Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Bigfoot a extant north american mammal
-
12-04-2010 11:18PM#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
steddyeddy wrote: »right basically i find the foot prints, the video evidence (patterson film), dna extracted from hairs and eyewitness reports convincing enough for me to find the creature real.
I've seen several footprints, and they vary considerably, which is the real one? Some are really broad, some have narrow heels, some have 5 toes, some have 4, some just look like human feet. There's been dozens of hoaxes too, so how do you distinguish between the real and fake?
I don't see how anyone can find the Patterson film convicing, but I'll just post it for others to look at:
It could easily just be a man in a suit. It's not even good quality footage (I know it's from the 70's), so it's even less reliable.
Do wild primates tend to turn their heads mid-gait, and upon seeing intruders continue in their stride without skipping a beat?
I'd like to see the DNA evidence, I'm not familiar with any.
Eye-witness reports are so unreliable it's ridiculous.steddyeddy wrote: »ill start on the eye witness reports, most people describe a simular creature, sometimes involing multiple witnesses, wildlife biologists or trained individuals like police officers.
Of course people describe broadly similar creatures, the myth has been around since the 19th century! There isn't a person in North America that doesn't know about bigfoot and that couldn't give you a description of what he might look like.
Multiple witnesses may be (a) lying/jokes/pranks/hoaxes (very common), (b) mistaken (say they saw a bear out of the corner of their eye for example), or (c) embellishing (maybe they saw another animal's arse sticking out and started connecting dots).
You put multiple witnesses together and they start filling in each other's stories.
I'll grant you wildlife biologists, but police officers? They're no better than you or I at seeing a bigfoot. People say the same about police officers seeing UFO's. They're just as prone to misconstruing and misinterpretting, and are subject to the same bias and perceptive flaws as anyone else.steddyeddy wrote: »the behaviour described also is quite simular to known behaviours attributed to the great apes , like wood knocking,stone throwing and charging.
Again that's not strange, everyone knows bigfoot is supposed to be a big primate, what else would they have him doing? Swimming?
I'm not a zoologist, but is it normal behaviour for a wild primate to see two people in its area, and not even break its stride?0 -
-
I've seen several footprints, and they vary considerably, which is the real one? Some are really broad, some have narrow heels, some have 5 toes, some have 4, some just look like human feet. There's been dozens of hoaxes too, so how do you distinguish between the real and fake?
I don't see how anyone can find the Patterson film convicing, but I'll just post it for others to look at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol8ifMrFN9U
It could easily just be a man in a suit. It's not even good quality footage (I know it's from the 70's), so it's even less reliable.
Do wild primates tend to turn their heads mid-gait, and upon seeing intruders continue in their stride without skipping a beat?
I'd like to see the DNA evidence, I'm not familiar with any.
Eye-witness reports are so unreliable it's ridiculous.
Of course people describe broadly similar creatures, the myth has been around since the 19th century! There isn't a person in North America that doesn't know about bigfoot and that couldn't give you a description of what he might look like.
the myth has been part of American Indians folklore for thousands of years with the very first reports from native Americans to the colonists matching the descriptions given today, it would be ridiculous of me or any scientist to dismiss reports of a creature because they are similar i would be less likely to believe it if they weren't.
Multiple witnesses may be (a) lying/jokes/pranks/hoaxes (very common), (b) mistaken (say they saw a bear out of the corner of their eye for example), or (c) embellishing (maybe they saw another animal's arse sticking out and started connecting dots).
You put multiple witnesses together and they start filling in each other's stories.
I'll grant you wildlife biologists, but police officers? They're no better than you or I at seeing a bigfoot. People say the same about police officers seeing UFO's. They're just as prone to misconstruing and misinterpreting, and are subject to the same bias and perceptive flaws as anyone else.
Again that's not strange, everyone knows bigfoot is supposed to be a big primate, what else would they have him doing? Swimming?
I'm not a zoologist, but is it normal behaviour for a wild primate to see two people in its area, and not even break its stride?
you cant for definite but a anthropologist called grover crantz and a expert in bipedal locomotion called jeff meldrum have devised a way to spot hoaxs and indeed have blown the lid on a few.
some human feet have broad heels and some have narrow heels within a species there is variation due to age, size ect.
i personally think the four toed tracks were either not cast properly or a hoax as do the gentlemen above, actually only the hoaxed ones look like human feet the anatomy is not that of a enlarged human foot, they show dermal ridges which run along all primate feet however the ones on most of these casts are unique to these tracks, a latent dermal ridge print expert called jimmy chillcut has declared that the prospect of these being a hoax is extremely unlikely.
most prints also have a feature called a mid tarsel break which is unique to some non human primates, put simply its a break in the foot which offers a different form of bipedalism than we use, this feature is known to about a half dozen anthropologists in the us and when tracks were first been collected no one knew about it, yet its being reproduced accurately again and again.
Im half and half on this one (im sorry if people expected me to be a complete believer but im a scientist) but the film has been analyzed several times, and the height and bulk has been shown to be well above average, the technology for a suit that fitted so well was not available in the sixties and according to costume designer bill munns could not be a man in a suit.
yes primates do turn there head mid stride for example humans do it, what i find accurate is the fact the "creature" turns its entire torso to look around as the gorilla does rather than just its neck.
what would you expect a bipedal primate to do? of course its going to walk away.
Again eye witness reports are crucial to zoology and there is often very little variation between the descriptions, it does not match up that so many people saw different things bear ect and describe/draw the same creature which happens to fit in with the tracks and mythology of the region. the exact same arguement was given agiant the existence of the gorilla, giant panda ect and they were reported many times before thier discovery and the reports were accurate i dont see how they would not be in this circumstance.
the myth has been part of American Indians folklore for thousands of years with the very first reports from native Americans to the colonists matching the descriptions given today, it would be ridiculous of me or any scientist to dismiss reports of a creature because they are similar i would be less likely to believe it if they weren't.
well when it was reported hundreds of years ago no one knew what a primate was, yet the features they were describing were primate features, what basis had they got to make it up? bearing in mind the gorilla was not discovered until 1847 and the fact that apes wood knock to communicate was only recently discovered.0 -
Advertisement
-
steddyeddy wrote: »you cant for definite but a anthropologist called grover crantz and a expert in bipedal locomotion called jeff meldrum have devised a way to spot hoaxs and indeed have blown the lid on a few.
Good to know, but as you say, you can't be definite. There's some pretty good hoaxers around. Do you have any further information on the methods used to distinguish real from fake?steddyeddy wrote: »some human feet have broad heels and some have narrow heels within a species there is variation due to age, size ect.
So that would suggest -- and presumably since you later refer to Native American sightings, you do believe this -- that there are many generations of bigfoot roaming around the woods in North America.
How is it possible then that none have been killed/captured?
And I think more obviously, why has no skeleton ever been found?
North America isn't exactly a wilderness, there are lots of lumberjacks and hunters that you would expect might stumble upon a skeleton or two in the hundreds of years Europeans have been there.steddyeddy wrote: »i personally think the four toed tracks were either not cast properly or a hoax as do the gentlemen above, actually only the hoaxed ones look like human feet the anatomy is not that of a enlarged human foot, they show dermal ridges which run along all primate feet however the ones on most of these casts are unique to these tracks, a latent dermal ridge print expert called jimmy chillcut has declared that the prospect of these being a hoax is extremely unlikely.
most prints also have a feature called a mid tarsel break which is unique to some non human primates, put simply its a break in the foot which offers a different form of bipedalism than we use, this feature is known to about a half dozen anthropologists in the us and when tracks were first been collected no one knew about it, yet its being reproduced accurately again and again.
Can't say I know anything about the foot features and the likes so can't comment, but I do know that there have been dozens of foot prints and tracks created using carved wood and the likes. Whether the mid tarsel breaks and dermal ridges can be faked, I'll have to plead ignorance. I'm not prepared to dig through all the photos to try to determine when a photo was taken, and when these foot features were discovered.steddyeddy wrote: »Im half and half on this one (im sorry if people expected me to be a complete believer but im a scientist) but the film has been analyzed several times, and the height and bulk has been shown to be well above average, the technology for a suit that fitted so well was not available in the sixties and according to costume designer bill munns could not be a man in a suit
I've seen this asserted too, but lots of people seemingly disagree
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson-Gimlin_film#Hoax_allegations
Look at these monkey suits from 2001: A Space Odyssey:
Obviously they don't look the same, but the quality is just as good. Considering the Patterson film is at a distance and the quality is poor, I don't see why it couldn't be a similar constume.steddyeddy wrote: »yes primates do turn there head mid stride for example humans do it, what i find accurate is the fact the "creature" turns its entire torso to look around as the gorilla does rather than just its neck.
what would you expect a bipedal primate to do? of course its going to walk away.
Maybe it's difficult to turn the neck in the suit?
I'd have expected a startled ape to show some evidence that it's surprised. Can't say I know much about primate behaviour though.steddyeddy wrote: »Again eye witness reports are crucial to zoology and there is often very little variation between the descriptions, it does not match up that so many people saw different things bear ect and describe/draw the same creature which happens to fit in with the tracks and mythology of the region. the exact same arguement was given agiant the existence of the gorilla, giant panda ect and they were reported many times before thier discovery and the reports were accurate i dont see how they would not be in this circumstance.
I'm sure loch ness monster researchers use the same argument as well, it doesn't follow that just because gorillas and giant pandas were discovered in similar circumstances that therefore every myth should be regarded as though it's true also.
Just like Nessie and UFO's, there's such a mythology surrounding Bigfoot that you'd have to be weary of reports.
I'll give you an example that supports this idea:If further evidence is needed, consider a case that transpired in Rotterdam in 1978. A small panda had escaped from a zoo, whereupon officials had issued a media alert. Soon panda sightings—around one hundred in all—were reported across the Netherlands. However, a single animal could not have been in so many places in so short a time; in fact, no one had seen the panda, because it had been killed by a train when it reached railroad tracks near the zoo. How do we explain the many false sightings? The answer is, people’s anticipations led them to misinterpret what they had actually seen—a dog or some wild creature—as the escaped panda. (The publicity generated by the case may even have sparked some hoax calls [Nickell 1995, 43].) If such misperceptions could happen with pandas, surely they could also occur with aquatic cryptids.
And the same could apply to people visiting areas where bigfoot sightings have been reported. It wouldn't surprise me if there were towns in N America that advertise themselves as bigfoot towns, and draw revenue from tourists visiting the area.steddyeddy wrote: »the myth has been part of American Indians folklore for thousands of years with the very first reports from native Americans to the colonists matching the descriptions given today, it would be ridiculous of me or any scientist to dismiss reports of a creature because they are similar i would be less likely to believe it if they weren't.
well when it was reported hundreds of years ago no one knew what a primate was, yet the features they were describing were primate features, what basis had they got to make it up? bearing in mind the gorilla was not discovered until 1847 and the fact that apes wood knock to communicate was only recently discovered.
Well I'm just glancing through this thread('Native American myths/traditions support Bigfoot? A critical look') on another forum, and it seems it's not as clear-cut as you make it seem.
Native Americans have hundreds of stories of mythical creatures -- all ancient cultures do. It wouldn't surprise me if a few of them were close to the description of bigfoot that we have today. All the description has to say is "large, scary beast", and that would probably be a match for you wouldn't it? "Hairy, upright animal", maybe that's one too. Maybe it's a bear though.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
steddyeddy wrote: »This man has detailed the anatomy of the foot based on a series of footprints he thinks unlikely to be fake, his article is here http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/papers/anatomy.html, hes is also one of two men including jeff meldrum who claim to be able to spot the hoaxes, the criteria will never be released as to how they assess them as hoaxes because if they did that then the hoaxes would become a lot more biologically convincing.
Come on, that's hardly compelling is it? Those two guys are able to spot hoaxes thanks to some secret method, and nobody else is allowed to know? So we have to run every example past these fellas and they'll tell us whether it's a hoax or not, and we have to take their word for this?
That's ridiculoussteddyeddy wrote: »Yes of course i would not believe in bigfoot if it was implied to be a single creature indeed many juvenilles were seen, some were reported as female and infant and others again were reported of various sizes, including some with limps and apparent injuries.
Well that makes the next point rather implausible...steddyeddy wrote: »to my knowledge none have been reported to have been killed or captured theres no time limit on species discovery in zoology this is stranger to me than the issue of a skeleton, in the wild you will rarely if ever find the body of a primate, in fact the fossil record of chimps is three teeth, gorillas are absent from the fossil record, in 43 months in a research project the remains of one chimp was found in a area thought to contain a tribe of over 150 chimps.
It's one thing taking a long time to find a giant panda during the 19th century in rural China. It's quite another in the 21st century in North America. Even if it was Alaska I'd find it implausible, but here's a sightings map, and it spans the entire country pretty much:
It's extremely unlikely that there's an entire species of 10 foot mammal roaming around all of those areas and nobody has managed to even find a body for us to examine. Any that are found turn out to be hoaxes, like this one:steddyeddy wrote: »As regards the foot features a search through pictures isnt neccasery just look up articles on the foot print anatomy by dr.jeff meldrum, another cast of the lower portion of a alleged bigfoot body is the skookum cast which convinced skeptics of the reality of the creature, scientists such as dr.jane goodall, dr daris swindler and jack napier of the cretures existence look up any of these scientists and youll see they have a good record in the zoological world.
It seems not everyone agrees with their assessment, some people say that it's an elk.
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/skookum_hokum.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skookum_cast
Wasn't there elk and bear hair identified in it?steddyeddy wrote: »Again eyewitness reports are of huge value to the scientific world and i was referring to the reports of animals like the gorilla, bonobo, giant panda ect rather than the myths of the native people of those areas.
Are all eyewitness reports unreliable? as you said earlier many hunters, loggers ect work in the wilderness areas of north america (most of the reports, foot prints ect are in the pacific north west) and these men report Bigfoot more than other people.
there are 3000 eye witness reports often multiple witnesses, for several minutes not just fleeting glimpses, as several biologists and hunters maintain what i saw was not a bear,elk ect it looked like a large hairy man with caveman/primitive features, i realize that the eyes play tricks but rarely in the same way for 3000 people and for several minutes.
Have these 3000 cases passed the secret test you mentioned earlier? Or could they all be hoaxes for all we know?
What about the recent Marian apparition in Knock?
What about all the UFO sightings?
What about all of the Elvis sightings?
Loch-Ness Monster?
Do you take all of them at face value also?
As I described earlier about the red panda that escaped from Rotterdam zoo, any observer is liable to be lying, mistaken, embellishing, etc. If you're expecting to see something then you're more likely to see it.
Eyewitness reports might be of value in some circumstances, but they're not reliable, that's why we need a specimen.steddyeddy wrote: »If you used the logic your using as regards eye witness reports whose to say that people are seeing any aniamls at all you could use that logic to dismiss all wildlife reports, you cant throw several eyewitness reports out because they dont describe a animal you agree exists! your using one set of rules for discovered aniamls and another set of rules for the undiscovered ones.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", think Carl Sagan said that. If something is so highly implausible then it's gonna require some good evidence to support it.
Just like say if one doctor recommended giving aspirin to someone at risk of heart attack, because it thins the blood, and another recommended a homeopathic pill, because like cures like and water has memory, you'd be inclined to go with the former.
If someone says they saw an exceptionally large silverback gorilla in the African jungle, you might think that's quite plausible. If someone says they saw a dragon flying through downtown New York, then you'd think it's not.
The bigfoot story is so polluted with mythology, hoaxes, movies, etc., that you'd be less inclined nowadays to pay any attention to eye witness reports of it.
Just like UFO reports tend to take a spike when movies like Independence Day come out, I'll bet bigfoot reports took a spike after Harry and the Hendersons (great movie btw) came out
steddyeddy wrote: »all i can say to to the thread you posted is that the thread creator is trying to say that he knows more about native american mythology than a native American mythology researcher.
He disagrees with her views, i think ill put more faith in her who has spent decades researching the creature your evidence for it not being clear cut is a thread on a internet board.
there are many books/articles that state that the creature is part of native mythology.
Can you give some specific examples of these, ones that couldn't possibly be a bear?
How do you distinguish between mythical creatures that are fictional, and those that are based on real animals? Every culture tends to have dozens of mythical creatures/beastmen.
Take your pick!0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
steddyeddy wrote: »No its not ridiculous if you look at the credentials of these guys especially meldrum their pretty much the experts on bipedal evolution foot mechanics ect and second of all its known that they spot fakes because they challenged people to construct and make fakes and send them in for appraisal, they accurately differentiated between those found in isolated areas and those purposely constructed and sent in, they did release a few details as follows:
1. footprints constructed had a pronounced arch in the foot simular to humans, those found had non rather they had a mid tarsal break (split) in the foot which makes sense for a large primate rather than an arch.
2.there were no dermal ridges on the feet (footprints for the feet) rather they were completely devoid of detail scars ect.
3.they showed no variation among the individual prints toe positions ect
You should have a read of this article. The alleged dermal ridges may indeed just be casting artifacts. It's certainly not definitive at least.
You also have people like David Daegling, Rene Dahinden and Joel Hardin (bigfoot enthusiasts themselves) who call some of the famous cases hoaxes.steddyeddy wrote: »how is my point implausible i think you may have taken it up the wrong way, some creatures having been observed with injuries (limps, herniation ect). i still maintain none were caught?
Yes and I was questioning how plausible that is considering how widely dispersed these creatures seemingly are in N America. How is it possible none have been caught/killed?
None have even been RECORDED in years -- the strongest evidence still seems to be the Patterson video.
There's a large enough group dedicated to finding this thing, how elusive must it be to avoid being recorded or caught in all this time?
Especially if you believe the Patterson film, which shows a bigfoot walking nonchalantly across an opening in broad daylight.steddyeddy wrote: »some areas of north America are a lot more isolated than china was/is! the panda was discovered in 1916 a skin was recovered in the 19th century but thought to be a hoax, a panda is a completely different ball game than a primate whose behavior is described as cryptic ie it intends to remain elusive especially to other primates.
chimpanzees have been observed to sometimes cover up there tracks to avoid detection as will gorillas, chimps in uganda for example after the civil war there became more skittish and changed their activity from diurnality to nocturnality to avoid human detection (they were being used as bush meat )
You suggest on the one hand that they are cryptic, elusive and shy, and yet that conflicts with the Patterson video (which you don't reject), which clearly shows a bigfoot that is walking casually in a relatively open area, in broad daylight, and upon seeing another primate continues in its stride without flinching. Which is it?
I suspect that those chimps in Uganda changed their behaviour after they started to be killed indirectly, or else hunted. There's no civil wars going on in the U.S. at the moment, and seemingly nobody is hunting bigfoots, since we've got no dead bodies!steddyeddy wrote: »If your thinking large primates think humans, there are thought to be undiscovered tribes in Brazil as there was many recently discovered.
A six foot long lizard was recently found in the Philippines that the natives knew about for centuries, i have no problem with a animal as clever as a ape and as mobile as a bipedal ape avoiding detection, and if you look up proponents of bigfoot youll find the agree that America has many hiding places for a large ape.steddyeddy wrote: »http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bili_Ape another recently discovered ape in the republic of Congo the number of ape species is changing rapidly.
Yes you describe several animals that have been recently documented because they're hidden away in areas that are inaccessible to most researchers because of civil war, impassible terrain, danger, etc.
That's not the same as the USA.
No, it isn't possible that a species of 10 foot primates could hide away from researchers, hunters, campers, scientists, etc., for hundreds of years.
If they were all hidden away in Alaska then maybe you could force that argument, but they aren't, they're reported to be seen all over the country (see the map I posted), and you said yourself there's been 3000 (apparantly plausible) sightings. So how it is possible that these 3000 people saw them if they're hidden away so well? And none of them happened to have a camera on them? Or a gun? None of these hunters decided to come back the next day with a group of lads and chase down the animals?
Come onsteddyeddy wrote: »yes the skookum cast defiantly had elk and bear hair but also hair that cannot be matched to a known creature, no one is claiming only one animal makes up the impression there is a clear Achilles tendon in the cast far bigger than a human achilles which suggest something large and bipedal made a impression.
Hair that was seemingly analysed by one guy.
By the way in the cast there was 16 elk hairs, 4 bare hairs, 1 coyote hair, and the one you're talking about. Bigfoot lay down there and only lost one hair? You're a primate, don't loose hairs fall off your head all the time? And your body isn't even covered in hair like bigfoot's apparantly is! And did an elk then decide to lie down in the same spot because it was warm?
The hair argument is completely implausible. The print is widely thought to be that of an elk.steddyeddy wrote: »3000 sightings, foot prints stories from the natives told to the early explorers like Samuel de Champlain etc to be honest a series of hoaxes involving hundreds of forest rangers, zoologists, natives and the early explorers of the continent is a bit more far fetched than than alternative that there is a undiscovered ape in America.
hoaxers would have a shared knowledge of the footprint anatomy, behavioral characteristics ect and a lot of these people are state veterinarians, wildlife biologists and hunters i really find hoaxing to be hard to believe on such a large scale.
the people who were caught out in hoaxing "evidence" are generally red necks and exposed quite quickly like the video you posted about the hoaxers from Georgia the hoaxers have never turned out to be trained in the area of zoology ect.
I'm not suggesting a conspiracy of hoaxers spanning many disciplines, I'm suggesting that there are many individual hoaxes, combined with a growing mythology, a few animals that may look similar to bigfoot (bears), a load of confirmation bias and pattern-seeking, and this is what you end up with.steddyeddy wrote: »dave as i said i dont accept everything i hear at first, i think theres a lot more evidence for the loch ness montser needed before i believe it and for the rest i wont dignify them because the level of evidence is completely different.
i agree we need a specimen but i think the evidence is quite compelling and as i said before im half on half on the video i cant prove anything with that, its all over the place as regards opinion analysis etc.
yes i agree with the dragon analogy but this is backed by mythology previous reports, physical evidence associated with the reports, dont think i looked at this and said sounds hmm sounds real or even jane Goodall believes it i will too, i actually looked through numerous eye witness reports and saw a lot of things that fit together, the foot prints the behavior described in the reports from people who wouldn't know the intricacies of primate behavior.
it was less than one hundred years ago when natural selection was largely disbeilved as there was lack of evidence, im convinced more evidence will be made available.
Give me links to a few of these eye witness reports that detail intricate primate behaviour at least.
You've given lots of bad evidence, but combining lots of bad evidence does not amount to good evidence. Anecdotes are effectively worthless.steddyeddy wrote: »the difference with your legendery creatures dave is that they rarley have contemperary acounts of them, coinciding with foot prints behavior that makes sense within the animals genus (primate, whale etc) there just stories however if you look at a lot of them they have since been discovered kraken=giant squid , Sichuan = giant panda and many others.
Still not compelling, it's just speculationsteddyeddy wrote: »i dont get into pub fight over this for nothing dave ill defend bigfoot before i jump to the girlfriends defense!
Don't tell your girlfriend that!0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,301 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59228
The idea of extant human antecedents or cousins always fascinated me. More as an abstract idea and wish. This is the first time in human history that we're alone as bipedal creatures. At times there were many sharing the planet. That part isnt unusual really. I never really put that much store in it as an actual possibility until someone I knew whose veracity I would have great faith in saw one up close as it were. He is of a medical background and would be about 10 Dawkins(tm) in general scepticism.
On a fishing trip in Canada, the place of his birth, late afternoon he was moving up a river in a very remote area and as he moved upstream he noticed but at the same time didnt notice(if you know what I mean) his attention being drawn to a tree stump. He kept moving and when he was within about 40 feet the "stump" stood up. He was armed with a pistol for bear. Mostly to scare them as the calibre wasnt big enough to do much else. He told me he forgot he was carrying it. He froze basically, as did the creature.
His description? He described at as being about his height. He's a big chap so 6' 4" not 8 or 10 feet. He said body wise it was like a big man covered in hair. A hairy prizefighter as he called it. He did say it looked nothing like the famous cinefilm above. Not nearly as bulky. Facially he couldnt make out much, but he could barely see eyes and the face was black. More like a chimp than a gorilla. It looked straight at him. No obvious aggression or any other emotion. But he got the distinct vibe that he was to go no further. So he stepped back a few steps in the river. It then turned and walked up into the bank melting into the shrubbery. He told me he found tears running down his face. Not fear. The shock of seeing a human walk a couple of steps but something not human. That was a visceral emotion for him.
He told me he smelled nothing nor did it make any sound, nor was it overtly threatening at all. He felt he was watched as he made his way back downstream, but he reckoned that was just his mind playing tricks. Interestingly he partially thinks the whole thing may have been his mind playing tricks. His discipline is in the mental health arena. But he "knows" he saw something. Something he never gave any credit to consciously. He's told about 5 people so some details are different to protect that confidence.
I've met and known maybe 5 people in my life who I would believe as witnesses in such a case and he would be one of them. I leave others belief to themselves as I would do in their position.
So do they exist? Is there the possibility of some bipedal relative out there? IMHO the bigfoot of the US is the least likely. The reports of the alma in the former USSR I would give more credence to. One example of the latter is the interesting encounter of the German soldier who walked from eastern siberia after he was interned by the soviets after the last war. Very practical, logical "germanic" chap, whose story makes amazing reading. He made it back to Germany. Covered 1000's of miles doing so. In the urals(IIRC) on a remote mountain pass he encountered an "apeman" up close and personal over many hours and gave a very good description.
On the Alma type, "Hans Schiltenberger was captured by the Turks and sent to the court of Tamerlane, who placed him in the retinue of a Mongol prince named Egidi. After returning to Europe in 1427, Schiltenberger wrote about his experiences. In his book, he described some mountains, apparently the Tien Shan range in Mongolia: "The inhabitants say that beyond the mountains is the beginning of a wasteland which lies at the edge of the earth. No one can survive there because the desert is populated by so many snakes and tigers. In the mountains themselves live wild people, who have nothing in common with other human beings. A pelt covers the entire body of these creatures. Only the hands and face are free of hair. They run around in the hills like animals and eat foliage and grass and whatever else they can find. The lord of the territory made Egidi a present of a couple of forest people, a man and a woman. They had been caught in the wilderness, together with three untamed horses the size of asses and all sorts of other animals which are not found in German lands and which I cannot therefore put a name to" This chap reported many animals on his travels, many of whom not described by the west until much later(EG prizewalskis horse).Marco Polo also makes mention of same. More on the alma http://www.unmuseum.org/alma.htm Possible relatively recent contact, capture and interbreeding. http://www.bigfootencounters.com/creatures/zana2.htm http://www.bcscc.ca/almasti.htm
Further east again, the orang pendek is another plausible one. Many witnesses who describe a 5 foot high bipedal creature not unlike an orang but less bulky. Many footprints have been found. Interestingly not human like. Primitive bipedal type. Most compelling, is that the orang "jane goodall" whose name escapes observed one herself once. Not a drunken hillbilly by any strecth and a person well versed in the behaviour and habits of SE Asian primates. It was another woman researcher who first said she saw the giant "lion killer" chimps of the congo(who sometimes walk awkwardly bipedal).
I suspect older hominids may have lasted into late prehistoric times too. The european legends of trolls http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll may be a race memory of neandertals. The description fits remarkably well. "They are often regarded as having poor intellect (especially the males, whereas the females may be quite cunning), great strength, big noses, long arms, and as being hairy and not very beautiful" who " are more human-like folk of the wilderness, living underground in hills, caves or mounds". The biggest noses of any hominid so far found belonged to neandertals. They had short legs and long arms and great strength and mostly lived in caves. My theory anyway and the "green man" of european history may be another remnant?
Is it possible that some lived into more recent times? I can imagine so(dwarf mammoths lived until the 11th century on a remote siberian island). The Hobbits of Flores may have according to local legends. Are any around today? I would like to think so. In the continental US? I don't know and actually doubt it, even with the testimony of the chap above, but elsewhere in the huge areas of asia? Possible. In other ways, I hope they're never found.
TL;DR? Maybe... Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.
0 -
Unless he was mistaken. It was late afternoon, light was fading and he was 40ft away. You say he described it as looking like a 'hairy prizefighter'; it's much more likely to have been a hirsute boxer on a camping trip than to have been a lost ape-man. (before anyone says that humans don't get that hairy; I've worked in swimming pools for years; you wouldn't believe how hairy some men get)The idea of extant human antecedents or cousins always fascinated me. More as an abstract idea and wish. This is the first time in human history that we're alone as bipedal creatures. At times there were many sharing the planet. That part isnt unusual really. I never really put that much store in it as an actual possibility until someone I knew whose veracity I would have great faith in saw one up close as it were. He is of a medical background and would be about 10 Dawkins(tm) in general scepticism.
It's not impossible, and like you I think that if a new species of ape is to be discovered it probably won't be in the US, but will be somewhere much more remote. However I really, really don't buy the claim that some put forward that because there are folk tales about ape-men then they must be real. There have been stories about vampires, witches and zombies from all over the world for thousands of years but no-one's out there leading a Dracula hunt.So do they exist?
What's your source for this? The only info I can find gives a date for the Pygmy Mammoth dying out as between 10,000 and 11,000 years ago.Is it possible that some lived into more recent times? I can imagine so(dwarf mammoths lived until the 11th century on a remote siberian island).0 -
-
dave ill come to your points momentarly for the moment here is a classic sightin by william roe a hunter which is one the most interesting and is a sort of archtype of bigfoot reports.
Ever since I was a small boy back in the forest of Michigan, I have studied the lives and habits of wild animals. Later, when I supported my family in Northern Alberta by hunting and trapping, I spent many hours just observing the wild things. They fascinated me. But the most incredible experience I ever had with a wild creature occurred near a little town called Tete Jaune Cache, British Columbia, about eighty miles west of Jasper, Alberta.
I had been working on the highway near Tete Jaune Cache for about two years. In October, 1955, I decided to climb five miles up Mica Mountain to an old deserted mine, just for something to do. I came in sight of the mine about three o'clock in the afternoon after an easy climb. I had just come out of a patch of low brush into a clearing when I saw what I thought was a grizzly bear, in the bush on the other side. I had shot a grizzly near that spot the year before. This one was only about 75 yards away, but I didn't want to shoot it, for I had no way of getting it out. So I sat down on a small rock and watched, my rifle in my hands.
I could see part of the animal's head and the top of one shoulder. A moment later it raised up and stepped out into the opening. Then I saw it was not a bear.
The Mica Mountain sasquatch, drawn by William Roe's daughter under his direction
This, to the best of my recollection, is what the creature looked like and how it acted as it came across the clearing directly toward me. My first impression was of a huge man, about six feet tall, almost three feet wide, and probably weighing somewhere near three hundred pounds. It was covered from head to foot with dark brown silver-tipped hair. But as it came closer I saw by its breasts that it was female.
And yet, its torso was not curved like a female's. Its broad frame was straight from shoulder to hip. Its arms were much thicker than a man's arms, and longer, reaching almost to its knees. Its feet were broader proportionately than a man's, about five inches wide at the front and tapering to much thinner heels. When it walked it placed the heel of its foot down first, and I could see the grey-brown skin or hide on the soles of its feet.
It came to the edge of the bush I was hiding in, within twenty feet of me, and squatted down on its haunches. Reaching out its hands it pulled the branches of bushes toward it and stripped the leaves with its teeth. Its lips curled flexibly around the leaves as it ate. I was close enough to see that its teeth were white and even.
The shape of this creature's head somewhat resembled a Negro's. The head was higher at the back than at the front. The nose was broad and flat. The lips and chin protruded farther than its nose. But the hair that covered it, leaving bare only the parts of its face around the mouth, nose and ears, made it resemble an animal as much as a human. None of this hair, even on the back of its head, was longer than an inch, and that on its face was much shorter. Its ears were shaped like a human's ears. But its eyes were small and black like a bear's. And its neck also was unhuman. Thicker and shorter than any man's I had ever seen.
As I watched this creature, I wondered if some movie company was making a film at this place and that what I saw was an actor, made up to look partly human and partly animal. But as I observed it more, I decided it would be impossible to fake such a specimen. Anyway, I learned later there was no such company near that area. Nor, in fact, did anyone live up Mica Mountain, according to the people who lived in Tete Jaune Cache.
Finally the wild thing must have got my scent, for it looked directly at me through an opening in the brush. A look of amazement crossed its face. It looked so comical at the moment I had to grin. Still in a crouched position, it backed up three or four short steps, then straightened up to its full height and started to walk rapidly back the way it had come. For a moment it watched me over its shoulder as it went, not exactly afraid, but as though it wanted no contact with anything strange.
The thought came to me that if I shot it, I would possibly have a specimen of great interest to scientists the world over. I had heard stories of the Sasquatch, the giant hairy Indians that live in the legends of British Columbia Indians, and also many claim, are still in fact alive today. Maybe this was a Sasquatch, I told myself.
I levelled my rifle. The creature was still walking rapidly away, again turning its head to look in my direction. I lowered the rifle. Although I have called the creature "it", I felt now that it was a human being and I knew I would never forgive myself if I killed it.
Just as it came to the other patch of brush it threw its head back and made a peculiar noise that seemed to be half laugh and half language, and which I can only describe as a kind of a whinny. Then it walked from the small brush into a stand of lodgepole pine.
I stepped out into the opening and looked across a small ridge just beyond the pine to see if I could see it again. It came out on the ridge a couple of hundred yards away from me, tipped its head back again, and again emitted the only sound I had heard it make, but what this half- laugh, half-language was meant to convey, I do not know. It disappeared then, and I never saw it again.
I wanted to find out if it lived on vegetation entirely or ate meat as well, so I went down and looked for signs. I found it in five different places, and although I examined it thoroughly, could find no hair or shells of bugs or insects. So I believe it was strictly a vegetarian.
I found one place where it had slept for a couple of nights under a tree. Now, the nights were cool up the mountain, at this time of year especially, and yet it had not used a fire. I found no sign that it possessed even the simplest of tools. Nor a single companion while in this place.
Whether this was a Sasquatch I do not know. It will always remain a mystery to me, unless another one is found.
I hereby declare the above statement to be in every part true, to the best of my powers of observation and recollection.
(Signed) William Roe0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,301 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59228
Unless he was mistaken. It was late afternoon, light was fading and he was 40ft away. You say he described it as looking like a 'hairy prizefighter'; it's much more likely to have been a hirsute boxer on a camping trip than to have been a lost ape-man. (before anyone says that humans don't get that hairy; I've worked in swimming pools for years; you wouldn't believe how hairy some men get) Oh yea possibly. The light was good though, late afternoon in mid summer in the region is bright, nowhere near dusk and it was in full sunlight. That's why he said it wasnt brown like a bear, but jet black(apparently even black bears are a bit brownish according to him). I hadnt heard from him in 6 months and he rang me today :eek: Off to the paranormal forum I go! :pac: and we chatted about this. No more details really just not human, looked like an ape in the head, but (furred) human in the body. While he's still not convinced it wasnt an hallucination, he is sure he didnt hallucinate a bear or some bloke.
I get your point but there are differences. Witches have an interesting history and the word is equated with shamanic/wise medicine women that translated into more of a negative term with christianity. "Witches" did exist. Zombies can be explained by people awakening from comas, even drug induced ones and the primitive explanation was "Zombie", so they existed as well. Vampires as we know them are a very recent legend. Again with natural and rational explanations for the legends. The aforementioned zombies, people buried in comas that when they were exhumed showed scratch marks in the coffin lids, the way the body decomposes could lead primitive peoples to ascribe the supernatural(blood like liquid from the lips, groaning of escaping gas, stabbing of the chest causing noise to emanate from the mouth mistaken for life in the dead, etc). So they have an explanation too. As do werewolves. Many shamanistic rituals involve the shaman entering teh spirit of an animal and becoming that animal. Usually involving various hallucenigenic herbs. Indeed Ive done one of these ceremonies just to see and let me tell you it feels very "real", even though objectively I knew it wasnt. I was a bird at one point flying in the air, feathers, wind the lot.It's not impossible, and like you I think that if a new species of ape is to be discovered it probably won't be in the US, but will be somewhere much more remote. However I really, really don't buy the claim that some put forward that because there are folk tales about ape-men then they must be real. There have been stories about vampires, witches and zombies from all over the world for thousands of years but no-one's out there leading a Dracula hunt.
Wildmen are a different subject. More wide ranging. Yes many cultures ascribe a spiritual element, though they do same for native animals, but when cultures describe these animals as part of the natural history along with known animals and with a lack of fantasy animals in their bestiary. We may be thrown by european bestiaries of the middle ages with men with no heads and three legs etc, but that doesnt translate to other cultures. we were a bit "inventive" If a culture has no fantasy animals yet mentions "ape men" it does beg investigation IMHO. May be a villified outcast tribe, it may be a race memory, it may be fantasy, but it may be something else, in more recent times, or even extant still. When Jane Goodall and others reckon it's worth more of a look I agree.
Many apologies 3-4000 years ago. Dunno WTF brain fart gave me 11th centuryWhat's your source for this? The only info I can find gives a date for the Pygmy Mammoth dying out as between 10,000 and 11,000 years ago.
Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML1OZCHixR0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4KNyagUhks
Advertisement