Bigfoot can not exist today I am sorry but science cannot support it.

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Please read the post before commenting and please don't go into hyperbole and conjecture. I am going to try to make this as concisely scientific as I can. I titled this the way I did because I will not rule out that possibly long ago such a creature did exist. I don't believe it but I will concede it is possible however unlikely, because many ancient tales by societies like the Native Americans and China and such have been proven to be based in fact and wrapped in myth. I would say that just because there are these oral traditions, from peoples that often had other animals as their gods, it doesn't make them true. I will say that no complete skeleton has ever been produced of this creature and we do have the bones of Dragons (Dinosaurs). So that is where I stand on this, I do not believe they ever existed but will only argue that they do not exist today. In fact I think I can prove that no large Mammal exists that we have not found. The reason I use mammal is because of the descriptions of supposed sightings, this would likely be a mammal with it's size and other features.

To do this some scientific principals and known statistics must be accepted. The first one is archeology and bones and fossils, not huge for this topic other than there is no Archeological Evidence for Bigfoot or Yeti yet unearthed. Next we would have to agree that if this creature existed it would be either Humanoid or Great Ape most likely but surely a mammal and therefore have the lifespan and predators of these classes and sizes of animals. That would mean probably if Bigfoot existed they would live a natural lifespan of between 60 and 80 years. I wont argue that it couldn't be 40 or 100, but its a fair number I think. And with those ground issues in place I will attempt to prove it can not be.

#1. Bigfoot if it existed would have to have been around for a while, it would not be some new evolutionary species, precisely because we have the old tales from some cultures of these Yeti/Bigfeet existing. If it was plentiful in the past and is going extinct now we should still have some evidence of some kind, bones or dead bodies or pictures. It's not like they live underwater where man is not at a lot, they are claimed to be larger than men by most.

#2. Science has proven in population studies that if a society does not maintain a growth ratio of 2.7% it will disappear. This means that you will eventually level off with deaths (natural and untimely) and births, but this doesn't level off until you have a large population. So small groups of these creatures or lone ones could not maintain a population for very long before it just did itself in. Of course this number changes for conditions like desert and food supply and deaths, but I am using the American model for this. In Africa they have to have a larger # of children to maintain that growth ratios of 2.7% because so many die young and do not live to reproduce. I would even be willing to lower the needed growth rate for a creature with no natural predators and one that ate a healthy diet and lived a long time naturally and often. Of course that growth rate has to be maintained or extinction will come but I won't argue that it wouldn't be a slower process for extinction with such an animal, but eventually even it would die out. Possibly this is what we are seeing now with so few real sightings of something if it were Bigfeet. Maybe we are watching their extinction, but I don't believe so because of the other missing evidence that a large population ever existed.

#3. Hunters - There are not many natural vast expanses of wilderness, particularly in America, left for these creatures to live undetected by someone at some time. And since many of the sightings are coming from inside towns and residential centers one would have to think we are encroaching on such an animal if it existed. How is it that no hunter has ever got one? How is it that, like with deer and moose none has been hit by a car. How could they not be spotted all the time like bears and elk and moose and well everything we have in this Nation is and has been seen numerous times and shot and photographed and documented. Even the nocturnal creatures and surely all the large ones. It could not be assumed it would understand roads and cars and know to look both ways before crossing. There is a disturbing lack of any evidence here in the Hunts and accidental car hits. All those hunters in all those woods in all those tree stands and not one ever shot? All those roads in all those towns and not 1 hit?

#4. Sightings (so called) - With all the technology especially today how is it that no one can get a picture of these things that is definitive? Trail cams and hunting cams and all the surveillance done now in America like looking for drugs by air and drones and Satellites. Again we could not assume they would know a trail cam and avoid them when walking in the woods at night or day, it would not understand photography which is why trail cams work for hunters. A community of any size would have to leave traces in the woods and these could be spotted and found by accident, yet not one Bigfoot community or home has ever been found. Starting to look more Great Ape than Humanoid based on this fact, if something exists.

#5. Wilderness - Already mentioned there is not a lot of places or large areas that man is not in at some time or another or watching. And as we have taken up land and encroached deeper into the untame areas not one picture, body, bones, homes, nests again it is just not been found in any form live or dead.

#6. Bones - Archeology has not ever found a complete skeleton and I don't think any individual bones. But even if one or two unknown bones were around where is the rest of the bones and there should be many bones of these creatures found by now. No bones after forest fires have been found, no babies bones even.

#7. Predators - If this creature was living in North American Wilderness areas it would have no natural predators for its size except possibly an occasional Grizzly and man. Again no bones have been found from a bear feast or a hunter the only two predators that could maybe take down something so big.

#8. Food Supply - If it was strictly a herbivore it could have an unlimited supply of food depending on the diet. An Omnivore would also be presumed to have a good food supply just supplemented with meat. A strict carnivore is a lot less likely just because of the amount of food that would be available to such a large creature in many places where they are claimed to be sighted. And we can assume from man and ape and our diet that they would likely be omnivore's or herbivores. So a nearly unlimited supply of food should make most animal species grow large and sustained but again we have no evidence of such large #'s of any creatures this size anywhere yet.

#9. Life Span - We covered this a bit already. If they are herbivore's only and humanoid or Great Ape we could expect a lifespan of upwards of 80 probably. The herbivore would have a natural food supply and a nearly unlimited supply of it which would lead to longer lives too.

I think one can safely say that there are no large unknown Mammals left. I believe I have laid out a case that shows how unlikely it could be that such creatures exist with so little evidence in so many fields.




posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by theindependentjournal
 


Cursed be the man who puts his faith in man , in other words to many people have elevated science to all knowing God like status. Science is always so sure of itself , I mean you have the mathematical numbers to prove it , correct. Funny thing is you will quote these numbers as to why this species can not exist but when an individual produces numbers why DNA can not form naturally in this environment you say bull, those numbers are 1in 10 to the 40,000 power against this .


This being. Said science was so sure about numerous species being extinct but they appear all of the sudden , for instance their is a thread about a stick bug that allegedly went extinct around Australia that was found on this little volcanic island in numbers way below your quote.


Now for Bigfoot , they have recently found DNA for the yeti in Nepal , the Bigfoot in Canada . These DNA samples confirm a previous unknown large ape so to say they do not exist is fantasy just like evolution. The evidence is clear for these animals all through recorded history and oral tradition on just about every part of the world . Science ignores eye witness accounts which occur by the hundreds and thousands each year. They exist it is the ethics in science that is questionable.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by theindependentjournal
 


I don't know if I can agree with your hypothesis. We've discovered 400 species of mammal since 1993, and are discovering more and more every day. People have recovered hair and fingernails, and even blood in one instance, where after being tested, have been found to contain the dna from some sort of unknown primate.

Unknown Hair

Unknown Fingernail

Unknown Tissue

None of this, however, proves the existence of Bigfoot. What it does do is prove the existence of unknown mammals (primates to be more precise), something that derails the foundation of your hypothesis.




edit on 4-3-2012 by FugitiveSoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
#1.

Well on destination truth, some monks stated they still have a head of one of the creatures inside their temple, although they would not let anyone take dna samples, but did let the crew see it.


Originally posted by theindependentjournal
#2.

You are assuming this is a normal creature, but what if it doesn't fit the mold.


Originally posted by theindependentjournal
#3.

Well many hunters have stated that when coming across one they didn't feel like it was an animal, and more so like a intelligent person, and felt that it would almost be like murder, which is understandable. Also would you shoot at a human looking creature standing 9 feet tall, who can sprint faster than an olympic runner, and pull a tree out by it's roots? I certainly wouldn't.


Originally posted by theindependentjournal
#4.

Well no picture is considered definitive, not even high resolution. There have been many videos and pictures taken, but again, no picture or video is ever accepted as proof. You are also assuming these creatures aren't that smart, but how do you know? Perhaps they exceed our intelligence. They have also been known to cover their tracks in snow, that doesn't sound like a dumb animal.


Originally posted by theindependentjournal
#5.

There have been shelters found. As for the bones, perhaps they bury them, like we do.


Originally posted by theindependentjournal
#6.

That is a mystery, but again we assuming based off our own experiences, but what if bigfoot is something completely different?


Originally posted by theindependentjournal
#7.


Going by how people describe the bigfoot, I wouldn't think it would have any predators.


Originally posted by theindependentjournal
#8.


That's assuming that it acts like a normal animal. Perhaps they are conservative, another sign of superior intelligence.


Originally posted by theindependentjournal
#9.

They have been seen spearing fish, so I think they take in a wide variety of food sources.


edit on 4-3-2012 by Freezer because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Closed-mindedness and narrow thinking are why science doesn't move ahead as fast as it could. "You don't think so" is not a scientifically valid statement. You attempting to back it up with absent evidence is about the worst scientific thinking possible.

Not very thought-provoking thread. Provoke thought: Don't kill it.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by theindependentjournal
 


S&F. Until someone introduces me to an actual "Bigfoot", I'm going with your theory.Great post, even if it is the kind of common sense most people with an interest in the topic, don't want to hear.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by theindependentjournal
 

Thanks for such an excellent post with arguments that are well thought out, organized, presented and devoid of emotion. Just the kind we need more of.

Prior to becoming disabled, I used to spend much time in the North Cascades backpacking and camping. My favorite time of year was the winter, far fewer people to run into and no mosquitoes. As much as I tried to keep the idea of Bigfoot alive, after a couple of decades without any type of sign whatever, it died. But, it could be that Bigfoot, or anything/anybody might be able to easily hide in the North Cascades.





posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by blah yada
 


I agree with the OP to a degree. All seems rational but as he said himself, it is by no means a definitive. I have to say that I could play devils advocate and come up with something equally scientific against each point he made [as someone has already done]. Bigfoot isn't intangible. It has been spotted far too many times and yes there are DNA samples out there, it is also not confined to north America. This type of creature seems to exist around the world. I just recently looked at a map of Russia and was awe struck as to the vast wilderness without human habitation there is. This mammal seems to have an intelligence, this would explain why it can avoid detection. To be honest at the moment we should keep an open mind and not jump to conclusions for either side. Calling people who do seem to sway more towards believing in bigfoot gullible or naive [not in such elaborate words] is just as wrong as blind belief. There is not enough evidence yet to clearly say that it exists but there is a myriad of circumstantial evidence that says that there is a good chance it might.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by theindependentjournal
 


I read your post and I can see your point of flawed view.

You state bigfoot can't exist because 1, 6 and 7. there aren't any dead bones or bodies. We know that hundreds of millions of buffalo existed in the USA, where are their bones. Bears exist in the USA with a population of over 40,000 in Minnesota; yet has anyone ever found bear bones lying around? I find it interesting that elephants in Africa actually had their own grave yard, and would go to it to die. The Indians of north america told that spaniards that a fierce tribe of indians lived to the north that were larger than the spaniards when they were riding their horses. There is still a place in Canada, a 200 mile long gorge called the Valley of the Headless Men. Why don't you go up there and do some exploring and tell us why people that go into that valley are usually found headless by the search parties that goes into find them.

You state 2. population reduction. Well, yes, their population could be getting less and less. The indians of north america stated that many of the fierce indians to the north were killed in their villages by a massive forest fire that struck righ before the spaniards arrived.

You state 3 & 4. few reports by hunters and few sightings. Lets face it, few hunters go deep into the woods. In the mountainous areas, there is much that is unexplored. It is also illegal to hunt bigfoot in Oregon, it needs to be that way in all states. Few cameras and hunters make it deep into the woods, most hunters and cameras are located within less than a half mile from any road; get the picture.

Predators, food supply, life span. Nature is probably their greates predator, and as you state they probably have enough food supplies if they are omnivores, and their life span could be 20+ years to over a hundred years, nobody knows for sure.

Actually your scientific reasoning is quite flawed by your own beliefs. Your beliefs aren't what counts, its the sightings that others have made that count. Hopefully people will never shoot a bigfoot just to prove to others that they exist.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Science (big S) doesn't want to support UFOs, ESP or most conspiracy theories either.

So what does this prove? Do they then not exist?

Does Science prove evolution, when the pyramids were built, when the Americans were first visited by humans?
The list goes on....

You will make a very good conventional scientist, however.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by theindependentjournal
 


Great post!


I am on the fence with bigfoot, I want to believe but with there never being any real 'in yer face' evidence, I just can't make my mind up.

It will be interesting to see where this post goes!



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by FugitiveSoul
 


Why would you take information from a biased site regarding bigfoot as truth?



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Do you not think there is a chance they are a subterranean species that operate in ways we don't understand?

Even a simple idea like that seems to debunk most of your points...



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Not scientifically possible?? Well since scince is always right, and never make mistakes.... there are loads of information and proof of the existance of these creatures. Try countless stories from different cultures around the world. Thousands, maybe even millions of stories in modern times. Countless expidetions, yes many have been unfruitful, but just as many have produced evidence. There's tales from pretty much every continent, talking of a large apelike creature that roams places uninhabited by man. There's also stories passed down of a large manlike beast, that had the ability to change into any animal at will. Just a few points I wanted to throw out here, I hope it helps.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by FugitiveSoul
 


Why would you take information from a biased site regarding bigfoot as truth?


I wouldn't. But considering the information can be gathered from dozens of sources, I figured it bore more weight than the op's opinion on the matter.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
I usually ignore antagonistic-like titles because clearly the OP wants to debate and that's not my thing. But apparently OP hasn't cornered the market with that closed minded ideology!

PS. Science is just a current theory until their next theory.

Bigfoot Hunting Airship to Be Launched in Utah
Saturday, March 03, 2012 12:19

The Falcon project is funded as of today, $200,000........and we will have live steam from the field 7 nights a week, ...........the founder William Barnes.................
www.datelinezero.com...



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by theindependentjournal
 


I miss your explanation for the famous Patterson footage.





posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by theindependentjournal
 


Actually, I feel I can successfully pick off most of your points quite easily:

1: Bigfoot is not in the fossil record?
Ever hear of Gigantopithecus? Many serious researchers believe that this is exactly what Sasquatch/Bigfoot is. It is established in the fossil record, and fits the eyewitness/photographic/video evidence quite nicely,

Here's more info:

www.livescience.com... -humans-study-finds.html
www.bfro.net...

Gigantopithecus is established scientific fact by the way.

2: Population levels? We really have no way of knowing. It's pure speculation.

3: Hunters & Wilderness?
There are vast areas of wilderness available for these animals - most of it north of the US border in Canada and of course in Alaska. BC alone is bigger than Western Europe and largely uninhabited wilderness. Alaska is a fair sized place too. Hunters? Many hunters have actually reported having BFs in their sights and scopes - but have either been too scared to shoot, too shocked by it's appearance to shoot, or have shot - but merely enraged it by doing so...

4: Sightings (video).
Check out the Patterson footage - still the best and it has never been successfully debunked. I think there are several other amazing videos out there that remain un-debunked after, in some cases, many decades of attempts.

5: Wilderness?
I think we've already covered this.

6: Bones?
Admittedly nothing yet - unless you count the Gigantopithcus bones. Still, experiments have been done on wildlife carcasses in the wilderness that prove beyond doubt that predator action, insects, and weather tend to remove nearly all remains in a matter of days.

7: Bigfoot has no predators.
Grizzly have been actually observed n Alaska fleeing from BF encounters for their lives. Even a Grizzly knows when it's time to move on.

8: Food Supply?
Researchers and scientists have come to the conclusion that the Pacific Northwest (where most sightings predominately occur) has easily enough natural food resources to sustain a population of large omnivores inc. shell fish, berries, deer, fish, roots, insects etc etc.

9: Lifespan.
I'm not really sure what your point here is exactly?

There you go. I think I've covered all your points as scientifically as the evidence is capable of. Which I think is actually far more scientific in many ways than your original points.

edit on 4-3-2012 by jimbo999 because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-3-2012 by jimbo999 because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-3-2012 by jimbo999 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   
www.ubrg.org...

I was amazed that so many states protect "undocumented species!" I'm happy that my state of Missouri is one of them.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   
saying it CANNOT exist is just plain ignorant, this is simply a troll thread
second





top topics
 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join