Being new to this group, I have not gone thru everything and most likely will not in the near future. What I did see was some discussion about debunking and the quality of it. As a person that has an open mind to almost everything (Kill the Thunderbird and other such nonsense) I have really lost my openess to Mr. Bigfoot. Why? Circumstancial evidence. Ignoring the film, all I see are the footprints, past history and of course the stories such as those on the BFRO as the evidence. Yes, the vocalizations are another. As always, experts on both sides weigh in their evidence.

I ask, what evidence is there? I am talking about statistical evidence of where these supposed creatures exist. I read "they're nomadic" or "they're migratory" and other such ideas but often the pro-arguments tend to contradict. Please, don't go asking me for examples. Food is a main issue for some of these areas as well as human population.

Where I live people have reported BFs. The problem is the simple fact that the amount of sightings are small and any experienced outdoorsman has never seen any such existence. The local orchards have no issues with any such creatures and the other farmers are the same. As an avid outdoorsman myself, I have never seen any such evidence.


I am sorry but fuzzy photos and someone's homemade story or misidentification does not cut it. Really, if there was such "good" evidence then National Geographic or someone would be on it other than Fox or the SciFi channel.

So, you essentially want us to do your homework for you. You definitely won't get anything from me. If you don't do the work, you don't learn anything. Everything you need to know has been posted in these forums. If you won't take the time to use the search function and scout around yourself, then that tells me you don't really care that much about getting your questions answered.

Education is earned, my friend.

:clap: :clap:

Sorry, homework?!! If I read the forum correctly it is General Discussion and not research. Have I offended you by questioning the existence of something you may believe in? Your blind assumption about me is exactly what it is blind. You have no idea of my intentions or even my internet capabilities that could limit my internet functions.

True, but you said you didn't believe it and asked to be persuaded.

Now, that's a little lazy..

There's plenty in this forum to keep you busy. Just use the search function.

Or you could go on not believing. It's not like it will hurt you one way or another.

National Geographic IS on it! Haven't you heard the news? They are talking to one of the most impressive BF researchers we have, Mary Green!

I posted the following on December 4th, 2003:



You didn't say it in your post, but many skeptics assume that interest in bigfoot is for the uneducated and the gullible. I thought I'd provide this link to address that notion before it is even mentioned, by you or anyone else.

Bigfoot Believers article in the Denver Post

I thought you told me she was an impressive BS researcher..

What he said!...

When I first came here I spent literally months pouring over past threads so I could get a flavor and impression of what people were like..and what I could learn from them.
Or whether some ideas were cock-eyed..or if it was just the people expounding them who were!
If you really want to acknowledge..or dismiss Bigfoot/Sasquatch, then take the time to learn why you might do so!
Treat your own opinion with enough respect to do some study into the pros and cons....

An absolute giant in the field. Why, she has done more for............... , am I drunk? What am I saying? :doh: Boy, I sure hope I don't haft to turn in my decoder ring.

I am in no way offended. I just get annoyed at people who come in here with the "prove it to me" attitude. Why on earth would I even attempt to take the time to compile the answers to your questions when they are right in front of your face, presented in a much more thorough way than I could ever try to accomplish.

If you actually read the forums you would know what I mean by "homework." There is a lot of information here, if you want to look for it. There are many people on these forums whose expertise is respected not just here, but in the professional world, too. These forums are much more than simple discussion, if you want to learn.

And yet here you are on the internet and YOU searched out a bigfoot forum of all places....funny statement on your part considering.

I am not really offended by your question. I have seen it asked umpteen times. I just usually ignore them. Nothing against you personally. I try to think like a skeptic and like I didnt know of their existence. Many reasons start coming to mind, at blinding speed, one right after another. I just wouldnt be able to list them all. After about 4 years of this online BF stuff, I have learned a great deal. There is no way I could tell you in one little post. That's why you should learn. I'd be willing to bet that noone here would be willing to explain to you why they believe in BF. That really is not an easy question. There are multitudes upon multitudes of reasons. And they do vary greatly from personal reasons to third-hand reports.

Or I could just tell you that you should believe because I saw one and am telling you that they exist. Your choice. It all depends on how bad you really want to know, I guess.

I think all believers are crazy. But, on the other hand, I'm damn sure glad that they are...because they're right.

You sure you don't mean "the most 'impressed' BF researchers"? Or maybe, "the most 'impressed BS' researchers"?

I really think the point the dead reaper guy was not to really be persuaded, but to allow us, or those who chose to. To put forward an argument with what fact's and assumptions we have at hand. Kind of an activity to help us actually determine for ourselves where we stand individually and as a group and to give us the opportunity to separate the chaff from the wheat. And to make the world a better place to raise our alien offspring.

or not

RF

So how can you be so sure of your own beliefs if you arent willing to look at the evidence? In my experience, skeptics tend to think about something to a point and then disregard everything after that point regardless of what it is. Have you reached this point yet?



No, this is exactly what Im going to do. Chances are the 'contradictions' you are discussing may need more explanation so that their meaning is clear to someone not familiar with the evidence thats been collected.



Have you talked to the people that had those sightings? Use your skeptical skills to try to evaluate the evidence for yourself. Thats what we do here. Take apart purported evidence. We arent morons, knuckledragging hillbillies etc. we dont just believe everything that comes down the pike and as a matter of fact, I dont think that Ive ever seen anyone just jump on the "Its Bigfoot" bandwagon with the noted exception of the Patterson film. We are far more skeptical than you might ever think. Myself for example, I could never believe in this phenomenon if not for the evidence that has been, and continues to be, found. Just because YOU havent had an experience, or just because others may have chosen not to report it doesnt mean something doesnt exist. One of the biggest guys in the field of Sasquatch research didnt have his first encounter for something like 19 years.



But see, thats not the evidence that is the most compelling. Others have pointed out some of that evidence to you already so I wont go into it, but I will say that I suspect you have barely scratched the surface of the body of evidence thats out there. If you limit your thought process to it being fuzzy photos and someones homemade story or misidentification then you cant really make a decision one way or the other.

Cool he can hang out with BEH then. Wecould then have on the forum:

Mortis: Well... you start off your post by saying you have not gone through everything (I take it you are talking about what most would consider evidence in favor of existence of Sasquatch) and probably never will. That says it all really.

There is no way to know anything other than whatever preconceived notion one might already have about any unusual subject without seriously looking into it with an open mind.

I forget what the exact number is currently, but we have a list of over 38 new primates that have been discovered since 1979. Just recently scientists have considered evidence of a new extremely large ape species in the Congo. Of course, natives have known of all of these species for years but western science discounts anything until they have it right in front of them.

Anything that smacks of a controversy is to be avoided like the plague until someone else shoves it in front of them. That really is how it has gone.

In 1950, when the Wood Bison of the Pacific Northwest was listed as officially extinct by science, there was a herd of 200 of these 1800 lb. animals stomping through the forest. Why didn't anyone believe they existed? How is it even possible to miss them?

The vastness of the land and the ability of Sasquatch to spend most of the daylight hours in hiding and night hours hunting has a lot to do with why they are rarely seen. The roughly 260 Mountain Gorillas that were around when Dian Fossey began to study them were rarely seen even by the natives who hunted them religiously. For some armchair expert in the city to begin to have an idea about "what can and cannot exist" in the wild he must first go out there. It took Dian Fossey years to do it.

Where Bear can survive so can Sasquatch. Smaller in number for sure, but they can certainly exist. And with all the sightings from reliable people who just happen to see one when the need for food brushes up against the human population for a brief instant, we can't simply write this off.

Yes, there are plenty of hoaxers out there. That will always be a problem. It makes it tough on the very tiny group of people who do spend some time out in the deepest parts of the forests and mountains where such creatures could certainly roam.

Perhaps if there were some real concerted effort on the part of more than the handful of scientists who actively take part in research this could be resolved. But it is simply safer not to go near the subject until someone else finds a body.

DNA from hair samples found shows something is out there that is an unknown primate. You would think that would be enough in itself. Perhaps in the Congo it is. But not here. Not since the word "Bigfoot" was invented and those daring to mention seeing one (like members of my own family) have been relegated to the tabloids.

As far as "outdoorsmen" never seeing one - that is a statement that shows you are basically someone who has zero knowledge on the subject at hand.

If you spend the effort to seriously look into the matter you might become convinced. You'll see more than hoaxed photos are responsible for so many taking the subject seriously from Dr. Jane Goodall, to those who simply noticed some gorilla-looking animal staring at them from the edge of the forest, to those who just began adding up the evidence that has existed through the centuries - as it did with Mountain Gorillas prior to their "discovery" in 1902.

So read up on not only Sasquatch throughout history, but also the various unusual animals that have been "found" suddenly after being dismissed. You may not be convinced that an unknown primate exists in North America afterwards, but you will get some insight into just how these things can go on for so long without being "discovered" by those you would choose to take seriously.

Perhaps even travel 25 miles into the forest from the nearest dirt logging road and find yourself a good camping spot near a stream filled with trout at the base of a mountainside. Then observe nature for a month or two. You may yet change your mindset.

If you are interested - then good luck to you. If not - then good luck to you.

- Dfoot

Ahem....I stand corrected.

Yes please read through the threads- that is the best way to educate yourself on this phenomenon. Not all of us are true believers on here but their is a wealth of info on this site right at your fingertips.

On the serious side now, I don't care how many books you have on the subject, or videos or whatever, you can learn more about the subject just by reading the topics on this forum. Every book, picture, piece of video, gets discussed in one way or another, on different slants from all different viewpoints from all different kinds of people here, that if ALL you do is just lurk, you will gain a great wealth of information, ideas, and opinions.

Not enough is probably said, but a great big thank you to good 'ol Bip and all the Mods here that keep this forum the BEST one on the planet.

I hope everyone out there in BFF land has a great Thanksgiving.

Scotto

Oh...........no.............?

taken from the Bigfoot Information Project FAQs

Questions that come to mind:

Where was the hair found? Where is the hair now? How was it determined the hair matched no other forest animal? Who has studied the hair? Who determined the hair matched no other forest animal?

Same thing with the "huge turds."

A few more:

What's a forest animal, anyway? How many forest animals are there? Have the hair and fecal matter been compared to non-forest animals? If so, then to which ones, and what were the results, if any?

That's what skeptics want to know.

Although my friend and colleague Judaculla is well able to answer your questions, I feel compelled to respond.

Another free education, eh?

I suspect if you truly wanted to know the answers to your questions, you wouldn't be asking the questions on a forum.

Do the research. Look the stuff up. Delve. Read. Posit.

Any true skeptic should have researched exhaustively before truly calling themselves a skeptic. Otherwise they're just ignorant.

The information is available for all - including any and all skeptics who truly wish to learn. Now, if the skeptic or whoever is not willing to put forth the effort to research the matter, how can they truly be skeptical about something about which they know so little?

That's not skepticism - it's just an uninformed opinion.

I think it's worse than that.. it's cynicism. The automatic expectation of the worst of all possible outcomes. The people were liars, incompetent, blind, delusional.

What's wrong with being a cynic?
If you're right and everything turns out badly, hey...you won't be disapointed.
If you're wrong and everything turns out well...you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Either way, it's a win-win situation!

Where beside the PNW or Alaska could you get 25 miles into the forest? Not in the south that i know of and if so a very few small areas. You don't have do get so far away to have an experience.

You can get 25 miles into the forest in Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, and Utah pretty easily...but considering how fond BF is of bolting across asphalt roads, why bother?

He's got to bolt across the road to get to your house and drink the Pabst.

After a few dozen Pabsts, the ol' hairy devil's a LOT easier to take pictures of!

Welcome to the Forum anyhow!


Belle

Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, the Carolinas, Virginia, Michigan.

In ANY of those states, you can do so. But it's not necessary to go 25 miles to do what he's suggesting. In some areas, you only need go 5 or 10 miles to be totally isolated.

That is so true TT!


Belle

Or move into a mobile home. Those folks have tons of sightings.
Get a porch, he'll come up on it and try the door knob if you're really lucky!
Finally, pretend you spend every waking moment researching and discount everyone else because they don't walk 25 miles into the bush for a sighting like you pretend to do!

t.

What gives??? Cant a newcommer ask for info without being crucified? I had heard that this site was ruthless, but I didnt want to believe it. If you have the info share it...isnt that what we are trying to do here, share information???

FRAK! Wrong thread.

Somewhere within these forums is a thread. In it, someone wanted suggestions on what to present to skeptics. The questions I posed were some of the same questions I've faced as a result of my telling skeptics things along the same lines as what Judaculla posted on Dec. 4, 2003; So it's not me wanting the "free education," although I can see why you'd think so because I wasn't at all clear. That's what I get for being in a hurry. Sorry, but the sauerkraut was nearly done, and I had to tend to it.

I've done the reading, I've done research in the middle of woods and wilderness, I've spoken with witnesses and stuff like that, so I can understand the "Do your own damned homework" attitude. And you know what? Through all of it, it was *still* a free education. Well... Compared to some of the computer and business courses and crap I've had to take. Hell, most of that information is available on a lot of websites like the BFRO's website and Craig Woolheater's site, and that's pretty much free to look at, depending on who's paying the Internet bill. So, I don't know why people complain so much about organizations, but that's a whole other subject. But my point is: It's, like, really super easy to find out stuff about Bigfoot if you just take the time to search the Internet for the information. Although that wasn't my original point.

Someone a Battlestar Galactica fan ??

point taken.....it just sems like there is alot of animosity towards newbies on this board.

Yes! The old series was fun, but the new miniseries was just wicked. Can't wait to see the new series in 2005 because I'm in the US and not the UK, where it's already being shown. Felgercarb!

Henner Fahrenbach has done a great deal with microscopic hair analysis. There are those who post here that are far more familiar with his work than I am. I defer to them. Alleged sasquatch hair samples are in the possession of multiple researchers.

Fecal material and vomit is also in the possession of multiple persons and sitting in personal freezers. Some of each was recently collected on the various BFRO expeditions.

On a side note, getting DNA from hair, feces, and vomit is apparently much more challenging than it would seem from watching an episode of CSI: Miami.

I have none of those things in my possession. Perhaps a BFRO curator or someone more familiar with the available physical evidence can answer the rest of your questions.

So then, how does one go about getting fecal matter or vomit examined and classified?

A great source that hasn't been mentioned yet is Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science or the International Syposium on Sasquatch (four DVDs) (which is not a BFRO project, BTW).

For evidence collection and anlysis, please see Tips for Collecting Evidence.

(First, Reaper's statement that "any experienced outdoorsman has never seen any such existence" is quite untrue. An analysis of sighting reports was done after a similar claim was made three years ago or so following a sighting in one of the mountain states (CO, I think), and it was found that such persons were by far the likeliest to report evidence and encounters. This indicates, at a minimum, that Reaper's reading has been superficial, since he should have run into many such reports on BFRO. His sort of scoffing overstatement may have led to a negative reaction among members here and account for some of the roughness in the responses above.)

In an attempt to provide a quick summary of the Case For Bigfoot, a year or so ago I boiled the items down to the size where they could fit onto a (double-sided) business card. This has evolved as I've learned; I've posted various versions of it here before.

(Maybe bipto would post an improved version of it on BIP, for the convenience inquiring skeptics. It could include more details, such as were in Jud's post. Ideally it would append answers to the detailed follow-up questions that would be asked, such as about the hair-examination, etc. (See above.))

BTW, If Science had troubled itself to set aside a repository for this evidence, which wouldn't have cost more than a little office space and fridge space, plus a bit of secretarial record-keeping, it would be available for examination, and each piece would be accompanied by a history of who'd looked at it and what it was compared to and so forth, as well as microscopic photos of each hair. The disorderly and unofficial state of such artifacts isn't the fault of us believers, it's the sin (by omission) of Official Science. Supposedly, science is organized curiosity, but Official Science has refused to put its money where its mouth is.

(The idea that all we believers need to do is to quit griping and write a proposal for the NSF to fund such a repository, whereupon it will receive eager and unbiased consideration, is laughable. Those who believe such fantasies are hereby invited to write such a proposal themselves--and duck. (John Green & Rick Noll recently wrote the Smithsonian and offered to take the Skookum Cast to them for examination. The Smithsonian turned down their offer. This is emblematic of Official Science's attitude: "Moons? Moons? We don't [want to] see no stinkin' Moons!"))

=============

21 Reasons Why Bigfoot Might Be Real:

1. Jane Goodall believes. (“I’m sure they exist”--9/27/02, NPR)
2. Sightings go back 200 years--Native Americans' further.
3. 30+ policemen have reported seeing a Bigfoot.
4. 1500+ “quality” (= investigator-OK’d) post-50’s sightings.
5. Witnesses unknown to one another in the same locale describe
the same individual-BF (height, color, hair-type, sex, etc.).
6. Certain creature-characteristics would make hoaxing difficult,
e.g.: Height (often 8 feet!), Girth, Stride, Weight, & Stench.
7. Many prints are long-stride, remote, or vary (unlike a mold).
8. There’s no convincing imitation of the ape in Patterson’s film.
9. Pranksters want to “crow”; but few (20) have about BF-hoaxes.
10. 1000's of borderline encounters reported: unusual sounds,
stenches, rocks thrown, "beds" found, strange "kills," etc.
11. Dogs often fear the scent of Bigfoot, when brought to a site.
12. 25 hair analyses = “unknown animal” or “... primate.”
13. 33 proton emission (PIXE) profiles of Chinese Wildman hairs
match one another, but don't match any known animals'.
14. Expert DNA analysis of Yeti-hair root: "unknown animal."
15. Feet: longitudinal dermal ridges & subtly non-human features.
16. Variance of footprint lengths to widths = bell-shaped curve.
17. Piles of human-shaped but gigantic poop have been found.
18. Twisted trees & branches; & BF’s been heard limb-snapping.
19. Audiotapes of Bigfoot calls have withstood expert analysis.
20. “Patty’s” arm-length to leg-length ratio (.85) isn’t human (.70).
21. “Patty’s” mid-arm elbow-bend: impossible with arm-extenders.

This article on the midtarsal break is really good, one of the things that weighs on me in consideration of the Patterson film:
http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html

You can do a search on Jimmy Chilcutt for some insight into dermal ridges on prints, here's one that unfortunately doesn't cover all his basis for belief, but still gets a little into it:
http://web.ksl.com/dump/news/cc/nov99/bigft2.htm
and like others have said the LMS dvd is just so chock full of stuff that explains how it's done and the evidence available. There's also a test on vocals, which a search will get you some cool ones. There's some at the BFRO site.

One of the reasons that doing a search here is really good is that during a thread, sometimes the heated ones, people will bring out stuff that says "Hey! Take a look at THIS!" such as the cast from the Patterson film, that really shows that midtarsal break. As torn as I am about that film I just cannot think of a good explanation for it. And then couple that with the fact that Meldrum has over a hundred casts that exhibit the same morphology from different times and areas, there's something going on there.

Skepticism is good, there probably is a lot of hoaxing going on there. I'm not really worried about proving they exist to anybody, I pretty much agree with Chilcutt when he said:
"It's enough to know that there's an animal out there, and who, for the most part, has eluded humans for hundreds of years. Personally, I think that animal ought to be left alone."

I knew I liked that guy.

Nothing wrong with asking questions. I'm not aware of a single post that addresses the hair issue, but some detailed info can be gleaned from a quick search here on the BFF.

Stuff like this:

















There's a wealth of offsite info too:

This November 1995 article for example which states:



From here:



From the BFRO:



A November 1999 update from that same website: I am concentrating now on blood or tissue, as the hair holds no promise. -- Dr. W. Henner Fahrenbach

Another source:



A more recent report from September 2001:



Unclear as to the date of this report though the majority of the info comes from a book published in 1980:



I'm sure I could dig up more info, but unless bf steps forward to present hair for analysis, we're merely left with questions. (Such as the ones you asked.)

RayG