And you Dont Believe

[marduk]

I think he is correct in the usage of the word:

incredulous:

3. (largely obsolete, now only nonstandard) Difficult to believe; incredible. [from 17th c.]

incredulous - Wiktionary

I don't think he is right about Bigfoot though.

Why?

 

[marduk]

Hmm...it's a bit troubling that I couldn't make it through the first paragraph without noticing that he doesn't know the difference between the word "incredible" and the word "incredulous":

"Throughout the twentieth century, thousands of eyewitness reports of giant bipedal apes, commonly referred to as Bigfoot or Sasquatch, have emanated from the montane forests of the western United States and Canada. Hundreds of large humanoid footprints have been discovered and many have been photographed or preserved as plaster casts. As incredulous as these reports may seem, the simple fact of the matter remains -- the footprints exist and warrant evaluation. A sample of over 100 footprint casts and over 50 photographs of footprints and casts was assembled and examined, as well as several examples of fresh footprints."

Incredulous in this context implies skepticism. I believe he’s correct in this usage, and at any rate, it seems a bit silly to form a criticism of this work based on this word.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Incredulous in this context implies skepticism. I believe he’s correct in this usage, and at any rate, it seems a bit silly to form a criticism of this work based on this word.

It is a petty criticism, but he definitely used the word wrong, in the modern use of the English language anyway - reports can't be incredulous because it's a personal character trait, like cynicism or optimism. It just makes me question his intelligence.

And honesty that webpage posed more questions than answers for me - it's an oddly threadbare article/post/whatever. I mean - do any other primates exhibit this kind of unusual midtarsal flexibility of the foot? Couldn't this also be explained as a fake rubber foot bending under pressure? How about a comparative analysis between all of those different alleged Bigfoot impressions - are they anatomically consistent, or too varied to belong to a single species? Are the depth of the impressions consistent with a large heavy bipedal ape, or do they suggest the mass of a human being? What about surface details - are there indications of the kind of skin folds and textures that we'd expect to find, or does the surface appear to be smooth or sculpted like we'd expect to see with a hoaxed impression? How about gripping - do we see evidence of toes clasping into the mud, or do they look more passive like we'd expect to see with a lifeless rubber foot?

I wish he'd gone into that kind of detail, like you'd see in a proper academic paper on this issue, because without that kind of analysis his hypothesis remains unconvincing to me.

 

[Han]

Meldrum's anatomical analysis of Bigfoot as bipedal primate based on castings is pretty damned compelling.

EVALUATION OF ALLEGED SASQUATCH FOOTPRINTS AND THEIR INFERRED FUNCTIONAL MORPHOLOGY

Those plaster casts are awful.
I know that a lot of ancient forms of life are recognised only because of and by their trace fossils, but when you are dealing with deep time (paleontology) that is fine, it is great to have any idea about how something lived from the evidence it left behind. But Bigfoot is not supposed to be some ancient fossil, he is supposed to be walking about leaving footprints all the time, yet the only tangible evidence we have are some extraordinarily low quality plaster casts.
I think I mentioned before that I used to work in a dental lab making plaster models of teeth, that is why to my eye the casts are terrible.
I would of thought that if your entire case depended on the information gleaned from the casting of footprints, you would have at least attempted to get some kind of training, or at lest do some research into materials and techniques etc.
Plaster cast can be accurate to the micron and keep all sorts of detail like dermal ridges etc, but not if you use hand mixed plaster of paris in a muddy footprint. The police have techniques for identifying the tread of tyres or shoes that is admissible evidence, but a judge would not accept the likes of the ones shown there.

The materials are not that expensive, and the skill of making a half decent cast doesn't take that long to learn. And lets face it, accurate plaster casting has been around a very long time.

I will post just one example:


When I compare this:

to all the Bigfoot prints I have ever seen I don't know what to conclude, other than that it is either deliberate, or a complete lack of knowledge and both are equally troubling.

I wouldn't pretend for one second that I know more about #1 Bigfoot or #2 primatology than Mr Coleman, but I do very much question the footprints he shows themselves.

 

[Han]

It is a petty criticism, but he definitely used the word wrong, in the modern use of the English language anyway - reports can't be incredulous because it's a personal character trait, like cynicism or optimism. It just makes me question his intelligence.

I think it can be used like that.

For example if I said:

I find Bigfoot reports more incredulous than those of Yetis.

It makes sense to me, but trying to explain it is a bit more complicated.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Those plaster casts are awful.
I know that a lot of ancient forms of life are recognised only because of and by their trace fossils, but when you are dealing with deep time (paleontology) that is fine, it is great to have any idea about how something lived from the evidence it left behind. But Bigfoot is not supposed to be some ancient fossil, he is supposed to be walking about leaving footprints all the time, yet the only tangible evidence we have are some extraordinarily low quality plaster casts.
I think I mentioned before that I used to work in a dental lab making plaster models of teeth, that is why to my eye the casts are terrible.
I would of thought that if your entire case depended on the information gleaned from the casting of footprints, you would have at least attempted to get some kind of training, or at lest do some research into materials and techniques etc.
Plaster cast can be accurate to the micron and keep all sorts of detail like dermal ridges etc, but not if you use hand mixed plaster of paris in a muddy footprint. The police have techniques for identifying the tread of tyres or shoes that is admissible evidence, but a judge would not accept the likes of the ones shown there.

The materials are not that expensive, and the skill of making a half decent cast doesn't take that long to learn. And lets face it, accurate plaster casting has been around a very long time.

I will post just one example:


When I compare this:

to all the Bigfoot prints I have ever seen I don't know what to conclude, other than that it is either deliberate, or a complete lack of knowledge and both are equally troubling.

I wouldn't pretend for one second that I know more about #1 Bigfoot or #2 primatology than Mr Coleman, but I do very much question the footprints he shows themselves.

Han - you're comparing two totally different scenarios. Dentists use a high-resolution alginate to make dental impressions, and sculptors use mold-making rubber to make the kind of hand casting that you've shown: you get perfect reproductions down to the fingerprints using those kinds of materials. I've been using both of these processes for about forty years.

A foot impression left in mud is an entirely different story. Mud is filled with rocks and sand and leaves and all kinds of other stuff, and impressions left in mud are usually found days or weeks after they were first created so they're subjected to all kinds of weathering processes. You'll never get a foot impression from natural mud out in the forests or swamps that can compete with a professional dental impression or rubber mold.

Tire impressions in mud are useful because you can see the treads and even the depth of the treads, so even that level of crude info can be compared against known brands of tire, and the specific wear patterns and irregularities of a specific tire.

 

[Han]

I agree a bit, obviously the impression material will have a great baring on the final result, no argument there. Plaster comes in grades of fineness and hardness (depending on intended application/use) and is not the only option, resins and other materials can be used instead, or in special circumstances where gypsum plaster is impractical.

Honest question here: do you think you would be able to do a better job of making a cast than those shown in the article?
I honestly believe I could do so my self. I certainly would not use plaster of paris for a start. And would probably treat the ground to stabilise the impression, maybe with a fine silicone spray (mould sealant)? The thing is it is not my job, but if it was I would have opportunity to experiment and refine the technique.
I also don't understand why no attempt has been made to utilize 3d scanning which would not be destructive to the impression like a physical cast is.

Also it would be more understandable if bigfoot only left one print, but there are loads over all sorts of terrain (two at a time ), so loads of opportunity for a good impression surface. For example sand is a good impression material, that is what they sometimes use for moulds when casting iron. And what about clay? surely he must at some point walk over clay? which again would potentially yield a very nice cast if done properly.

But really prints alone will never be good enough, even if they were perfect. You need a cadaver, and until then Zoology can't accept Bigfoot, nor should it in my opinion.
I am happy with Bigfoot being magical, it makes much more sense than a primate with magic abilities, which it would surely have to have in order to evade detection or being shot and killed by now? Take a look at all of the other large animals, however magnificent they are, they are at certain times in their lives extremely vulnerable, when very young or old for example, surely one would have died of natural causes and been found by now? or hit and killed on the road.
He is basically invulnerable which indicates to me that he must be magic.

I think it is more likely that bigfoot is some kind of paranormal thing, than all the people that report seeing him being liars. But what exactly a paranormal thing is, I have no idea though.
The only common theme in such things appears to me at least, to be a human. Where as a Silver Back Gorilla for instance can exist perfectly happily without us, if that makes sense?

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

I agree a bit, obviously the impression material will have a great baring on the final result, no argument there. Plaster comes in grades of fineness and hardness (depending on intended application/use) and is not the only option, resins and other materials can be used instead, or in special circumstances where gypsum plaster is impractical.

Honest question here: do you think you would be able to do a better job of making a cast than those shown in the article?

I honestly believe I could do so my self. I certainly would not use plaster of paris for a start. And would probably treat the ground to stabilise the impression, maybe with a fine silicone spray (mould sealant)? The thing is it is not my job, but if it was I would have opportunity to experiment and refine the technique.

I think you’re dealing with a whole lot of variables in this kind of situation that you don’t have to reckon with when making a professional casting in the studio. Resins don’t play well with moisture, for example. And if you’re dealing with a porous and irregular soil impression, I don’t see how you could prep the surface without compromising detail – silicone or wax mold releases aren’t useful with an organic and porous substrate, and anything used to enhance the rigidity of the impression will cost you some level of detail.

The nice thing about plaster is that it’s moisture-friendly and you can control the viscosity easily, which is crucial – if your casting medium is too thin it’ll soak into the soil, rather than giving you a nice casting that floats on the surface as it’s curing.

I’ve never made a casting of an impression in the environment, but I assume that the process that’s used by experts has become a standard for good reasons. And it looks to me like they’re getting as much detail as the impression has to offer.

I also don't understand why no attempt has been made to utilize 3d scanning which would not be destructive to the impression like a physical cast is.

I just figure that it’s way easier to carry a few pounds of plaster and water out into some place in the forest, than it would be to carry a 3D laser scanning rig and a generator to power it, out to most locations.

Also it would be more understandable if bigfoot only left one print, but there are loads over all sorts of terrain (two at a time

), so loads of opportunity for a good impression surface. For example sand is a good impression material, that is what they sometimes use for moulds when casting iron. And what about clay? surely he must at some point walk over clay? which again would potentially yield a very nice cast if done properly.

The sand that they use for sculpture casting is very fine and pure – I don’t know how much fine and pure sand you’re likely to find in the woods. A clay impression would be sweet, but the only place I’ve ever seen pure clay is along stream and river banks – and it’s pretty rare to find a good pure patch. Plus, with water levels rising and falling all the time, they’d wash away most of the time, and of course a clay impression will quickly go to hell when it rains.

I just think it’s a lot trickier to get a good impression in nature than you seem to realize. The substrate is usually full of crap like leaves and rocks and twigs, and time and erosion are working against you so you’d have to find it pretty soon after it was left there. You might get lucky if you spotted a Bigfoot walking around on a nice patch of river clay and could take an impression before it rained or the water level rose and flooded it, but that would be a really fortuitous combination of circumstances. I think that most people would probably be more interested in running for their lives and going back home to tell their family and/or the police about it, than running to the art store for some plaster and going back to the place where a huge smelly terrifying primate was just seen.

I am happy with Bigfoot being magical, it makes much more sense than a primate with magic abilities, which it would surely have to have in order to evade detection or being shot and killed by now? Take a look at all of the other large animals, however magnificent they are, they are at certain times in their lives extremely vulnerable, when very young or old for example, surely one would have died of natural causes and been found by now? or hit and killed on the road.

He is basically invulnerable which indicates to me that he must be magic.

Like we talked about earlier, a lot of this stuff depends on how smart they are, how sharp their senses are, and how much they want to avoid humans. Deer get run over by cars all the time because they’re not a bright animal, and they tend to freeze when they see headlights. A bipedal primate on the other hand sounds more like a human ancestor. But they could have superior sensory faculties compared to us, so between sentience and acute senses, I think they could do a pretty good job evading humans. Though the fact that we do get lots of reports of sightings seems to indicate that they’re not completely elusive.

I seriously contemplate the possibility that they have senses that we don’t even understand. Remember Rupert Sheldrake’s experiments with dogs and their owners, where the owner is sent a directive at random times of the day to go home, and the video camera at the house shows the dog running to the windows and waiting by the door? If Bigfoot has those kinds of “paranormal” senses, then perhaps they can sense where the others are, and when they’re in trouble or injured, and perhaps they come get the body and maybe even bury it when one of them dies.

When it comes to things like “magical” explanations, I’m kind of a booger – I don’t really think that anything is magical: there are just some things that science hasn’t figured out yet. Didn’t marine biologists discover than some sharks have some weird kind of sense that detects electrical disturbances in the water? That’s pretty amazing stuff, but it’s just a natural sense that might seem like magic if we didn’t understand how it works.

I think it is more likely that bigfoot is some kind of paranormal thing, than all the people that report seeing him being liars. But what exactly a paranormal thing is, I have no idea though.

The only common theme in such things appears to me at least, to be a human. Where as a Silver Back Gorilla for instance can exist perfectly happily without us, if that makes sense?

I agree – it’s really hard to believe that every single person who’s ever reported a Bigfoot sighting is lying about it. Sure, some people have lied about it, but way too many very earnest people have made reports, to write the whole thing off as a string of hoaxes.

When it comes to things like “magical” explanations, I’m kind of a booger – I don’t really think that anything is magical: there are just some things that science hasn’t figured out yet. Didn’t marine biologists discover that some sharks have a weird olfactory sense that detects electrical energy in the water? That’s pretty amazing stuff, but it’s just a natural sense that might seem like magic if we didn’t understand how it works.

If we’re dealing a novel evolutionary adaptation of hominids, god only knows what kinds of abilities they might’ve evolved over the countless eons. I don’t think we have a very good grasp of our own abilities yet – some parallel branch of our own family tree could be full of all kinds of surprises.

 

[Han]

I think you’re dealing with a whole lot of variables in this kind of situation that you don’t have to reckon with when making a professional casting in the studio. Resins don’t play well with moisture, for example. And if you’re dealing with a porous and irregular soil impression, I don’t see how you could prep the surface without compromising detail – silicone or wax mold releases aren’t useful with an organic and porous substrate, and anything used to enhance the rigidity of the impression will cost you some level of detail.

The nice thing about plaster is that it’s moisture-friendly and you can control the viscosity easily, which is crucial – if your casting medium is too thin it’ll soak into the soil, rather than giving you a nice casting that floats on the surface as it’s curing.

I’ve never made a casting of an impression in the environment, but I assume that the process that’s used by experts has become a standard for good reasons. And it looks to me like they’re getting as much detail as the impression has to offer.

Here is a Bear print in 'mud':

the Bigofoot print casts I have seen are never boxed/framed which is what you would have to do to capture as much information as possible.
The police forensic experts would make a much better cast, maybe something similar to this:

here is more about how the police do it:
Footwear & Tire Track Examination: How It’s Done

I just figure that it’s way easier to carry a few pounds of plaster and water out into some place in the forest, than it would be to carry a 3D laser scanning rig and a generator to power it, out to most locations.

Below is "Geoslam ZEB1 3D Laser" Scanner:

GeoSLAM - The Experts in "Go-Anywhere" 3D Mobile Mapping Technology

I think this one is set up for the mobile mapping caves or similar, but the sensor could be set up and calibrated to do a footprint.

The sand that they use for sculpture casting is very fine and pure – I don’t know how much fine and pure sand you’re likely to find in the woods. A clay impression would be sweet, but the only place I’ve ever seen pure clay is along stream and river banks – and it’s pretty rare to find a good pure patch. Plus, with water levels rising and falling all the time, they’d wash away most of the time, and of course a clay impression will quickly go to hell when it rains.

Like I said Bigfoot should leave two at a time all day everyday wherever he walks, and it is not just like there can be one bigfoot given the amount of sightings.

I just think it’s a lot trickier to get a good impression in nature than you seem to realize. The substrate is usually full of crap like leaves and rocks and twigs, and time and erosion are working against you so you’d have to find it pretty soon after it was left there. You might get lucky if you spotted a Bigfoot walking around on a nice patch of river clay and could take an impression before it rained or the water level rose and flooded it, but that would be a really fortuitous combination of circumstances. I think that most people would probably be more interested in running for their lives and going back home to tell their family and/or the police about it, than running to the art store for some plaster and going back to the place where a huge smelly terrifying primate was just seen.

It is tricky but if the police can manage it why can't anyone else?
Fair point about people being frightened, but the fact that we have some cast shows that this doesn't always bear out.

I wouldn't buy the plaster from an art store, they will charge you double, and don't tend to stock the really nice plaster (in the UK anyway), better to get it from a dental supplier or similar. the best I have used was called Noritake super rock it has 0.08% expansion rating and captures an immense amount of detail.
The reason I am a stickler for detail is because if my models were not accurate, then the patient could end up with a big problem.

Like we talked about earlier, a lot of this stuff depends on how smart they are, how sharp their senses are, and how much they want to avoid humans. Deer get run over by cars all the time because they’re not a bright animal, and they tend to freeze when they see headlights. A bipedal primate on the other hand sounds more like a human ancestor. But they could have superior sensory faculties compared to us, so between sentience and acute senses, I think they could do a pretty good job evading humans. Though the fact that we do get lots of reports of sightings seems to indicate that they’re not completely elusive.

I seriously contemplate the possibility that they have senses that we don’t even understand. Remember Rupert Sheldrake’s experiments with dogs and their owners, where the owner is sent a directive at random times of the day to go home, and the video camera at the house shows the dog running to the windows and waiting by the door? If Bigfoot has those kinds of “paranormal” senses, then perhaps they can sense where the others are, and when they’re in trouble or injured, and perhaps they come get the body and maybe even bury it when one of them dies.

When it comes to things like “magical” explanations, I’m kind of a booger – I don’t really think that anything is magical: there are just some things that science hasn’t figured out yet. Didn’t marine biologists discover than some sharks have some weird kind of sense that detects electrical disturbances in the water? That’s pretty amazing stuff, but it’s just a natural sense that might seem like magic if we didn’t understand how it works.

People get run over all day long, and we are the smartest animal.
Bigfoot has no technology whatsoever.
That makes zero sense, even corvids use tools................

The idea that a beast can outsmart a man is silly, ridiculous in fact.
We are the best hunters ever to walk the earth. No creature is safe. Except Bigfoot?

And if they have senses so advanced they can evade us, they wouldn't be applicable to camera traps, or even animal traps.
And also why hasn't any other primate got even the remotest hint of such an ability?
As for nobody left behind.............

Anyway if he has paranormal abilities, then he is paranormal.

I agree about 'magic' it is just a useful way of saying that bigfoot does not belong in the same class of animal as us, they are something different.

And yes the pits along the side of a sharks lateral line can pick up electrical pulses that are fired when the heart or other muscles of a prey animal are in action, but that doesn't stop them being slaughtered by the million every year.

I agree – it’s really hard to believe that every single person who’s ever reported a Bigfoot sighting is lying about it. Sure, some people have lied about it, but way too many very earnest people have made reports, to write the whole thing off as a string of hoaxes.

When it comes to things like “magical” explanations, I’m kind of a booger – I don’t really think that anything is magical: there are just some things that science hasn’t figured out yet. Didn’t marine biologists discover that some sharks have a weird olfactory sense that detects electrical energy in the water? That’s pretty amazing stuff, but it’s just a natural sense that might seem like magic if we didn’t understand how it works.

If we’re dealing a novel evolutionary adaptation of hominids, god only knows what kinds of abilities they might’ve evolved over the countless eons. I don’t think we have a very good grasp of our own abilities yet – some parallel branch of our own family tree could be full of all kinds of surprises.

I don't think we are anywhere near reaching our potential, but I have a feeling that it will take technology to get there.

 

[Han]

Also want some fresh prints?:

SoCal woman claims she saw Bigfoot; sues California to prove it


"They're on our property. They knock on our walls. They look through our windows,"

Not the first report like this, and if they are doing as claimed, how come they leave no trace evidence? No skin cells, no hair etc.....

 

[marduk]

From what I have seen anybody who claims to have physical evidence of a 'primate' Bigfoot is either lying or mistaken.

I think it is like trying to catch a reflection or shadow.

I will ask a question:

If I die falling off a cliff whilst running away from a unicorn, then did the unicorn kill me?

I’m having trouble with both your premise and conclusion.

Can you say more?

 

[marduk]

Also want some fresh prints?:

SoCal woman claims she saw Bigfoot; sues California to prove it


"They're on our property. They knock on our walls. They look through our windows,"

Not the first report like this, and if they are doing as claimed, how come they leave no trace evidence? No skin cells, no hair etc.....

I don’t know.

That’s why it’s a mystery.

 

[Han]

I’m having trouble with both your premise and conclusion.

Can you say more?

Well my premise is, if I understand what that means exactly, is that there is no 'physical' evidence of Bigfoot.
Tracks are one thing, but they need to lead to something.
If he was a primate, then he would be leaving all sorts of traces behind.
Where as something like a ghost/spirit wouldn't.

Whether those types of entity are real is a whole other kettle of fish.

But I think that is where Bigfoot should be classified.
He is seen too often and in too many places, for it to be purely imagination, something must lead to it?

Or if we are just talking about the unicorn thing:

I guess it is about belief, maybe a better example would be, when is it the right time to abandon ship? I mean the search for hard evidence of bigfoot has been going a long, long time, and they have nothing.
But people see and report all sorts of weird things, and not just bigfoot. But again as to why, I don't know. It just seems a bit wrong to cherry pick cases that fit the bill of fare, ignoring all the others.

I think my whole issue is that I am fussy, and want to catagorise everything, so I have put Bigfoot in my own personal 'magic' animal column, but I don't expect anyone else to do the same, I have reached my own conclusion given what I have seen, and it is not like I haven't been wrong before,
If it turns out that Bigfoot is a primate then fair enough, I will be happy the mystery is solved.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Here is a Bear print in 'mud':

That’s an exceptionally clear impression actually – that medium looks just like the fine pottery clay that I sculpt with. But you can see how messy it is. Other bear tracks are usually less detailed and complete, there are several examples here:
How to Identify Black Bear Tracks and Signs

the Bigofoot print casts I have seen are never boxed/framed which is what you would have to do to capture as much information as possible.

The police forensic experts would make a much better cast, maybe something similar to this:

That’s a good technique – they should do that for Bigfoot impressions too.

(sneaker impression image)

That’s apples and oranges – as we’ve seen with bear tracks, a bare foot impression is a rather sloppy and slippery affair that gives you a pretty lumpy and smeared casting. The extremely firm plastic sole of footwear is highly hydrophobic and designed to *not slip* on wet surfaces, which is why shoe impressions come out like a clear 3D replica. Animal tracks never look this clear.

Below is "Geoslam ZEB1 3D Laser" Scanner:

GeoSLAM - The Experts in "Go-Anywhere" 3D Mobile Mapping Technology

I think this one is set up for the mobile mapping caves or similar, but the sensor could be set up and calibrated to do a footprint.

That is awesome. The last time I worked with a 3D laser scanner (a Cyberware head scanner), it was a big metal box with a large heavy frame. I had to calibrate that thing when I was working for the R&D division of Acclaim Entertainment back in the 90’s – they’re still really big and heavy machines:

I had no idea that 3D laser scanners had become so portable. But I bet the chances of finding one of those things in a little town bordering a large forest or swamp is around .001%

It is tricky but if the police can manage it why can't anyone else?

What do you mean? We have dozens of Bigfoot track impressions. They just look kinda rough and funky because a foot or paw impression is always rough and funky compared to something like a sneaker track impression, as we’ve discussed. Here’s a really good human foot impression, which looks about as good as the best Bigfoot track impressions, maybe a little better:

Fair point about people being frightened, but the fact that we have some cast shows that this doesn't always bear out.

I assume that many of the Bigfoot track impressions were simply happened upon days or more after they were left.

People get run over all day long, and we are the smartest animal.

Maybe not But seriously – people get hit by cars in the city because we’re so used to them that we don’t see them as the life-threatening danger that they actually are – we text on our cellphones while using the crosswalk, totally oblivious to the danger we’re in. I don’t recall a single case of a gorilla being hit by a car. And if I saw an 8ft hairy humanoid crossing the road, I sure as heck would slam on the breaks.

The idea that a beast can outsmart a man is silly, ridiculous in fact.

We are the best hunters ever to walk the earth. No creature is safe. Except Bigfoot?

So that’s why humans never get eaten by bears or killed by lions or sharks, huh?

It’s absurd to assume that a large bipedal humanoid primate with a significant level of intelligence and heightened senses couldn’t elude capture in its own habitat if it had a natural instinctive fear and/or revulsion toward human beings. If they can hear/see/smell us coming before we can hear/smell/see them, then they’d be long gone before we got near them.

But clearly they’re imperfect too, which is why we get reports about them.

The distinctly human hubris to think that we’re somehow all-seeing and all-powerful beings, is probably one of the greatest obstacles in our quest to understand our reality. Tons of people still think that there aren’t any ufos , despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary, for exactly that same reason – we all tend to think that if something is real, that we’d know all about it. So when something new and anomalous happens, instead of perking up our ears and looking into it objectively and thoroughly, we tend to mock and ridicule the witnesses.

And if they have senses so advanced they can evade us, they wouldn't be applicable to camera traps, or even animal traps.

I doubt there are many camera traps out in the forests and swamps. And I assume that an 800lb primate with opposable thumbs could open any trap that we set for bears and stuff, but honestly I’ve never studied animal traps so I don't know how much force they generate.

And who exactly are they evading? A handful of Bigfoot enthusiasts stomping around the woods with flashlights at night? Some random hikers or fishermen out in the woods? You’re making it sound like there have been earnest and comprehensive searches for Bigfoot – but I’m not aware of any thorough scientific research efforts to investigate Bigfoot, are you?

And also why hasn't any other primate got even the remotest hint of such an ability?

Let me tell you something – we have senses that we don’t understand, but which are totally obscured by the endless yammering interior monologue in our heads, courtesy of modern human civilization.

I once had an opportunity to spend a single hour in a sensory deprivation tank. And when I came out of that thing, I could feel the emotional states of everyone around me, even strangers across the street, and people driving by in cars. All of the noise in my head was somehow quieted by the flotation experience, and I was like a walking antenna when I came out. I have no idea how I could sense that stuff, but it was tangible. If these creatures have that kind of sense, and they’re used to the normal vibes out in nature, then they might feel us coming from miles away. Even on the obvious level of the way that we affect the ambient animal sounds in nature, they could hear the changes in the environment as we altered the mating calls of animals and insect buzzing and stuff.

I don’t think it’s hard to imagine, at all, that a rare bipedal primate could elude capture in a natural environment that we’ve completely lost touch with – we’re so domesticated now that a walk in the woods might as well be a walk on an alien planet.

Anyway if he has paranormal abilities, then he is paranormal.

I agree about 'magic' it is just a useful way of saying that bigfoot does not belong in the same class of animal as us, they are something different.

And yes the pits along the side of a sharks lateral line can pick up electrical pulses that are fired when the heart or other muscles of a prey animal are in action, but that doesn't stop them being slaughtered by the million every year.

1.) sharks aren’t that intelligent, 2.) the ocean is a terrible place to hide, 3.) there are tons of sharks to find, and 4.) they see humans as food more than they see us as the existential threat that we are.

Bigfoot doesn’t seem to have any of those disadvantages.

I don't think we are anywhere near reaching our potential, but I have a feeling that it will take technology to get there.

I’m not so sure about that. Most people don’t even realize this, but we’re actually asleep right now. That endless stream of verbal diarrhea running through our heads 24/7 is actually a form of dream state that blinds us to the nature of reality in ways that we literally cannot even imagine. And on the rare occasions that a human being has fully awakened from this walking dream state, they’ve exhibited extraordinary levels of consciousness that are completely inaccessible to you and I right now.

The potential of consciousness itself is an almost entirely undiscovered frontier. We’ve only just begun to rise above the level of monkeys. There’s no telling what kinds of capabilities that some other branch of humanoid evolution could entail - we don't even understand the potential of our own consciousness.

Also want some fresh prints?:
SoCal woman claims she saw Bigfoot; sues California to prove it

"They're on our property. They knock on our walls. They look through our windows,"

They should surround their house with infrared video cameras; that’s what I’d do in that situation.

Not the first report like this, and if they are doing as claimed, how come they leave no trace evidence? No skin cells, no hair etc.....

That’s an excellent question for a forensic crime scene investigator.

But off the top of my head, it seems to me that most trace evidence like skin and hair samples tend to come from physical altercations, when people tear and claw at each other. I’ve never heard of anyone scrapping with an 800lb Bigfoot, but if anyone’s ever brave enough and dumb enough to try it, then maybe we’ll get some skin and hair samples from under the fingernails of their unrecognizably mangled corpse.

 

[marduk]

Well my premise is, if I understand what that means exactly, is that there is no 'physical' evidence of Bigfoot.
Tracks are one thing, but they need to lead to something.

Except that tracks are ipso facto evidence of something that looks like an unknown primate.

If it were not a bipedal primate - instead a canine, ursine, etc there wouldn't be a problem. Or even if it wasn't a bipedal primate - a standard new world arboreal primate for example, there would likely would be more support.

The problem is that it looks to be an unknown bipedal primate, of which the only extant living example is us.

If he was a primate, then he would be leaving all sorts of traces behind.

I basically grew up in the woods. I've had many bear encounters.

I've never encountered a bear corpse. If these things were 1/1000th the population of bears, and were reasonably intelligent (think pongo, perhaps) we might only ever encounter them on their terms. And we might never encounter a corpse at all.

I'm not saying it's probable. I'm saying it's possible.

Where as something like a ghost/spirit wouldn't.

Are you really saying that there is more physical trace evidence for ghosts than there is bigfoot? If so, I struggle with that.

Whether those types of entity are real is a whole other kettle of fish.

But I think that is where Bigfoot should be classified.
He is seen too often and in too many places, for it to be purely imagination, something must lead to it?

Help me understand what "something must lead to it" means. Do you mean from an evolutionary perspective? Because if so, a good analogue would be Gigantopithicus. Which by all accounts fits the morphology of this thing.

Or if we are just talking about the unicorn thing:

I guess it is about belief, maybe a better example would be, when is it the right time to abandon ship? I mean the search for hard evidence of bigfoot has been going a long, long time, and they have nothing.
But people see and report all sorts of weird things, and not just bigfoot. But again as to why, I don't know. It just seems a bit wrong to cherry pick cases that fit the bill of fare, ignoring all the others.

I think my whole issue is that I am fussy, and want to catagorise everything, so I have put Bigfoot in my own personal 'magic' animal column, but I don't expect anyone else to do the same, I have reached my own conclusion given what I have seen, and it is not like I haven't been wrong before,
If it turns out that Bigfoot is a primate then fair enough, I will be happy the mystery is solved.

To be fair to what you are saying, I do struggle with both the mythology and the physical evidence for bigfoot. Meaning, humans seem to have ascribed some kind of mythology about the beasts (think native American and Nepalese), as well as some weird track cases, where they seem to just stop.

But like with UFOs (simplest answer that best fits the evidence is they're from other planets), the simplest answer that best fits the evidence for Bigfoot is an unknown primate - based on Meldrum's foot morphology work. Followed very closely with misidentified bear reports.

 

[Han]

All I can say for now is thanks for keeping me on the straight and narrow, I will do some thinking!

 

[marduk]

All I can say for now is thanks for keeping me on the straight and narrow, I will do some thinking!

Same here, keep posting. You make me think!

 

[Han]

R.e mistaken identification of bears as Bigfoot, I don't think that is very plausible for a number of reasons, but mainly because of the way they move. They are not really that great at walking upright and their 'gate'/stride/pace/step would be close together if they walk on two legs, unlike Bigfoot tracks which indicate that he has a long two footed stride. Also the upper body is drastically different especially the face and arms.
Reports come from very qualified people like park rangers and hunters, who I believe would be easily able to tell the difference.
But that is a very important point also, how many times has bigfoot been shot at? yet no one has ever bagged one, and as for the idea that people don't take the shot because 'they are so human looking' forget it.
I love animals but I am pretty sure if I was threatened by a large animal and was armed I would let him have it, especially on my property/home.
Also people go hunting 'loaded for bear' (large caliber ammo) and if you consider that even small caliber ammo can be fatal to huge animals if it hits a vital, I don't see how something could always survive.
If Bigfoot is like us, then a bullet would be seriously bad news, a shot to the upper body could either be instantly fatal, if it hit the heart for example, or if it hit the spine, he would be paralysed and die, similarly with a lung shot, he will succumb to his wounds in time, even a ricochet of a tree that only punctured the skin could introduce infection and be ultimately fatal.
You just have to look at the preventable fatalities from WWI when people would routinely die from 'shrapnel' woulds or fractures because they lacked modern drugs to fight infections.
I don't think something like a Gigantopithecus could have an answer to being shot. Also from what I have seen Gigantopithecus is like a big Gorilla or Orangutan with short hind 'legs' suggesting that they moved about mostly on all fours.
And if we look at the plight of the Orangutan in borneo:

"More than 100,000 Critically Endangered orangutans have been killed in Borneo since 1999, research has revealed."
"When these animals come into conflict with people, they are always on the losing end. People will kill them."*

And that is just being shot, what about when they get ill or old? for instance starving bears are more likely to come close to humans because the risk reward balance has altered.
Some of the places bigfoot resides are what they refer to as 'hungry country' meaning that every calorie is hard fought for, and that every part of of a carcass can be consumed by scavengers, I believe that wolverines will eat the very bones and even teeth! But bigfoot is not just limited to extremely remote places, he is often reported in more populated areas and very often too, it is not like there are just one or two sightings, we are talking hundreds:

Again this is a massive problem, insurmountable in my opinion: You need a breeding population to explain the volume of sightings, yet we know that breeding is highly risky for the mother and offspring.
Nature is romanticised, and I think that is because of an imagined or percieved separation between man, nature and 'beasts'/animals.
I have no problem believing that I evolved from the primordial soup of life, you just have to observe life cycles of different forms to see how we are more similar than different.
If Bigfoot was a 'primate' or even an 'animal' in the traditional sense the the rules of nature/life death would surely apply?

Also about physical evidence of 'ghosts' you have Bigfoot audio (recorded calls and knocking etc) and you have EVP and knocking with ghosts.
But honestly I tend to avoid the subject of ghosts because I am a scardy cat.
They might exist, or they might not, but I am not looking to find out
I think Bigfoot wouldn't be a ghost exactly, maybe a spirit of the woods or something.

Maybe I have got ahead of myself, and I shouldn't really draw conclusions, but since I put bigfoot in as a 'paranormal' thing rather than a mundane animal into my machine, the results have made more sense to me, but the trouble is showing my working out....

I will think about how better to describe or show what I mean.

















'100,000 orangutans' killed in 16 years

 

[Ron Away]

Except that tracks are ipso facto evidence of something that looks like an unknown primate.

If it were not a bipedal primate - instead a canine, ursine, etc there wouldn't be a problem. Or even if it wasn't a bipedal primate - a standard new world arboreal primate for example, there would likely would be more support.

The problem is that it looks to be an unknown bipedal primate, of which the only extant living example is us.


I basically grew up in the woods. I've had many bear encounters.

I've never encountered a bear corpse. If these things were 1/1000th the population of bears, and were reasonably intelligent (think pongo, perhaps) we might only ever encounter them on their terms. And we might never encounter a corpse at all.

I'm not saying it's probable. I'm saying it's possible.



Are you really saying that there is more physical trace evidence for ghosts than there is bigfoot? If so, I struggle with that.



Help me understand what "something must lead to it" means. Do you mean from an evolutionary perspective? Because if so, a good analogue would be Gigantopithicus. Which by all accounts fits the morphology of this thing.



To be fair to what you are saying, I do struggle with both the mythology and the physical evidence for bigfoot. Meaning, humans seem to have ascribed some kind of mythology about the beasts (think native American and Nepalese), as well as some weird track cases, where they seem to just stop.

But like with UFOs (simplest answer that best fits the evidence is they're from other planets), the simplest answer that best fits the evidence for Bigfoot is an unknown primate - based on Meldrum's foot morphology work. Followed very closely with misidentified bear reports.

You are right,I'm probably repeating myself here,Les Stroud who i believe to be honest says he has never seen the corpse\skeleton of a bear or a mountain lion and I would wager he spends more time in the woods than most.

 

[Han]

You are right,I'm probably repeating myself here,Les Stroud who i believe to be honest says he has never seen the corpse\skeleton of a bear or a mountain lion and I would wager he spends more time in the woods than most.

Below tranquilized mountain lion with radio collar: