It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Bigfoot - A Case for a North American Ape

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 02:48 PM

BIGFOOT - A Case for a North American Ape

Most skeptics will tell you that Bigfoot is just a myth. Most scientists agree that the legends of ape-like creatures in North America are just that, legends. Legends perpetuated by misidentifications of known animals, human superstition and hoaxers. The sightings of eye witnesses are not definitive proof and footprint castings have proven inconclusive to most biologists. What is stopping hoaxers from strapping wooden feet to their shoes and making these prints out in the woods?

So to most, the idea of Bigfoot is laughable. If they actually thought logically about it they would find that the odds of a North American ape are actually much better than the skeptics would have you believe.

The Native Americans had many names for the ape man. Sometimes he was the Wendigo, Manabai'wok, Kecleh-Kudleh, the Lenni Lenape Native tribes called the creature Wsinkhoalican.

Seems there were an awful lot of names in an awful lot of tribes. If this thing was a mere legendary spirit why would so many tribes, divided by massive distances and culture differences all have a name for a similar creature? Why would the legend be pervasive across the entire land? Is it true that bigfoot is a mere product of our unconscious fears. A psychological aberration created by our fear of reverting into a primal state? Fear of becoming feral, of going back to the jungle, of becoming apes once more? Are these genetic memories stored in a collective unconscious teaching us to hold onto to civilization for fear of devolving into something subhuman? OR, are we dealing with something more than Native superstition and human psychology?

There is another claim that skeptical minds often make about Sasquatch which I think deserves to be debunked once and for all... The "Why haven't we found a body?" excuse is a poor excuse for skepticism that fails to take into account any real knowledge of the way ecosystems work. Finding a body in the forest is no easy feat especially if you are not looking for one. Tests have shown that a fresh carcass can disappear into the foliage, be torn apart by scavengers and the bones scattered in less than a month after the animals death. Time lapse has shown that the bodies become unidentifiable, what isn't scattered or eaten would be hidden under foliage. Even if discovered identification of the body would be impossible to any but experienced wildlife experts. And that is true for the common animals, deer, raccoons, foxes... what we're dealing with is a much smarter and far more rare creature...

And there's another reason Bigfoot sightings are fairly rare and no remains have been found, we're dealing with a shy and intelligent animal. If Bigfoot were an undiscovered primate about 7-9 feet tall it's likely got a large brain, plenty intelligent enough to steer clear of humans. The population would almost certainly be small. Many scientists question how animals so large could find ample food supply in the forest but most don't consider the idea that they have learned how to eat meat and I don't just mean raw meat, I mean that these animals might be smart enough to start a fire. It's not entirely implausible when you consider than man has been eating meat for thousands of years but that it was not a biological necessity. Could Bigfoot be omnivores enough to stomach raw meat or smart enough to learn how to make fire? If not meat could the forest vegetation be enough to feed large primates?

Meat Eating

So, given the rarity Bigfoot must have as a species and its general desire to stay away from us humans if it can help it basically answers the question of why a body has not been found. Another answer is that there are very few scientists or wildlife experts out there on the look out for a primate or for new species at all in the United States. So if there are no experts out there looking for it how are they supposed to find it? Scientists cannot leave this work to amateurs and then blame the amatuers when no concrete evidence is found.

But perhaps concrete evidence does exist... in the form of the Patterson Film. The film has been dissected, enhanced and examined ever since it was taken in 1967. In my youth when I first took an interest in unknown animals I flip-flopped over whether or not this footage was hoaxed, especially after several men came out claiming to be the ones in the suit (though none ever produced the suit itself or any evidence of their claims). However, after seeing the footage again and noting the movement of muscle in the legs I realized that there is no way for a suit to reproduce this effect unless it were skin tight painted on or glued to the skin... After watching this footage countless times I now believe it to be definitively real... however my beliefs do not come with an equal bit of skepticism for while I believe it to be real I understand it will not convince the scientific community any more than UFO photos do.

Patterson Analysis

^ While certainly a conjectural video analysis it shows the movement of the muscle pretty well... something nigh impossible to make-up effects in 1967.

Most scientists have made up their minds that Bigfoot does not exist and therefore refuse to search. It boggles my mind why they, who discover new primate fossils all the time, will not entertain the idea that some of our ancestors evolved, survived in the New World and are still here with us today... Why is that such a leap for their minds? They accept Ardi and Homo floresiensis but discard Sasquatch like yesterday's garbage, without ever thinking that Sasquatch could just be another Ardi waiting for discovery, only this one isn't fossilized, it lives and breathes in our own backyard. How are there not hundreds of scientists willing to go out and find this thing? I mean sure if they can't find it they have to explain why they wasted their time... but IF THEY DID, can you imagine the headlines?

^ It is believed that Homo Floresiensis lived up until about 12,000 years ago. From Wikipedia:

Because of a deep neighboring strait, Flores remained isolated during the Wisconsin glaciation (the most recent glacial period), despite the low sea levels that united Sundaland. This has led the discoverers of H. floresiensis to conclude that the species, or its ancestors, could only have reached the isolated island by water transport, perhaps arriving in bamboo rafts around 100,000 years ago (or, if they are H. erectus, then about 1 million years ago). This idea of H. floresiensis using advanced technology and cooperation on a modern human level has prompted the discoverers to hypothesize that H. floresiensis almost certainly had language.[31] This suggestion has been one of the most controversial of the discoverers' findings.

Local geology suggests that a volcanic eruption on Flores approximately 12,000 years ago was responsible for the demise of H. floresiensis, along with other local fauna, including the elephant Stegodon.[3] Gregory Forth hypothesized that H. floresiensis may have survived longer in other parts of Flores to become the source of the Ebu Gogo stories told among the local people. The Ebu Gogo are said to have been small, hairy, language-poor cave dwellers on the scale of this species.[32] Believed to be present at the time of the arrival of the first Portuguese ships during the 16th century, these creatures are claimed to have existed as recently as the late 19th century.[33] Gerd van den Bergh, a paleontologist working with the fossils, reported hearing of the Ebu Gogo a decade before the fossil discovery.[34] On the island of Sumatra, there are reports of a 1-1.5 m (−1.6 ft) tall humanoid, the Orang Pendek which might be related to H. floresiensis.[35]

Continued in next post

posted on Feb, 2 2010 @ 02:51 PM

Continued from last post

If Homo Floresiensis could build a raft and had a language, what are our Bigfoot friends capable of? I understand the raft theory is only that, a theory, but if they lend credence to that theory why don't they lend credence to the idea that some Human Ancestor managed to cross into North America, perhaps using the same routes as homo sapiens, and that it adapted and evolved here, hiding in the wild but, perhaps, never taking off in population the way humans later did. If the Ebu Gogo (Homo Floresiensis) turned out to be based in reality why not the Wendigo?


Jeff Meldrum, bigfoot researcher AND Phd
Jeff Meldrum

Now let's go back to the Native Americans for a moment. Many of them believed that these creatures possessed supernatural powers and were very reverent of them. Bigfoot was said to almost have the power of hypnotism over those who saw him. Biologically speaking there IS a precedent to this known as the use of Infrasound by animals. Infrasound is lower that 20 frequencies and cannot be heard by human ears, however it can be perceived by humans. Studies have show that it can induce "spiritual" experiences in people and also cause feelings of fear. Could this be what our Sasquatch friend is using to induce this unnatural fear? It seems likely to me that this is the case. Infrasound easily explains the eye witness accounts and native legends of fear or awe when the creature was near (aided, of course, by a natural fear of an unknown large animal).


Supposed Bigfoot Recordings:

Bigfoot Sounds

These are purported recordings of the creatures vocalizations, while some may be explainable some of them seem not quite human but have a primate tinge to them that seems undeniable. Of course I am not an expert.

Last but not least we have the footprints, the most famous pieces of evidence of all. While it is true that some of the prints are likely hoaxes MOST of them are found out in the woods, in the middle of nowhere. Are we to believe teams of trained hoaxers are heading miles into the woods to fool hunters and hikers that might come along? The footprints are debatable but one aspect of them remains undeniably intriguing, the common finding of dermal ridges. Jeff Meldrum, the scientists I mentioned above who actually believes in Bigfoot, claims that the finding of dermal ridges proves the authenticity of the finds. Much like fingerprints these ridges are unique to every individual and would be a chore to fake with any real effectiveness for hoaxers.

So where does that leave our hairy ape brother? Is it all just a legend? Is it all just psuedoscienctific dribble? Me, I say scientists better get out there to find out once and for all. Who knows, maybe one day we'll find the undeniable proof we've been looking for... Or maybe Bigfoot is just a myth, and the creature we're looking for exists in the mind, not in the woods... Without the willingness of science to investigate the unknown I have a feeling it will remain just that, unknown.

[edit on 2-2-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 01:54 PM
Nicely done.

Having seen Sasquatch myself, I am a firm believer. It's still something I'm trying to come to terms with... It scared the crap out of me, not to put too fine a point on it.

I quite understand the legends now. It's not evil, it's not horribly dangerous, until it wants to be. It is, in it's own right, an apex predator. Tangle with it at your own risk.


Well done.

posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 07:07 PM
reply to post by seagull

Thanks, I'm glad someone took notice of this thread

I'm not sure how I'd react to seeing the creature, when I was a kid I was afraid of Bigfoot, simply because he was said to be so darn large and I think there is a psychological factor of "I'm looking at something between man and ape that shouldn't exist" there too.

So what was the experience like if you don't mind me asking?

posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 07:25 PM
Wow, I really enjoyed your post. I have done a little research into the speech aspect of Big Foot. Physiologically, he is capable, but scientists can not agree how people develop language. It's just conjecture with us, how much more so with them?!
I was intrigued with the idea that BF might have learned to tame fire. That is something only humans have done.
I can appreciate your argument about prehistoric hominids, but I am a creationist. God could have created BF with any capability. After the flood, animals were made to fear humans. BF are interested in music and in the Bible satyrs are said to dance in the wilderness. Just a thought. They are also interested in Indian drums and flute music. Some even use white sage to draw them.
Back to the topic - did they conquer fire? That would be a significant accomplishment.

posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 07:37 PM
My ears are really burning here. We believe in humans. We even have internet access.

posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 03:06 PM
Being an active Sasquatch researcher in the Pacific NorthWest for the last 20 years, and having 2 full on Class A sightings I know this species exists.

Now I am not here to convince anyone this species exists, but I am here to say this is NOT an Ape... This is the closest thing to being human or visa versa and I feel there is deep ramifacations to the truth being known. This is why it is not openly being studied by Govt. or Science, and why so much of the public lands are being taken or gated up for no reason.

This is not the place nor time to post my belief's, but the key to so many of Man's mysteries is the finding and examining of the species know as Sasquatch.

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 12:17 PM
reply to post by Titen-Sxull

Titen, This is so funny. I will be good though and stay on topic.

I believe these are part of the paranormal. They share the same traits
with ghost and UFO's. I believe people really do see these things but they
only manifest on this plain. For a short time as a total mind %^&*.
Excellent thread Titen. SnF and bumpidy bump.

[edit on 14-8-2010 by randyvs]

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 12:40 PM
reply to post by Titen-Sxull

As I said back in February...still attempting to come to some sort of understanding of just what it was I felt when I saw Sasquatch...

It was large. Intimidating, though it made no overt threatening moves towards me...I think the knowledge that it could do something were it so inclined is what affected me the most. It just looked at me.

Intelligence seems a given, though in retrospect, I don't think it's of a human level, maybe a step or two below...

Mankind has always known there are things that go bump in the night...this was, to me, categorical proof that our ancestors were right.

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 12:41 PM
reply to post by TooRisky

What is it then, if not primate?

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 01:11 PM
Well done Titen! S&F

Having a B.S. in Wildlife Biology, I can tell you, from my experience, that there are many wildlife biologists who do believe in the existence (or at least the possibility) of bigfoot. However, not many will publicly make such claim, as it is considered academic/career "suicide".

The main problem with getting a substantial scientific effort into bigfoot research is funding. In the wildlife/environmental sciences, there are 3 categories of employers.

First being on the academic level; and, as we all know, institutions of higher learning will go nowhere near this field of study, as they see it as having no merit or they see it as something that would diminish their academic credibility.

Second are your private contractors. This field is all about construction; they could care less.

Third are your state/federal biologists. This is where the "potential" for such studies is most hopeful. The problem with this is that there are too few biologists in the state/federal budgets. In most areas, on average, there may be one biologist that is responsible for many hundreds, if not thousands, of square miles. Given all of the tasks already assigned to them (i.e., endangered species monitoring, wildlife inventories, population surveys, etc.) there is literally no time to place efforts into "unsubstantiated" claims.

There is a fourth kind of researcher, the freelancer. The "problem" with these folks are that they are perceived as already being bias bigfoot believers and they invest their own time/money, so they are almost immediately discredited due to their investment; logic being, they produce positive results so as to not take a loss on their endeavors.

I am on the bigfoot optimists boat. I am certainly skeptical of all evidence, but some of it (i.e., Patterson footage) is very compelling, especially with modern enhancement techniques that have been applied to it. If ever given the paid opportunity to research this field, I would drop what I am doing in a heartbeat and get involved. Sadly, I don't see that ever being the case; but, I remain optimistic. My hope is that someone in the "freelance" field or a casual observer obtains definitive proof; be it a corpse, irrefutable video footage, live trapping. Definitive DNA evidence may be enough; or, at least, enough to get significant funding from the academic or state/federal entities.

Keeping my fingers crossed!

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 01:23 PM
reply to post by seagull

That is to cool, could you please put your sighting down. Short terms at least. I love to hear the different encounters . I don't think I forget anything I read about any of them.

Please !

What if the stories of people seeing things like sasquatch inside the earth are true. I have bit of a hypothesis that involves everything from God to inner earth from Bigfoot to paranortmal activities. It's how I make the best sense of all that entails existence. All the stories that seem impossible. Yet no lie can be detected. Very intriguing.

You to partner. If you guys don't tell me at least a lil bit here .
I will hound you with U2Us.

[edit on 14-8-2010 by randyvs]

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 01:48 PM

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 03:44 PM
reply to post by seagull

Astounding. Granted your wish to see for yourself, with this peaceful
sighting. Speaks volumes to the type of person you are. Your spotting the creature in the pasture aproaching the crest of a hilltop. Disappearing just
before you got to your binos. That is so familiar to me as a beckoning.
You we're beckoned to the second up close and personal sighting.
You now are opening your eyes to their mystical nature. Which I believe
is why they can't be captured, shot or even seen when hunted.
The sightings always seem very personal.

Or maybe I'm just an overblown mystic who believes and can expand oin anything.

Nothing on trail cams. Mystical.

[edit on 14-8-2010 by randyvs]

posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 01:20 AM
"Patty" as they call her, referring to the Patterson film of a female bigfoot, is so incredible. To me she is Beautiful and real.

There was once an article depicting the Patterson sighting as a preclude to a slaughter of several of her "tribe", I was quite upset that someone could even imagine such a thing. I never believed the slaughtering story.

If you take a Neanderthal's bones (what few we have) and fully reconstruct the muscles and tissues to support the larger, stronger bones than we have, then cover that with fur from head to toe and you will have yourself a Bigfoot.

To me, this is a Neanderthal! Why wouldn't they be naked and hairy? As for tools and weapons, who is to say those were not our earliest ancestors, I am sure some Neanderthal did not have much knowledge of our nature, such as fire and or tools, let alone clothing.

new topics


log in