instead). In fact it now appears you have the possibility to do it to them, i.e. sway them. Hmmmmmm.... :wink:

Here is one, some people claim to be "experts" in the field of BF.

Well if I wasn't at least open to the idea there'd be no reason to come here. It is indeed fun to play devil's advocate with my academic colleagues, most of whom are interested in the phenomenon but think the sum total of evidence worth considering both began and ended with Patty in 1967. It's only tenure-risking crazies like me that invest time in stuff like this when we should be working on our "real" research. But if my colleagues are to poo-poo all things bigfoot, I want to make sure they do so from an informed position, rather than tout urban legends and other misinformation that I now know to be erroneous.

There have been around 20 guys claim to have been in that suite if you add them all up.

Saskeptic, you are my favorite skeptic! :new_thumbsupsmileyanim:

What drives me crazy is I have never seen one, or even a possible one. Don't even know where my interest in them started, or why. All I have is the word of people I don't know and have ever seen.
One day I'm thinking BS, and the next I'm thinking what if. The whole thing is a misconception.
L

The PG Film is not a man in a suit but is in fact just a hairy man !!!

Well I hate to say this but, how can there be misconeptions about something we know so little about? Fact is we know very little about this supposed creature. :protest:

I think I agree with Saskeptic about what is the biggest misconception. I had an engineer friend tell me that he thought it was all settled because some guy, somewhere, already admitted to faking it all.

The most bolloxed up version of that I've seen was that the guy who hoaxed the footprints produced the suit on his deathbed. I thought I'd seen an urban legend being born.

I stand by what I said earlier. What I meant was the habits of BF.. This however, is one misconception I can agree with. :doh:

I was talking to a Boy Scout about BF the other day and he said "it's just people seeing a bear and thinking it's Bigfoot." Maybe that's what they teach 'em in scouts so they don't get scared out there on their hikes!

The majority of the time thats probably right on the money..

Mine is: If you harm a bigfoot others will attack you.

To me the biggest misconception is that if they really exist we would have capured one, or killed one, by now.

I think they are as intelligent as humans (in a way) and are at the top of the food chain in their world, and as such are masters at stealth and invisibility. They lay down flat on the ground in thick undergrowth when the see or hear humans approaching. They are much stonger and faster than us, so they are able to run through the thick woods at speeds we never could.They are curious, but mostly they dislike humans, and stay as far away from us as possible.

I think thats because they get him mixed up with the guy who took the "Surgeons Photo" of the Loch Ness monster.

Anyways, I think that the biggest misconception is that there is only one, and his name is Bigfoot.
Weird.
I think that we know quite a bit about Sasquatch, enough for ther to be misconceptions.

John Chamberlin made the costume for the P/G film.The rumors persist even after Chamberlin flat out said they were false.

I applaud your courage. The scientific community would benefit greatly if people like you were the norm instead of an anomaly.

Thanks, but there's no courage necessary to discuss bigfoot among my colleagues. We wildlifey types would LOVE for there to be such a thing - "we" (if I may presume to speak for the entire community of faculty skeptics) just have a hard time reconciling the abundance of reports with the lack of incontrovertible physical evidence. Because generations of alleged encounters haven't turned up any such physical evidence, we have no confidence in our own abilities to successfully mount expeditions to find such creatures, so the bigfoot phenomenon ends up being largely ignored by rank and file field biologists.

So I guess another misconception is that "mainstream" wildlife scientists are somehow against the idea of bigfoot. In my experience, we tend to be huge fans - we just need some better physical evidence.

This may not be a misconception per se, but I HATE it when I go to a library or book store and find that books about BF lumped in with UFO's, crop circles and haunted happenings. Why can't put it in a separate category by the Audobon field guides or nature categories?

This is good news to hear. As odd as this may sound, I am happy to hear that it's only a matter of physical evidence. I was under the impression that rank and file scientists are staunchly opposed to the very possibility of the existance of a large hominid that manages to remain hidden from science and the world at large. And, reading that Dr. Meldrum's BF research is somewhat frowned upon by his colleagues just seemed to reinforce my negative impressions.

I hope the BF hunters provide that physical evidence in the not too distant future. Hopefully, by not killing one, but, it's always been a case of "show a body" so that may be the only means we get a body. Unless some drunk driver runs one over some night.

That drives me nuts too.
I just got that Casebook by the Bords and its full of them. Makes me sad....

Hey Mike U., all,
I have also initiated discussions among 1 or 2 faculty colleagues about BF, both zoologists--one was outright dismissive and remained so even after seeing the footprints I photographed; the 2nd was interested but skeptical, and was amazed by the photographs, so I'd have to say, based on my limited sample, that biologists would be very supportive of BF if more evidence is discovered. You'll notice that Meldrum's critics at ISU are in the physics department, not the biology department (like quantum mechanics is provable? ).
vlandrum

The classic The Apes Among Us is too. Of course, if they weren't, the sceptical charge that we sweep such reports under the rug might have some validity.

By eating food and drinking water



I applaud you Saskeptic for being open to both sides of the issue.



You'd better be careful, you might find yourself in Dr. Meldrum's boat!

I chalk this up as being a huge misconception that really frustrates me, and that is the massive assumption that eyewitness testimony is unreliable.

If that is the case, then there are thousands of individuals that should be released from prison immediately, as eyewitness testimony is used in courtrooms every day.

So let me get this straight and see if I can sum it up correctly:

We have had hundreds, if not thousands of eyewitness reports in the last 50 or 60 years. There were hundreds of article written before that concerning "wildmen", who just happen to be described as looking and having the same mannerisms and habits of BF today.

So if this adds up to say 2478 eyewitness reports, we are assuming they all saw a bear? Even when they outright say that they saw an ape or a manlike creature sometimes not just walking but running upright in broad daylight, and even if the creature is described as having grey or white fur.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt babies.

When reading bigfoot reports, I love to see the witness state "I know it was not a bear". That takes away any thought of second guessing the witnesses account.

Until they are proven as a real flesh and blood animal, a lot of people will continue to classify them with myth, legend, or the paranormal.

I think the biggest misconception is "someone admitted it was fake" also. People just dont wanna see the real evidence

Oh yeah, and those three or four toed "prints". Those make me sad too.



There really isn't anything that isn't linked to the paranormal in someway I suppose.

Maybe this has been covered already. If so sorry.

I think one of the biggest misconceptions made by some researchers is that this is just an ape. This is more than an ape. I also feel that trying to link this to Gigantopithicus is a real stretch. I understand we are trying to gain acceptance with the scientific (as well as mainstream) community and by referring to this as a "North American Ape" we may be able to accomplish that but alas, I am of the opinion that this is no mere ape. This is a surviving relict hominid. A primitive man of sorts. If this is the case, they have a more complex social structure than apes. If they were apes we'd probably be finding them in groups and be able to approach them more easily. As a more intelligent being they are fully aware of how dangerous we are. Possibly able to pass this information onto each other for generation upon generation. Just as Native Americans have many stories of bigfoot and the dreaded "white man", Sasquatch probably has just as many stories about Native Americans and the dreaded white man". One knows how to live in harmony with nature, the other (pale one) you stay the hell away from.

My father is a biologist who I would describe as super-skeptical, so when I asked him if he would be willing to do some track casting with me so I could sharpen my skills in case I ever run across some BF prints, I expected a guffawing display of mirth. His actual response...he would love to see a BF, but first he wants to see a mountain lion. Before that conversation, and reading this thread, this was probably what I'd call my own biggest misconception.Just as an aside, replicable experiments have been conducted in which a super-cooled beryllium ion has been oscillated to the degree that is was photographed in two places simultaneously. Also, a so-called quantum computer has now performed calculations while being turned off. The effects of quantum mechanics are fairly measureable, but its calculations only apply to microscopic bodies so it is flawed just as relativity is flawed since its calculations are only accurate with macroscopic bodies. Hence the recent focus by many physicists on string theory which is an attempt to reconcile quantum mechanics with relativity. The only problem with string theory...its "truth" is far less measureable than the existence of BF.

I think the biggest misconception, that if they exist is that they are "dumb" animals. Sure they have the odd lapse, but all the sighting reports say to me that he's already proved he's smarter than man in the woods. It seems particularly galling that some beleivers would rather ascribe him paranormal abilities rather than admit he's smart. Sure he can vaporise into thin air, but he's not smart enough to avoid leaving tracks (Most of the time), or to just hide, or to duck and cover when anyone raises anything to their eye.

Second biggest misconception is that he's easy to photograph if you really saw him. I say to anyone who believes that is true, go and take a picture of a squirrel, that is at least 1/3 the height of the frame, then tell me how much easier it would be to photograph a creature that's obviously far rarer, is usually aware of us at greater ranges, and tends to get out of view in seconds. Then compound that with most people thinking a useful camera has a 28 or 35 mm lens on it, and not knowing any better until their "good clear view of xxx" turns into a speck on the print.... Some people are skilled at taking pictures, some people are skilled at taking wildlife pictures, some people are skilled at taking wildlife pictures in the actual wild that have not been set up with captured or zoo animals. Unfortunately these people do not as yet seem to have come within a reasonable proximity of BF with a camera on hand, hardly a likely occurence in the normal course of events though, since they are such a relatively small subset of the general populace. I figure that if all of the witnesses that had a sighting and wished for a camera, actually had their own camera at the time, we'd have been real lucky not to just have 1000s more blobsquatches.

Flash.

There's another big misconception, that because its a biped it can't be an ape. There is nothing about Sasquatch that suggests it's a human, but this opens a whole can of worms. Here's one place where this debate has taken place. And "just an ape" doesn't seem too nice, apes are brilliant animals.

EXACTLY! There's so much of the known animal world I'd still love to experience. Sometimes when I hear bigfoot enthusiasts waxing poetic about bigfoot as representing something wild and unknown that we've lost in our post modern culture, I want to ask these folks what they know about the private lives of lynx or flying squirrels or hellbenders or Swainson's warblers, etc. We know comparatively squat about these and many other species, and we could sorely use increased funding to study them. If you want to increase the chances of "finding" bigfoot in today's world, the better approach might be to fund studies of these species that would share its habitat, rather than try to get funding specifically for bigfoot research . . .

Misconceptions? Golly! Where do we begin?

There are so many misconceptions, not even counting the ones that aren't actually misconceptions so much as ambiguous semantics such as: calling the subject "it" or "he" instead of a neutral non-gendered pronoun (a relatively modern quirk of the english language), or the question of whether it's human or animal (most research in evolutionary psychology is showing that the division between human and animal is more a conceptual contrivance rather than a bio-physical structure), but my favorite misconception is that we are certain of what we know for a fact. Certainty is a whole lot more difficult to conger-up than almost anything.

In the past I had been fortunate to work out in the wild as a naturalist/observer over several years in a few places: including Alaska, and once as a biological technician working in the southwest inter-mountain desert (US), I have pretty good visual skills and I was constantly keyed-in to the wide open landscape for any sign of animate life and never-the-less I was always somewhat astonished at how little we actually saw despite knowing that I was surrounded by the kinds of critters I knew to out there in the immediate vicinity, and how much we mis-identified, particularly with species that didn't necessarily want to be seen (bears, wolverines, mountain-lions, woves, etc) but even with critters (grazeres and baskers)that weren't necessarily trying to hide (cows, elk, moose, seals, otters). Even when 2 spotters were side by side, one might see it clearly and the other miss it. Developing a search ability takes time and experience. Everyone can refine theirown ability to a degree (birders and their un-canny ability to identify hundreds of bird species is an example that sticks out in my mind) but when the evidence comes unexpectedly or from an unexpected source, like many do out in the wild, even the experts are capable of missing or misinterpreting, and do frequently enough...the Ivory Billed Woodpecker most notably.

There's a misconception in believing that if we simply go to where they are being reported we surely must see 'em eventually (or conversely proove they're not there at all).
I think going into the woods to look for (but not likely finding) bigfoot is a good way to develope this kind of sensory awareness, but while hiking with a backpack on a trail we're more likely focused on our footing while our unfocused senses are in an un-focused way tuned-into the surroundings, and while just sitting there near camp (really how far away from camp can you get after hiking or paddling all day) we're probably broadcasting ourselves to the wood-crafty critters to take appropriate action; whether to flee or come-in closer, or maybe to just be very still and therefore invisible. So, if somebody sees something at several hundred feet that appears to be a upright creature that bleeds into the background I'm curious but hardly certain. However when it's an experienced hunter or wilderness hiker who, during a more extended series of episodes detects sign that is consistent with the behaviours we associate with bigfoot, I'm closer to certainty. In any case, I'd say it's case by case, which is where the fun in all this is, which I enjoy immensely and presumably we all do.


In my times travelling in the wilderness, I've never found any sign of bigfoot, but I don't usually look for it...I'm typically pre-occupied watching my footing and/or thinkin' about getting a newer, more comfortable back-pack or a better set of binoculars or a thousand other things...but I've occcasionally stumbled onto the odd piles of bones and other remains. Sometimes it seems obvious that it's a bison or a cow or a coyote, but if it weren't immediately apparent what the remains were, I would likely form a conventional idea based on the size and general surroundings and formulate a reasonable explanation.
C'mon, who's gonna take in a sample of tissue for testing simply because they couldn't imagine it being a cow or deer. I don't think many could tell the difference between a deer's rib, vertebra or pelvis, or a wolf's or that of a large primate...and those kind of clues you'd likely find scattered all about and who'd be the wiser?

It's a misconception to think that by seeing something we can tell what it is.
Seeing the unusual while living out in the wilderness is one of the neatest things about it, and while I've never seen bigfoot or their sign, I have seen a couple of things that still puzzle me. And so did Georg Steller, the great naturalist, when he reported a creature he called the sea monkey and described something that no other competent biologist (and without question Steller was a competent biologist in the more modern sense of the word) could possibly confuse, and yet it'd never been reported since. Was it a now vanished species of semi-intelligent primates living on shell-fish in the incredibley rich Alaskan waters, or was it a deformed fur-seal with some sort of developement disorder, or do they still exist but we insist on seeing "atypical otters". You can see where different solutions could be applicable towards what outwardly seem like the same kind of question. In myown case i clearly identified a creature with a skunk's coloration and size, with pointed and tufted ears that hopped though the snow like a cross between a monkey and kangaroo. I've never seen another. Go figure.

I believe in the possibility of giant hominids, because we do have fossils. It's another misconception to think that just because the wild areas have been mapped or have a road through 'em means that they're fully explored and no longer harbor the wild. No doubt we know an enormous amount about what lives out there and how it manages this, but certainty about what exactly is out there, as we usually think of it, is reserved only to the small areas in specific places where we live, work and play. It's a huge place place out there and when we visit it we're usually blind to most of the evidence it holds. We're so noisy and smelly that we typically broadcast our presence and not-so-sly intentions long before we arrive at the undisturbed setting we're seeking. Modern people see the wilderness as almost hostile in its inability to support us (and valuable only insofar as it can produce something valuable to us), while for a large smart highly mobile critter with an absolute penchant for stealth, it would be the natural setting for which it's combined physical ability, instincts and brain power would make it ideal...provided it never got "busted".

One misconception might be that we think we'd love to "discover" sasquatch and make it "known to science" because it would be a good thing. Why? It'd be too easy to be merely cynical in answering this question, but I genuinely would like to know more about the natural world in the belief that as we know more about something the better we become and co-existing with it, but who doesnt feel at least a slight sensation of dread as to the next step in the natural history of any crypto hominid species should it ever be proven to the modern world that it does indeed hold on by tooth and nail, somewhere we had payed no real attention to, up until then. That's a search image I'd prefer not to have, sadly.

Here here.
Seeing any sort of wildlife is very exciting to me, and, if you're actually out looking for any sort of animal, you're much more likely to see a Sasquatch, than say, trying to bait one.



If Sasquatch hasn't been "discovered" how would we know it existed? I think a more accurate term would be "catalogued". I think that any knowledge it goog knowledge, and that any preservation attempts on a "romantic" animal such as a sasquatch would help many other species as well.

Now there's a couple ideas I can get behind.

I had a thought yesterday (by no means a groundbreaking one) and although it's not so much a misconception about BF as a misconception about 'bigfootery', I think a tangible miconception exists that open sharing of research is favorable. Researchers, although I want to know/see/etc. the latest findings/photographs/etc. as much as anyone else, by all means sit on your research until you are able to produce something quantitatively compelling. In my relatively short time as a BF 'enthusiast', or 'lover' as one person has claimed, I have come to believe that 'real BF researchers' are better off not sharing information publicly (that is, if their goal is to document the existence of BF). DD Ahem Dr. Meldrum, for example, was swayed by enough 'anatomically correct' footprint casts to suggest that the most parsimonious explanation for them was the existence of an undocumented North American biped. A collection of independent, replicable research goes further when presented as a whole to specific persons. The more scattered the findings, the less replicable they are. Perhaps a better method would be overly discriminatng sharing.

...which leads me to another misconception that may or may not fit into this thread...I am tired of being introduced as the husband/son/guy/friend/etc. that believes in BF. For the record, I am simply the husband/son/guy/friend/etc. that believes we can't say for certain whether or not BF exists.

I understand that, however, the problem is that there is literally an infinite number of things that we 'can't say for certain exist'. Many of which we are amused at other people for believing in. Many of which are yet to be thought of. We probably have to go with our own gut feeling or experiences. :happy: