It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What are the scientific chances of Bigfoot?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 11:58 AM
link   
I see a lot of evidence but nothing truly solid, I do believe that they are out there but what are the probabilities of thier existence? And also any news on the DNA test on that hair that was found in the new video?




posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Well, there's nothing physical about Bigfoot that makes him impossible (such as, say, unholy hybrids like the Jersey Devil). Whether or not Bigfoot could exist for so long without a good photograph or a corpse turning up is another issue.



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   
What are the scientific chances of Bigfoot?
Hell, that beats me. I would not even hazard a guess at the numerical probabilities of such. I do not feel bad in saying such.
Why?
Because within the scientific community, there are mulitudes of reputable biologists, cryptozoologists, etc. who would not touch such a notion of Bigfoot being probability.
Why?
Simple. They risk their careers and their standings within the scientific community when attempting to study these phantom, mysterious, and mythical animals, etc. The vast majority individuals that do study them are basically amateur scientists and the like, who are not bound by the rigorous scinetific methods employed by biologists, cryptozoologists, etc. The difference here is method(s) used to prove exisitence.

If for most here, as with those amateur scientists and cryptozoologists, etc, methods and evidences is solely based upon hearsay evidences and fuzzy photographs to prove the existence of Bigfoot, Yeti, the Lochness monster, and/or any other like type mysterious and mythical animals, beings, etc, then by all means, keep believing in such as having high probabilities of existence.

Personally, there is a dividing line, and that dividing line is credible science and scientific method versus psuedoscience and whatever method deemed necessary to work for their own ends. I love to believe in such, but until the day that the real scientific community comes out and gives irrefutable evidences as to their existences, all that is left to prove existence are those hearsay evidences and fuzzy photos, along with faith.




seekerof

[edit on 4-12-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Bigfoot is just a big, hairy endangered primate.



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 05:07 PM
link   
There are still quite a few very remote areas in the United States where people have not encroached upon. In fact, there are many areas in US alone that have not been explored aside from satellite imagery and overflights by planes. When you realize this fact alone, you can easily assume that "something" might be out there that we have not discovered.

Every year, there are announcements of new discoveries of flora, insects, small animals and even some larger animals. If I am not mistaken, several new species of small primates were discovered in South America and/or Asia. With this in mind, it is quite possible that a creature as large as Bigfoot could be lurking out there somewhere.



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Well, to me there are only three exceptional pieces of evidence that Bigfoot exists, which are :

X) The foot prints that are found in the forests. Some of them are fake, but I believe that most of the ones that are found are real. This is because on the bottom of the casts there are friction ridges, which are like fingerprints on the bottom of your feet. The friction ridges are highly complicated and almost impossible to recreate by yourself.

Y) The Patterson footage. I believe that is the legendary Bigfoot on camera for many reasons. First of all, you can see the entire muscle layout on the back of the sasquatch. And people that believe it is simply a costume are WRONG!! Nowadays you might be able to replicate that figure on Patterson's camera, but back then it would be impossible to do.

Z) The hundreds of eye-witness accounts. Hunters, farmers, hikers, and pedestrians from all over America and the world have sworn that they've seen a bigfoot-like animal. People from Russia and the alps call it Yeti, Native Americans call it Sasquatch, and in Africa they call it Wild Man. The idea of Bigfoot cannot just be a coincidence all around the world.



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Considering i've seen a Bigfoot i'd say the chances of one, scientific or otherwise, are right at 100%. I don't know if there are two of them but bygolly I can assure there is atleast one.

Love and light,

Wupy



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Where did you see bigfoot and when mrwupy? Just wondering. Or have you already posted your story on here?



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Well I guess you all make valid points I too believe the Patterson Film to be authentic. I still wish someone would find some "hard" evidence but I am sure somewhere in the not so distance future this will happen and I cant wait for all the naysayers to eat their words.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   
ever heard of the orang pendek?
well, in the lush jungles of Sumatra (where people have lived for thousands of years) a new primate has emerged...
also called the "short man" he is a small bigfoot... and he was a legend until recently...

Of course the locals knew he wasn't a legend, due to seeing tracks, and occassional glimpses (sound familiar?)
orange pendek is small bigfoot-real
the evidence... hair and witnesses.

Personally, I believe that it would be unlikely that a unknown primate could exist in mid to southern America... but the mid and northwest is another story...

I went there many years ago (Minnisota finger lakes) and was told that we could step off the path 50 feet at any point, and would likely be the first human to step there...
so there would be room to hide... for a long time...even the 200 years that we have lived there, and the previous occupants already accepted that they shared the land with the "sasquatch" so what is so hard to beleive?

No Bones you say? well, there are numerous uncommon species that we have never seen bones for... we were lucky enough to see the alive version...



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   
You can also look at North America's size: 24,474,000 sq km or 9,449,460 sq miles. It takes up 16.5% of the Earth's landmass.

Here is a population density map:



There are huge areas that still haven't been seen by people. Especially in Canada.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Finally some logical replies. Saying that there is not the possibility of an undiscovered primate on the planet is like saying that we are alone in the universe (that would be another thread in a different category). But I am sure there will be some skeptics that will try to play down the possibility for whatever reason I dont know.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 05:22 PM
link   
While I am still a fence sitter on this topic I have one thing to say that I dont think has been adressed in this thread. if they are to exist then there must be a minimum breeding population. Of course we can only speculate what the number of that population may be I doubt there are enough remote areas in the US to sustain an undetected population of these creatures large enough to keep the species going for generations.

if this minimum population is not maintained then the species will die out simply due to inbreeding and the birth defects inherent with it. Especialy if they like some mamals mate for life. Any thoughts from this angle?



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by librasleep
Where did you see bigfoot and when mrwupy? Just wondering. Or have you already posted your story on here?



I've posted the story several times on ATS including once in a podcast. i'll see if I can find a link and insert it here with an edit.

Wupy



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 05:37 PM
link   
if they are to exist then there must be a minimum breeding population.
if this minimum population is not maintained then the species will die out simply due to inbreeding and the birth defects inherent with it. Especialy if they like some mamals mate for life. Any thoughts from this angle?


That is very true and that is why the whole nessie idea is not very reliable because there would have to be a whole breeding population to sustain them. However didnt they find tracks with the same ridges (like fingerprints)hundreds of miles apart? That could indicate the instinct to travel to breed and keep a fresh genepool correct? Correct me if I am wrong on the prints but I believe it to be true.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 11:26 PM
link   
If I were taking a theoretical guess I would put bigfoot atop the list of possible cryptids just because it seems more plausible than say nessie or the jersey devil.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 06:10 AM
link   
In regards to extinction due to not being able to breed, would it possible for BigFoot/Sasquach to have an abnormally long life span?

Whereas no one has any evidence of 'proof of existence', unless there is a protocol for a creatures life span, imo it is not a strong argument to say they can't survive with out their own species.

This could also be directed towards other cryptids such as Nessie, Champ, etc.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Hmm.. I remeber a while ago on Coast2CoastAM someome 'captured' a bigfoot.

Scientific chances of one being captured: Currently slim to none.

Scientific chances of one existing: More than likely

God, I love science



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 09:35 PM
link   
After 30+ years of research and $$$ being spent in the pursuit of 'proof' we finally have the Giant Squid on film. We knew it was there from caracasses we found but even knowing that it took 30+ years of concentrated, dedicated scientific study and research to 'prove it'.

Is ANYONE spending that kind of money/effort/time on Bigfoot? There are dedicated groups - small and spread out - attempting to get that proof, but nothing on the order of magnitude used for the Giant squid. Until this 'committment' (from individuals or a group) is made, then the probability of getting 'definitive proof' is very low. The probability of finding something you're only half looking for is even lower.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 09:54 PM
link   
That is true if all the small groups would merge and form into one large non-profit org. they would be better structured and would be tax exempt that way they could pay scientific professionals (the ones that arent afraid to hurt thier reputations) to help with the research. Now only if they would become one things would work so much better.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join