Sasquatch! Monster or Myth?

ValenciaGrail

New member
FILMKRUSC said:
Well they have found in the footprint casts that the prints show dermal ridges (similar to your thumbprint but on the bottom of a foot). It's found in apes as well. That's actually good evidence.

Not a monster or a myth. Just a unknown species (probably ape related) that most scientists are too lazy to leave academia to look for.

Maybe it's an unknown species....
An animal this large and seen in as many places as has been reported would leave more than just a few footprints as evidence of its existence.

So why no bodies?

Could it be that faking footprints is a whole lot easier than faking an entire body?

"Academia" is not too lazy to look for it. Rather, "academia" has made a judgement that the evidence is not sufficent to warrant serious study. There are on the order of tens of millions of species to be studied whose very existence is not a topic of debate.

While some of the footprints allegedly contain actual dermal ridges, many others are known and proven fakes. A small fraction of them are real-looking enough to raise eyebrows.

Footprints are not bodies; as I said, there is no undisputed evidence.
 

Indy fan 235

New member
Has anyone ever heard of the "Skunk Ape" beast that roams the swamps of Florida? It's sort of like Bigfoot I guess, only it lives in the swamps.
 

Horchata

New member
it was recently on cnn a thought to be bigfoot carcus found in oregon.

its no that hard to believe is it? it'd be different if we were talking about dragons or something
 

ValenciaGrail

New member
Horchata said:
it was recently on cnn a thought to be bigfoot carcass found in oregon.

its no that hard to believe is it? it'd be different if we were talking about dragons or something

It's not that hard to believe that such a bipedal ape might exist.
That's an issue of plausibility, which I'm not questioning.

Unicorns might exist (or might once have existed).
Take away the supernatural / magical aspects, and there is nothing particular astounding about an equine species with a single horn. (Perhaps taxonomists could debate this point.)

But ? there are no remains of an actual unicorn in existence, fossilized or otherwise?ergo, it is taken that they do not exist, nor have they ever.

So whether Bigfoot actually does exist is a different issue.
We're not debating plausibility, we're speaking of probablity.

And - the probability takes a big hit with the absence of bodies.
We have only piecemeal, hit or miss evidence .... footprints here, grainy videos there....but no bodies at all, not even skeletal remains.

With all the sightings, the darned things should be all over the place?..

Are these creatures engaging in some sort of systematic effort to hide their existence from people, including the carcasses of their deceased?
Belief in the existence of Sasquatch assumes this, since there?s no other way to explain why not a single undisputed body exists.

Occam?s razor states that the potential solution to any problem which requires the least speculation is most probably the correct one. In this case: no bodies is explained most simply by no ape.

Horchata, being open minded on the issue, I searched cnn.com, but did not seem to find any news stories on Bigfoot or Sasquatch in Oregon.

Some of the historical sightings could be explained by fleeting glimpses of animals such as bears, others by outright hoaxes, still others by attention seekers.

?We cannot afford to take mythology at face value?
As long as there is no body, there is no science?only folklore.
Scientists will study this creature once there is something to study.
 

adventure_al

New member
ValenciaGrail said:
It's not that hard to believe that such a bipedal ape might exist.
That's an issue of plausibility, which I'm not questioning.

Unicorns might exist (or might once have existed).
Take away the supernatural / magical aspects, and there is nothing particular astounding about an equine species with a single horn. (Perhaps taxonomists could debate this point.)

But ? there are no remains of an actual unicorn in existence, fossilized or otherwise?ergo, it is taken that they do not exist, nor have they ever.

So whether Bigfoot actually does exist is a different issue.
We're not debating plausibility, we're speaking of probablity.

And - the probability takes a big hit with the absence of bodies.
We have only piecemeal, hit or miss evidence .... footprints here, grainy videos there....but no bodies at all, not even skeletal remains.

With all the sightings, the darned things should be all over the place?..

Are these creatures engaging in some sort of systematic effort to hide their existence from people, including the carcasses of their deceased?
Belief in the existence of Sasquatch assumes this, since there?s no other way to explain why not a single undisputed body exists.

Occam?s razor states that the potential solution to any problem which requires the least speculation is most probably the correct one. In this case: no bodies is explained most simply by no ape.

Horchata, being open minded on the issue, I searched cnn.com, but did not seem to find any news stories on Bigfoot or Sasquatch in Oregon.

Some of the historical sightings could be explained by fleeting glimpses of animals such as bears, others by outright hoaxes, still others by attention seekers.

?We cannot afford to take mythology at face value?
As long as there is no body, there is no science?only folklore.
Scientists will study this creature once there is something to study.

I really DO NOT want this thread to turn into a evolution/creation debate but...

'Missing link' springs to mind, yet darwins theory of evolution is still taught and widely believed. and a the entire human race is alot bigger than a species of reclusive ape creature. Just recently that unknown tribe have been discovered (brazil I think it was?) so to think there are still groups of humans we don't even no about!
 

ValenciaGrail

New member
adventure_al said:
I really DO NOT want this thread to turn into a evolution/creation debate but...

'Missing link' springs to mind, yet darwins theory of evolution is still taught and widely believed. and a the entire human race is alot bigger than a species of reclusive ape creature. Just recently that unknown tribe have been discovered (brazil I think it was?) so to think there are still groups of humans we don't even no about!

Well, another application of Occam's razor here...perhaps the lack of a missing link simply means that there is not one ;)

I am not a literal Creationist, because Scripture is meant to be interpreted literarily, not literally.

But - I am an intellegent designist, meaning the evidence supports a sudden appearance of a large number of creatures, not a slow evolutionary process

Darwin himself conceded that his theory would have to account for some very implausible things. For example, the seperate emergence of two-eyed beings along four seperate evolutionary paths - birds, mammals, fish, and reptiles - is not statistically viable.

The Second Law of Thermodyamics states that all systems go to increasing disorder over time. This means that all the air molecules in a room will not accumulate in one corner, causing suffocation to its occupants. Wreckage from a tornado will not assemble itself into a car.
Yet - this is just the sort of thing we're asked to believe in the Evolution model, that all the complexity that exists in life came about randomly. Even in billions of years, it's completely statisically unviable. It would take quadrillions of years even to expect the most basic molecules of life to form.

And BTW - Evolution is indeed a model, not a theory. A theory can be tested, but a model by defintion cannot. Evolution has the convenience of being enitrly unprovable; no one has ever seen anything evolve, because built into the model are timescales of millions of years.

So the conundrum is this - if Evolution is true, it defies one of the most basic cornerstone laws of physics, so it would in fact be miraculous :confused:
 

adventure_al

New member
Yes that is what I think too.

Applying the same logic you'd assume a sasquatch does not exist though, yet still I'm open minded. Maybe I just like the idea too much.

I like these sorts or myths/legends.

but sadly like the Loch Ness monster I doubt its true, however the reason they have such an appeal is that its unlikely/impossible for them to be disproved either.
 

ValenciaGrail

New member
adventure_al said:
Yes that is what I think too.

Applying the same logic you'd assume a sasquatch does not exist though, yet still I'm open minded. Maybe I just like the idea too much.

I like these sorts or myths/legends.

but sadly like the Loch Ness monster I doubt its true, however the reason they have such an appeal is that its unlikely/impossible for them to be disproved either.

Yup - both Sasquatch and the LN monster could simply be undocumented species, but I?ll believe it when I see a body.

I do think Sasquatch is the more plausible of the two, however.
The LNM evidence is less tangible and a lot more easily explained away:
- No tangible forensic evidence exists of the LNM equivalent to the Sasquatch footprints, for example
- The most famous photo (The 1934 ?Surgeon?s Photo?) has been proven a fake by a deathbed confession. It was just a modified toy submarine.
- There are many very plausible explanations for the sightings: a large Sturgeon fish, interference patterns in the waves looking like a humped creature, rotting logs floating to the surface as they emit gases due to bacteria, etc?.
- The LNM is limited to too small of an area (a single lake)?so either there is a single, immortal creature to explain centuries of sightings, or there is a large enough population to sustain its survival for centuries. But if the latter were true, then it wouldn?t be so difficult to find and document its existence.

The problem is proving a negative; you can?t even prove Santa Claus doesn?t exist by this standard

One could fly over ever inch of the earth?s surface north of the Arctic Circle, and not find Santa?s workshop.
A true believer would simply claim that his abode is hidden from view by mystical means.

One could claim that his home was never visited at Christmas, nor were any of his friends?.
A true believer would say that he only visits the homes of true believers
This would continue ad nauseum ?

Of course, one answer is that Santa Claus really DID exist?he was a 4th Century Bishop whose spirit lives on through parents who continue to pass the tradition on to their children. ;)

But legends are indeed fun, as you point out, and make great story telling opportunities.
Even the slight possibility of some truth in them makes them even more compelling.

My kids and I loved The Water Horse, for example.
And wouldn?t Bigfoot make for a cool Indy Jones MaGuffin, if it were handled properly?
 

Stoo

Well-known member
ValenciaGrail said:
And wouldn?t Bigfoot make for a cool Indy Jones MaGuffin, if it were handled properly?
Agreed. Unfortunately the only treatment we've seen so far has him turning out to be Chewbacca.:eek: :eek:
Curious about that CNN report, though. I wonder what it was.
 

adventure_al

New member
ValenciaGrail said:
Yup - both Sasquatch and the LN monster could simply be undocumented species, but I’ll believe it when I see a body.

- The LNM is limited to too small of an area (a single lake)…so either there is a single, immortal creature to explain centuries of sightings, or there is a large enough population to sustain its survival for centuries. But if the latter were true, then it wouldn’t be so difficult to find and document its existence.

There is quite a new theory that there is basically a massive network of tunnels running from Loch Ness and opening up in scandinavia somewhere. (I think the theory was something along those lines). Using sound waves theyve found large cavaities but apparently they are too deep to examine thoroughly. Maybe just another way to keep the legend alive?

Still don't think it exists but its good for the tourists :p
 

ValenciaGrail

New member
adventure_al said:
There is quite a new theory that there is basically a massive network of tunnels running from Loch Ness and opening up in scandinavia somewhere. (I think the theory was something along those lines). Using sound waves theyve found large cavaities but apparently they are too deep to examine thoroughly. Maybe just another way to keep the legend alive?

Still don't think it exists but its good for the tourists :p

...and even cooler for an IJ Maguffin, if he were to branch out into underwater archaeology. ;)
 

ValenciaGrail

New member
Stoo said:
Agreed. Unfortunately the only treatment we've seen so far has him turning out to be Chewbacca.:eek: :eek:
Curious about that CNN report, though. I wonder what it was.

Yeah, I don't really follow the comics very closely for IJ or SW (I'm a bigger fan of the EU novels in both cases), but I DID see that panel with Indy finding the Millennium Falcon...hilarious

A good supernatural twist here would be reincarnation...where Indy sees himself as a rougue star pilot in a past life...in a GFFA, of course :D
 

ReggieSnake

New member
"Excuse me Mister Bigfoot, but could I be so bold as to trouble you for an autographed photo and a DNA sample?":p ;)
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Perhaps there's more to Bigfoot than previously thought:
http://www.ktvu.com/news/17174989/detail.html
PALO ALTO, Calif. -- It?s more than 7-feet tall. Weighs over 500 pounds and walked upright -- three "Bigfoot" seekers, including a Redwood City man, Wednesday claimed they have proof that they have found the body of the elusive creature in the wilds of Georgia.

And on Friday, at a news conference in Palo Alto, they say they will present DNA evidence to prove the carcass of ?Rickmat? is that of a bigfoot.

Matthew Whitton and Rick Dyer, Georgia residents who lead Bigfoot-tracking expeditions, say they found the body of what appears to be a Bigfoot in the woods of northern Georgia and will join local Bigfoot researcher Tom Biscardi at the news conference, according to Robert Barrows, who is publicizing the event.

Among the creatures's other physical characteristics of the body -- according to the hunters website -- http://www.searchingforbigfoot.com/ -- were flat feet similar to human feet. Its footprint is 16 ¾ inches long and the length from palm to tip of the middle finger is 11 ½ inches long.

"I think you'll find that this is the real deal," Barrows said of the alleged discovery.

Whitton, a police officer in Clayton County, and Dyer, a former correctional officer, are not saying exactly where the body was found or where it is now, Barrows said.

Biscardi, a veteran Bigfoot tracker who said he went to Georgia to view the find over the weekend, said DNA tests are being conducted and a team of scientists will study the body, but declined to name any scientists involved.

Officials from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Division said the largest wildlife they are aware of in the state are black bears and white-tail deer.
 
Top