# Bigfoot

## How do you stand on bigfoot?   1 member has voted

1. ### 1. How do you stand on bigfoot?

• Real Animal
• No Good Evidence Either Way
• Bunk

## Recommended Posts

I cast my stone for bunk, for the simple reason that I find the notion that Gigantopithecus was bipedal, crossed the Bering Land Bridge, and is now suddenly an omnivore (when its teeth from the Pleistocene clearly indicate it was a heavy-duty herbivore) highly improbable. Bigfoot has all the trappings of a culturally fabricated boogeyman and none of a real ape. But that's just me.

What say you?

##### Share on other sites
I cast my stone for bunk, for the simple reason that I find the notion that Gigantopithecus was bipedal, crossed the Bering Land Bridge, and is now suddenly an omnivore (when its teeth from the Pleistocene clearly indicate it was a heavy-duty herbivore) highly improbable. Bigfoot has all the trappings of a culturally fabricated boogeyman and none of a real ape. But that's just me.

What say you?

I just do not understand how the species would persist being so scarce if it did. I would think it would have to be scarce if indeed it did exist simply because most anything we have to support it is not only debunked in many ways as being hoax but we don’t really have anything at all. Plus the real lack of any sightings on a scale I think would exist in some way if bigfoot did indeed exist.

If it did survive being the general type of organism that it is, what kind of a population density could it survive with? I think if you dealt with very small pockets like even a small family you would be running into various kinds of reproductive issues eventually, then again I don’t know all the various adaptations for such that exist. I mean with even somewhat a constant human presence in some scale even in places like the earths poles remote wilderness is really not all that remote anymore.

##### Share on other sites

The only scientific answer, in the absence of hard data, is #2. Both answer 1 and answer 3 are not supported, and here is why:

Answer 1) There is nothing in the current studies and collected data that would indicate the probability that the creature exists.

Answer 3) It is impossible to prove a negative.

##### Share on other sites

Option 2 for me, no GOOD evidence eitherway.

although its Very Unlikely to be true (esp as marketed) its not Impossible either.

50+ years ago I would have just said "unlikely" rather than "Very Unlikely", but you have to think now of Sats and thermal imaging and DNA techniques etc...

#2 is the Logical choice for me.

##### Share on other sites
The only scientific answer, in the absence of hard data, is #2. Both answer 1 and answer 3 are not supported, and here is why:

Answer 1) There is nothing in the current studies and collected data that would indicate the probability that the creature exists.

Answer 3) It is impossible to prove a negative.

That's what I thought most of the responses would be, and I think that's wrong because there is more than simply that absence of any evidence here.

We do have evidence about Gigantopithecus which doesn't fit with the descriptions of bigfoot, we do have evidence about primate locomotion and how unlikely a large bipedal ape is, and we do have evidence of the climatic conditions of the Pleistocene and how difficult it would be for a large tropical ape to make it down through Alaska. We also have evidence of from the nature of human storytelling that suggest bigfoot is a creation of our imaginations.

Nothing proves that bigfoot doesn't exist, but the evidence does actively suggests that it doesn't. I'd say that's enough to draw the conclusion that bigfoot is bunk, pending contradicting evidence.

##### Share on other sites
but the evidence does actively suggests that it doesn't. I'd say that's enough to draw the conclusion that bigfoot is bunk, pending contradicting evidence.

erm... isnt that Option #2 really?

##### Share on other sites
erm... isnt that Option #2 really?

No, option two is that there is "No Evidence." There is evidence that suggests that bigfoot doesn't exist.

##### Share on other sites
No, option two is that there is "No Evidence." There is evidence that suggests that bigfoot doesn't exist.

Pfft, there are dozens of videos and hundreds of sightings! Where is the evidence against?

##### Share on other sites
No, option two is that there is "No Evidence." There is evidence that suggests that bigfoot doesn't exist.

no, thats NOT what it says at all is it!?

it SAYS: "theres no GOOD evidence eitherway"

##### Share on other sites

I vote bunk... Bigfoot has become a myth, with so many characteristics that probably nothing can fulfill anymore. Though it may be based on a real creature, maybe, that creature wouldn't be Bigfoot.

##### Share on other sites
Pfft, there are dozens of videos and hundreds of sightings! Where is the evidence against?

Bigfoot is said to be a North American Gigantopithecus. Thus, any evidence that suggests that Gigantopithecus couldn't match the descriptions of bigfoot constitutes evidence against it, at least as described.

Exhibit A): The secure link between Gigantopithecus and the the Sivapithecid apes, which were non-bipeds and relatives of the modern Orangutan. Bigfoot is described as a biped. It would have had to have evolved a remarkably human-like mode of locomotion completely independently, which no other large primate (see the gorilla or the extinct Archaeoindris) done. In both those cases, the adaptation evolved was knucklewalking.

Exhibit B): The teeth of Gigantopithecus. They're huge, and show clear adaptations for masticating heavy, fibrous foliage. Bigfoot is described as interested in and consuming meat. Gorillas, which have dentition much less specialized than Gigantopithecus, develop severe heart and cholesterol problems if they regularly consume even small quantities of meat, and shun it in the wild accordingly. They're just not adapted for it, and Gigantopithecus wouldn't have been either.

Exhibit C): The climate of northern North America and the experience of past primate extinctions both constitute evidence. The notion that Gigantopithecus "escaped" the changing climate in the late Pleistocene by fleeing to North America across a land bridge is based on an erroneous understanding of the concept of a refugia. By-in-large, and on a large scale, species survive climate change either because they adapt to their local conditions or they've previously colonized regions where the local conditions don't change. There would have been no reason for Gigantopithecus to move north into inhospitable Siberia and across a land bridge which it would have had to do to make it to North America. And accordingly, all the Gigantopithecus fossils that have been discovered have been from South Asia.

Ok, say you want to abandon the notion that Bigfoot is a remnant Gigantopithecus. Then it would have to have had ancestors (most plausibly hominid ancestors from Africa) that left no trace in the fossil record as they evolved across Asia, up into Siberia, and down into North America. Admittedly, you're on better ground here. Bigfoot is supposed to be rather ecologically insignificant, rare, and occurring in extremely low densities. Those would contribute to a scanty fossil record.

But why on earth should you think bigfoot exists in the first place except for eyewitness descriptions? Here evidence that bigfoot fits the description of the product of cultural imagination come into play in suggesting it's bunk.

Either way, you don't necessarily have to prove a negative to find evidence that leads to a negative conclusion.

no, thats NOT what it says at all is it!?

it SAYS: "theres no GOOD evidence eitherway"

What I cited constitutes good evidence.

##### Share on other sites
Bigfoot is said to be a North American Gigantopithecus. Thus, any evidence that suggests that Gigantopithecus couldn't match the descriptions of bigfoot constitutes evidence against it, at least as described.

Exhibit A): The secure link between Gigantopithecus and the the Sivapithecid apes, which were non-bipeds and relatives of the modern Orangutan. Bigfoot is described as a biped. It would have had to have evolved a remarkably human-like mode of locomotion completely independently, which no other large primate (see the gorilla or the extinct Archaeoindris) done. In both those cases, the adaptation evolved was knucklewalking.

Exhibit B): The teeth of Gigantopithecus. They're huge, and show clear adaptations for masticating heavy, fibrous foliage. Bigfoot is described as interested in and consuming meat. Gorillas, which have dentition much less specialized than Gigantopithecus, develop severe heart and cholesterol problems if they regularly consume even small quantities of meat, and shun it in the wild accordingly. They're just not adapted for it, and Gigantopithecus wouldn't have been either.

Exhibit C): The climate of northern North America and the experience of past primate extinctions both constitute evidence. The notion that Gigantopithecus "escaped" the changing climate in the late Pleistocene by fleeing to North America across a land bridge is based on an erroneous understanding of the concept of a refugia. By-in-large, and on a large scale, species survive climate change either because they adapt to their local conditions or they've previously colonized regions where the local conditions don't change. There would have been no reason for Gigantopithecus to move north into inhospitable Siberia and across a land bridge which it would have had to do to make it to North America. And accordingly, all the Gigantopithecus fossils that have been discovered have been from South Asia.

Ok, say you want to abandon the notion that Bigfoot is a remnant Gigantopithecus. Then it would have to have had ancestors (most plausibly hominid ancestors from Africa) that left no trace in the fossil record as they evolved across Asia, up into Siberia, and down into North America. Admittedly, you're on better ground here. Bigfoot is supposed to be rather ecologically insignificant, rare, and occurring in extremely low densities. Those would contribute to a scanty fossil record.

But why on earth should you think bigfoot exists in the first place except for eyewitness descriptions? Here evidence that bigfoot fits the description of the product of cultural imagination come into play in suggesting it's bunk.

Either way, you don't necessarily have to prove a negative to find evidence that leads to a negative conclusion.

What I cited constitutes good evidence.

You are simply shooting down some theories that say that Bigfoot is Gigantopithecus that migrated to North America. That doesn't indicate that Bigfoot probably doesn't exist, that just says that Bigfoot would probably not be Gigantopithecus. Which has no bearing on the existence of Bigfoot.

If anything, the fact that Gigantopithecus was found is more in line with broadening the possibility of large primates, as before that we had little evidence of giant primates that even resembled Bigfoot.

Using Gigantopithecus to discount Bigfoot is like saying that Peking Man couldn't cross the Northern land bridge, so the Native Americans are a bunch of fakers.

##### Share on other sites
You are simply shooting down some theories that say that Bigfoot is Gigantopithecus that migrated to North America. That doesn't indicate that Bigfoot probably doesn't exist, that just says that Bigfoot would probably not be Gigantopithecus. Which has no bearing on the existence of Bigfoot.[/Quote]

Read after "Ok, say you want to abandon the notion that Bigfoot is a remnant Gigantopithecus...." I go further.

And if bigfoot can't be Gigantopithecus, that removes from bigfoot a plausible ancestor.

If anything, the fact that Gigantopithecus was found is more in line with broadening the possibility of large primates, as before that we had little evidence of giant primates that even resembled Bigfoot.

But Gigantopithecus doesn't resemble bigfoot in anything but being (supposedly) large. We're not even sure how big it was, and it size has probably been over-estimated.

The fact that all large primates that we do know well don't resemble bigfoot should count as evidence against it, by your logic. I'm not saying it's bad logic; I hadn't thought of that, really. Thank you.

The only point I'm trying to make is that there is good evidence concerning bigfoot and that the weight of it points away from its existence. I could absolutely be wrong.

Using Gigantopithecus to discount Bigfoot is like saying that Peking Man couldn't cross the Northern land bridge, so the Native Americans are a bunch of fakers.

I'm not sure how rhetorical you're being. Native Americans didn't descend from Peking Man. I think you probably know that and are making a point.

##### Share on other sites

Scientifically speaking... we don't know for sure. However, the likelihood is small... far beyond a simple minimal likelihood.

CDarwin, bang up job in your "making this somewhat real" approach. I remain convinced that Bigfoot is just another unicorn, but I respect how you approached the idea with an open mind and used some of the knowledge we do have to justify your stance on the topic.

I tip my glass toward yours.

##### Share on other sites
I'm not sure how rhetorical you're being. Native Americans didn't descend from Peking Man. I think you probably know that and are making a point.

I'm not saying Bigfoot is real either, and I don't believe it is real. I am simply telling you what the proper answer to your question is. Me not believing Bigfoot is real is not scientific. It is simply an opinion.

Also, you miss my point. Peking man was Homo Erectus, and my point was that Homo Erectus and the Native American are unrelated (one isn't descendant of the other), even though Homo Sapiens and Homo Erectus have some similar features. I am saying that Gigantopithecus and "Bigfoot" don't have to be the same, or even have one be a descendant of the other.

And it also doesn't matter how big Gigantopithecus actually was, either. But that staement was odd in and of itself... if we are so unsure even about Gigantopithecus size then why bring it up at all? All the "couldn't"s and "wouldn't"s fly out the window when you start conceding lack of knowledge of Gigantopithecus.

As I said before, the existence of Gigantopithecus, and whether or not his name was poorly chosen has no baring on Bigfoot. That is the thing about crytozology (as well as conspiracy theories) they thrive on the simple fact that science is not in the business of proving a negative. I could easily just say that Asia 300,000 years ago stopped being habitable for "Bigfoot", so it's Asian descendants died out, where as the Bigfoot in North America thrived.

There are no end of theories... you should only interest yourself in those that are demonstrably accurate, and those that are widely accepted as true before the evidence demostrates it to be. The first is sound science, the second is dangerous, and everything else is not worth your time unless you are paid to study it.

##### Share on other sites
There are no end of theories... you should only interest yourself in those that are demonstrably accurate, and those that are widely accepted as true before the evidence demostrates it to be. The first is sound science, the second is dangerous, and everything else is not worth your time unless you are paid to study it.

Sounds like you are referring to religion.

##### Share on other sites
Sounds like you are referring to religion.

????

##### Share on other sites

Ok, what are you talking about?

##### Share on other sites

I think the Yeti is more plausible

...Homo Erectus and the Native American are unrelated (one isn't descendant of the other), even though Homo Sapiens and Homo Erectus have some similar features.

Actually, that is debatable. The alternative to the 'out of africa theory' is that the ubiquitous Homo erectus evolved into Homo sapiens independently all over the world, resulting in the various races of mankind.

##### Share on other sites
I think the Yeti is more plausible[/Quote]

I'd like to know what a giant ape is supposed to eat +3000m in the Himalayan Mountains.

Actually, that is debatable. The alternative to the 'out of africa theory' is that the ubiquitous Homo erectus evolved into Homo sapiens independently all over the world, resulting in the various races of mankind.

There's a whole other discussion right there over whether multiregionalism is bunk. I tend to think it decidedly is.

##### Share on other sites
'd like to know what a giant ape is supposed to eat +3000m in the Himalayan Mountains.

Much of the Himalayan area is well below this - hence Yaks and other wildlife surviving there. I just think that the area is so vast and unpopulated there is more of a chance that a Yeti could be there but undetected. I don't think the same is true for Bigfoot.

There's a whole other discussion right there over whether multiregionalism is bunk. I tend to think it decidedly is.

From what I've read, there's convincing arguments on both sides. I remain undecided.

##### Share on other sites

I can't agree with the multi-evolution of homo erectus into homo sapien. That moves well into the "miraculous coincidence" realm.

##### Share on other sites
Also, you miss my point. Peking man was Homo Erectus, and my point was that Homo Erectus and the Native American are unrelated (one isn't descendant of the other), even though Homo Sapiens and Homo Erectus have some similar features.

Native Americans -- being H. sapiens -- are descended from H. erectus. But H. erectus in Africa, not Asia. Unless you hold to the AMNH viewpoint that H. ergastor is a separate species (most paleontologists put the H. ergastor specimens in H. erectus) and H. erectus is the Asian descendent species of H ergastor. H. sapiens is the African descendent and N. neandertals would be the European descendent.

No one has mentioned that the people who did the first Bigfoot "sightings" have admitted to making up the evidence. Bigfoot, from the confession of the people involved, is a fraud.

I can't agree with the multi-evolution of homo erectus into homo sapien. That moves well into the "miraculous coincidence" realm.

It's also against everything we know about evolution of other species. No other species has evolved that way that I can find.

Of course, then there is the refuting evidence of both the genetics and the fossil evidence.

##### Share on other sites

I have to say that they are real. I was in the Kiamichi Mountains of Oklahoma with some friends looking for Bigfoot. We left out bait and camera traps to see what we could get and we did calls. The camera traps came up empty and the bait left by the traps was not touched. What makes this odd is that even if there is no bigfoot, opossums, racoons, and coyotes roam the area and none of them touched it either. One of the baits we set out that was not next to a trap was a couple of hotdogs with bannas and mangos placed on top of the hotdogs. When we woke up the next day the hotdogs were gone and the fruit was pushed to the side. We found this odd because if it had been a coyote or other small mammals, they would have eaten the fruit or eaten though the fruit to get the hotdogs, not push them to the side. We used a sound that was recored by other bigfoot researches and got a reply. Growing up in the area I knew it was not coyote nor a wolf. Two of our guys said they saw one, I was walking down the road at night and saw something cross in front of me. I admit that I could not tell what it was but it was large about six feet tall which narrows it down to a deer, bear, or bigfoot.

To say it is bunk mean that you don't take into account of the large number of sightings and reports in such a large area of the United States. They have reports of bigfoot in the Pacific North West, East Texas and South Eastren Oklahoma, the swamps of Louisana, the wetlands of Florida, the Ohio Valley, and the New England area. Unless there out thousands of people out there involved in a giant hoax we can not ignore all of these people. We have to keep an open mind about all of this and not just call it out right bunk. There are just too many unexplored areas to say that something like Bigfoot could not be real.

## Create an account

Register a new account