| A Bigfoot corpse discovered ?
Posted: 8/16/2008 10:50:21 AM |
While it is rare, the discovery of new animals based on folk-lore and legends happens just often enough to keep them from being ignored .
Not exactly. What usually happens is that somebody visits some remote village in the middle of nowhere and gets his/her hands on something that some scientist somewhere can't identify. Off they go to find it. What I'm saying is that the evidence usually comes in before the search is mounted. Otherwise it's completely by accident.
The gorilla and mountain gorilla, bonobo, komodo dragon, giant gecko and coelacanth are all animals that originally were thought to be legends and folk-lore before they were identified and catalogued.
In this case though we're talking about something where the folklore was probably manufactured after the creature became popular.
Think of it like this : This creature is the hands-down winner of the most sought-after contest. There has to be at least a few hundred of them and their range apparently includes the entire North American continent but is mostly limited to the English speaking portion of it. For some reason nobody can ever get a clear shot of it and nobody can find droppings , hair samples, or even a bone. Supposedly it stinks to high heaven and the odor can be detected from quite a distance. Thousands of people have been looking for this thing over the course of fifty years and millions of people have invaded its territory while on camping excursions.
So, with all that said , how could it be remotely possible that we've somehow managed to completely miss every single piece of solid evidence for this creature ? Apparently this thing doesn't eat because to feed something that large requires more than just a few nuts and berries. You'd expect that if it's a herbivore there would be some evidence of where it's been feeding itself. So far none. If it's a carnivore , what does it eat and why isn't the land scattered with the carcasses of its prey ?
Apparently it doesn't ever take a dump either. That's pretty strange but I suppose in all fairness we wouldn't know a Bigfoot dropping from that of say a bear or other large creature.
Oh, and apparently Bigfoot doesn't sleep either. Most animals are active during either the day or the night. Not Bigfoot. Nope, Bigfoot gets up and wanders the land whenever the mood strikes him/her/it according to the lonely yokels in the middle of nowhere. See, now THAT is just odd because every other animal on this planet follows a circadian rhythm of some sort and while we fight our own, humans have the same instinct to sleep at night and do our thing during the day.
Where are the kids ? I've heard of a few stories where the littl'uns are thrown in for effect but those stories actually contradict all the others because they suggest that Bigfeet just wander around in solitude until it's time to have a family. Then, unlike every other ape on the planet , they get together, raise the kids (this can't happen in a month) and then go their seperate ways.
To sum it up : This sort of thing is so preposterous on so many counts that believing in Bigfoot requires more than a set of eyes...it requires faith. The stories are contradictory, the "folklore" is almost certainly misinterpretation if not simply manufactured after the fact, and the evidence is less than stellar. It's one thing to believe in undiscovered creatures living in the depths of the oceans. It's one thing to 'discover' a creature that is easy to miss (because usually it gets confused with something that's already been catalogued and is therefore ignored) It's entirely different to believe in Bigfoot . | |
|
| A Bigfoot corpse discovered ?
Posted: 8/16/2008 1:43:53 PM | | If bigfoot were to exist, the military should be more than a little interested in studying them as they have got to be the best creatures of their size at not being seen. They apparently have the ability to exist very close to the fringes of human society and not being captured or even indisputably documented. They make Ninjas look like clumsy preschoolers by comparison. | |
|
| A Bigfoot corpse discovered ?
Posted: 8/16/2008 3:07:58 PM | Religion injected into a bigfoot topic, let the snickering begin. They'll start really coming out of the woodwork now !!! Heh heh heh.
You see how much fun you can have with a touch of imagination and a keyboard.
If you look at message 26 he inadvertantly backs this nonsense with his talk of faith etc. All those things he mentioned could be explained by a magic wand or just saying they are these creatures referred to in Genisis. If we worked together we could probably come up with a whole history about Sasquatch and incorporate him into the history of mankind and all sorts of fun stuff. To some it would even sound plausable. Have fun. | |
|
| A Bigfoot corpse discovered ?
Posted: 8/16/2008 3:16:24 PM | In this case though we're talking about something where the folklore was probably manufactured after the creature became popular.
No, in those cases the folk-lore already existed (folk-lore to the natives, myth to us). For example, the Komodo was unknown to science until a Dutch officer heard the folk-lore (the expedition that proved the existence was the inspiration for "King Kong"). Prior ro cataloguing, the gorilla was known to science only as legends about a tribe of "hairy, primitive humans" from local stories and explorer accounts (but with no hard evidence). The coelacanth was part of Comorros Island folk-lore and initially believed by science to be only legend (coelacanths were only known to science as fossils up until then) until an actual one was observed.
A good example of folk-lore meeting science (while not dealing with unknown species) is the practice of 'leeching' or blood-letting. Modern science considered it to be folk-lore and of no value until someone decided to explore whether it could actually be useful. Now 'leeching' is a valuable tool in modern medicine (it's used primarily in reattachment procedures to deal with blood pooling in the reattached part).
Another especially good example is the discovery of the giant squid as this is a legend of western seafarers going back to Greek/Roman times. Originally named the "Kraken", it was thought to be a sea monster (size was typically exaggerated though one does not need to exaggerate the size of a full grown giant squid much considering they can be longer than the sailing ships of the day).
What I'm saying is that the evidence usually comes in before the search is mounted. Otherwise it's completely by accident.
The part you're ignoring in this is that often, exploration of region where these were found (the ones that were simply stumbled on) were mounted specifically because the only knowledge science had of those regions were the local folk-lore. It is a bit of a stretch to call it "completely by accident" when most of these species were discovered because people went exploring to see how much of folk-lore and legend was real or what it was based on. They may not have expected to find folk-lore proven out but they often did go largely out of curiosity piqued by folk-lore.
It's entirely different to believe in Bigfoot .
It's not a question of believing in Bigfoot, it's a question of knowing the difference between what's possible and what's probable.
Reality shows it to be possible (if unlikely) but probability is the reason why most everyone is saying "Where's the beef?" before mounting a full scale search. In other words, science listens and considers even if clear proof isn't there but it doesn't accept without it. | |
|
| A Bigfoot corpse discovered ?
Posted: 8/16/2008 8:42:26 PM | I seem to remember an expedition in the pacific northwest a number of years ago that used thermal imaging and other detection devices to hunt for bigfoot. One would imagine that a creature of that size would have a rather large thermal image.
Funny how a sasquatch can appear when someone is armed with a camera but not when someone is armed with scientific devices. I guess that in addition to being very good at not being spotted visually, bigfoot has the ability to just be somewhere other than where a "serious" search is taking place. So they can totally outwit humans at every turn as well. Maybe Obama should try to get a brilliant sasquatch as a running mate. | |
|
| A Bigfoot corpse discovered ?
Posted: 8/16/2008 9:15:21 PM | Mungo,
Come on now...you're too intelligent to be debating me over semantics.
The coelacanth was as much a surprise to science as it was to the average person. No ichthyologist was expecting to ever find a living specimen.
The Komodo dragon and the gorilla were hardly secrets either. They were secrets only to the Europeans who'd never had any reason to go looking for them. We're going back about a century on that one too I might add so that's apples and oranges to compare either of those creatures with Bigfoot.
As for the practise of blood-letting , let's not get that confused with leeching. Medievel Europeans didn't practise blood-letting because it was a great way to keep circulation going , they figured it was a good way to get the humours in balance. That was Aristotle who got that ball rolling and it had nothing whatsoever to do with scientific medicine. It was based on the presumption that there were four humours and that one of them (blood) was in over-supply. We didn't turn to using leeches in modern medicine because maybe Aristotle was right after all , we did it because we studied the problem and compared notes with each other. This is completely out of the realm of folklore.
The ocean is a different kettle of fish (to use a bad pun. lol...sorry) because most of it is off limits to us. Yes, the giant squid is a good example of a species we were pretty sure didn't exist that turned out to, in fact, exist. However, we didn't actually go looking for it anyway...a few of them have simply washed ashore.
And no, nobody mounts a mission in this day and age simply to find out if the stories are true. That may have been the case a hundred years ago but today there are few places (if any) that hold the promise of being packed full of weird and wacky creatures that have no relatives anywhere else on the planet. At best we'll send in a team of botanists or entomologists but nobody is going to pay for somebody to go looking for pixies in England or dragons in China no matter what the local lore says about it. For that matter, nobody is going to send anybody off on some trek in Central Africa to find the living missing link either even if some tribe has a belief in a big multicoloured ape twenty feet tall. It's not going to happen at all unless somebody comes back with a physical sample of some kind such as hair or feces. Folklore is simply not on the average scientist's radar unless it concerns claimed medicinal properties of some plant or animal.
Oh yeah, and as far as the supposed folklore goes concerning Bigfoot....says who ? If you're referring to the Skoocum legend then you might want to take a closer look at it, because the creature described there bears little resemblance to the creature we're all so interested in. That creature was apparently four-toed, had a narrow heel, and ate people for fun. And it wasn't particularly shy either. Most likely it was a bear or something to that effect. It could also be a reference to a creature long since extinct but still alive in the local community memory.
Reality (to use your term) certainly doesn't show anything whatsoever concerning Bigfoot except that so far it's all just a bunch of stories contrived to fit together and based almost exclusively on a hoax perpetrated over fifty years ago. Science isn't interested in Bigfoot at all because there's no evidence that such a creature exists. Will science admit to the possibility ? Sure...why not ? The likelihood of such a creature existing today is so remote though as to render the odds in favour of us ever finding one alive (or dead for that matter) negligible. I'm well aware of how science works though and that's precisely why I'm surprised that I have to debate this with anybody as intelligent as I know you to be.
Sure there could be a Bigfoot out there. If I had to choose between holding my breath waiting to win the lottery or for physical evidence of Bigfoot to turn up I'd invest it all in the 6/49. My odds are much better in that case. | |
|
| |
| A Bigfoot corpse discovered ?
Posted: 8/17/2008 3:48:08 AM | I have mixed thoughts on which to draw a conclusion...here in Maine we had a discovery a couple of years ago of some kind of canine, wolf strange looking creature. Some authority was called to come to inspect it but didn't think it was important enough. The person who discovered this animal, by what I understand, accidently killed it with their car. Photos were taken and were publicized in the local papers. It even made it on to a television documentary concerning such creatures. I saw the photos and have to admit that this was a unique looking creature. Also to support this thought, I live on land that is covered by trees and thick brush...I'm always in awe to see a deer, coyote, fox and other animals that don't often show them self to humans. Who is to say that some other creature isn't out there in the vast woods? Scientists are still discovering yet more life in our oceans; why then is it so difficult to believe that some large creature such as Big Foot does not exist in our forests?
My other thought is, since Big Foot is obviously BIG, why hasn't anyone found where it might live in the vicinity of where it's been spotted? | |
|
| A Bigfoot corpse discovered ?
Posted: 8/17/2008 6:16:05 AM |
One of the two samples of DNA said to prove the existence of the Bigfoot came from a human and the other was 96 percent from an opossum, according to Curt Nelson, a scientist at the University of Minnesota who performed the DNA analysis.
As per Yahoo.......
If cells have been extracted from a body for DNA testing, and those tests have shown that at least some of the samples are human - whose body is this? Was the tissue sample provided to the technician, or did he/she take a sample from the remains themselves? Or were the samples taken from hair?
Armed with this information, I would think that a CAT/MRI scan would be very revealing - does this supposed animal have a physical structure than can be captured in images? If so, then let those in possession of the body have an autopsy performed. Procedures such as this would either prove the existence of the animal and likely point to a reason for it's demise, or reveal that someone might have killed a 7+ foot man........
Holding breath..... | |
|
| A Bigfoot corpse discovered ?
Posted: 8/17/2008 6:37:22 AM | Well my initial theory on bigfoot was that it was always some drunken idiot that THOUGHT he saw something, but was probably just seeing a bear. But it IS quite a coincidence. I just found a waterhorse floating in the toilet. Wait.....sniff sniff.....it aint a waterhorse. Damn alcohol!
Realistically, with the tech we have now, it'd be hard for the hairy **stard to exist without someone knowing by now. I mean, a body would have turned up somewhere before now. Unless bigfoots(or is it bigfeet?) bury their dead like humans do. | |
|
| A Bigfoot corpse discovered ?
Posted: 8/17/2008 6:54:19 AM | The genetic material provided was unlikely to have been taken from the same source. Other than contaminated samples, how else could the two samples be so dissimilar?
Makes me wonder though I have to admit. The mindset of the people providing the samples. Are they naive or just plain stupid enough to think that they could fool anyone.
I'd be inclined to think that they were being stupid.
Then again the true believers will likely put their own spin on this. I can't wait for the explanation from the guys who have the "body". It should be good for some chuckles. | |
|
| A Bigfoot corpse discovered ?
Posted: 8/17/2008 8:15:44 AM | Bigfeet just wander around in solitude until it's time to have a family. Then, unlike every other ape on the planet , they get together, raise the kids (this can't happen in a month) and then go their seperate ways.
Actually, it's not only BigFeetz that do that. Human creatures of this era are largely adapting to that domestic philosophy as well. 
-Suth'nBoy 
| |
|
| A Bigfoot corpse discovered ?
Posted: 8/17/2008 8:27:07 AM | If it's true....what an incredibally awesome discovery! It would be THE discovery of modern civilization.
If it's true, that is.
I've seen the well known footage that Roger Patterson filmed. I've seen it a few times on TV and I just saw it again on you tube. The first time I saw it I was immediately convinced it's a hoax. Observing the subject's gait one can clearly see it's a human being. Also there is only a few brief seconds of close up clear footage..another red flag.
I just saw the Snow Walker footage of a furry creature walking through deep know. Yet it's out of focus, very shaky and the very brief instant or two of a relatively clear shot It looks to me like a human being. Every one of these apparent photos or videos are always either out of focus, half or more hidden behind bushes, very shaky hands of the cameraman, at great distances etc....the list goes on.
Shouldn't this be the story of the year for news? Why did it take this long to gain any publicity? | |
|
| A Bigfoot corpse discovered ?
Posted: 8/17/2008 8:32:54 AM | Forget eating berries and wild animals. Bigfoot is real but we just cannot see him for what he is. The obvious answer is aliens taking a stole in the woods. They are not the cute hairless phone home types that do all the probing. These guys heard the myth about mammoths and every once in a while send out an expedition to see what they can find.
Edit: Sorry 'The obvious answer is aliens taking a stroll in the woods.' Where is my coffee? | |
|
| A Bigfoot corpse discovered ?
Posted: 8/17/2008 8:51:50 AM |
The obvious answer is aliens taking a stole (sic) in the woods.
Aliens with terrestrial human and opossum DNA? Not likely.
Occams Razor my friend....... | |
|
| A Bigfoot corpse discovered ?
Posted: 8/17/2008 10:19:00 AM | There apparently were three samples. Why three I don't know. One was labelled inconclusive and the other two were human and opposum. I have yet to find out how the samples were taken. But I have to say that I really feel like I have been sucked in enough to find the evidence of a fraud when I could have just gone about my business and waited for the hoax announcement.
As they say, "wait for it.........................................................". | |
|
| A Bigfoot corpse discovered ?
Posted: 8/17/2008 11:18:56 AM | Apparently there were technical reasons why the third sample could not be examined.
My understanding is that multiple samples of DNA are often taken when each sample is small, or if there is a risk of cross-contamination. If the samples were taken from different sources - etc hair or buccal (inside cheek), the examiner is probably looking to collate the information found in the multiple samples as belonging to one individual.
However, in this scenario, I can't see why there should be such inconclusive evidence in any sample. They apparently have an entire body from which to take samples! If they can use forensics to pull DNA off a body years after the person was dead and buried, surely they can get something useful from this recently deceased find. Unless of course the "recently deceased find" was really obtained from the local costume rental agency with some opossum liberally sprinkled throughout.
Namaste....... | |
|
| A Bigfoot corpse discovered ?
Posted: 8/17/2008 12:30:02 PM |
Scientists are still discovering yet more life in our oceans; why then is it so difficult to believe that some large creature such as Big Foot does not exist in our forests?
There is a very large difference in the scope of the area you are comparing. The oceans cover 75% of our planet and are miles deep in a lot of areas. Due to immense pressure from the water it is very hard to explore the bottom of the sea bed. Not just that, the simple size of it alone makes the task daunting. And the real deep areas are constantly dark. So much of our oceans are unexplored. We really have a limited idea to whats down there.
Compare that to forests which cover land. Most of them have been explored at one time or another, and we are constantly enroaching on them and their size is shrinking. There are probably a few spots in the rain forests that have been left relatively untouched, but those areas are disapearing.
It would be cool if this is actually a bigfoot, but I suspect Gottapulse has nailed it down with his arguements and this is a hoax.
| |
|
| A Bigfoot corpse discovered ?
Posted: 8/17/2008 6:55:59 PM | Mungo,
Come on now...you're too intelligent to be debating me over semantics.
Don't mistake me for someone who thinks Bigfoot is real, my postings show otherwise.
I am however, willing to recognize that science and discovery are predicated on the unknown and that those discoveries, however big or small, typically boil down to someone asking "I wonder if...".
Folk-lore and legend have far more than occasionally been the source of inquiry and discovery.
Oh yeah, and as far as the supposed folklore goes concerning Bigfoot....says who ? If you're referring to the Skoocum legend then you might want to take a closer look at it, because the creature described there bears little resemblance to the creature we're all so interested in.
The majority of Native traditions have stories about giant, wild, 'people-like' creatures. Sometimes it is "otter men", sometimes it is "stone men" and, more often, it is large, hairy, mysterious 'people' who live in the woods/wilderness. In some cases they are symbols of nature, in others they are symbols of evil, 'sin' or some other 'violation of nature'. In some of the legends they live every day within their wilderness environments and in others they only appear at times of trouble and trial. These legends can be found among natives in every region of North America from the south-east US to the True North.
Legends do not make science or factual knowledge but I also recognize the sources for folk-lore and myth. In some cases the myth preceeds apparent 'events' (e.g. sightings because the person was acculturated to see such things), it is a source of explanation for natural/historic events or a means of teaching knowledge and values to the young (like fairy tales). In other cases they evolve from actual events which bear explaining and are passed down, embellished and expanded.
In the second case, exploring legends and their origins can lead us to real, factual knowledge about the world around us. In the first it can lead us to real cultural knowledge about the people who formulated the myths (eg Troy was discovered by someone trying to establish the factual basis, if any, behind some of the most enduring myths about the Trojans).
As I said before:
science listens and considers even if clear proof isn't there but it doesn't accept without it. | |
|
| A Bigfoot corpse discovered ?
Posted: 8/18/2008 8:09:26 AM |
I am however, willing to recognize that science and discovery are predicated on the unknown and that those discoveries, however big or small, typically boil down to someone asking "I wonder if...".
....they're Gay?
 | |
|
| A Bigfoot corpse discovered ?
Posted: 8/18/2008 8:15:26 AM | | wouldn't be the first time a "discovery" has been claimed...but I'd be thinking twice about this one, seeing as the guy already has one hoax under his belt. | |
|
| A Bigfoot corpse discovered ?
Posted: 8/18/2008 9:16:42 AM | | Very good point! But I'll go back to the finding here in Maine that have made us all wonder in this area...what kind of animal was that? Maybe there's not a lot of them but there was at least one and I've seen the publicized ph0tos from our local newspaper the Sun Journal if you'd like to check it out and draw your own conclusion.. I don't believe it was merely a dog with mange..the snout reminded me of a wolf pup but as for the rest of the body..no clue. This isn't to say that I believe Bigfoot, the Lockness Monster or aliens exist, but the Maine finding does put a wrench in the spoke of the nonbelievers somewhat I'd think. | |
|
| |
| A Bigfoot corpse discovered ?
Posted: 8/18/2008 5:47:50 PM | | It looks like the experts are becoming more sceptical about this one. See http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080818-bigfoot-dna.html | |
|
| A Bigfoot corpse discovered ?
Posted: 8/19/2008 12:54:08 AM | | I'm pretty sure the experts have always been skeptical about this one. I still can't believe that anybody in the journalism field ever took this seriously in the first place. | |
|
Home
login 
