December 05, 2006

• Perhaps it's a gorilla in a gorilla suit.
• From the Wiki link, here is a stabilized version of the the film.
• I'd like to see the good quality film stabilized, instead of the grainy, blurry, black and white version.
• I neither accept nor deny its possible existence. I do think it's highly improbable, however. Here are some considerations that seem to make the existence of the Sasquatch dubious at best: -lack of fossil evidence in North America, Central America, and South America -exccept for homo sapiens sapiens, the complete lack of tailless apes/monkeys in the New World -lack of bones, teeth, body parts of a Sasquatch -the fact that other, known primates species are not well adapted to survive unprotected in climatic extremes found in areas which the Sasquatch is alleged to inhabit -well-known tendency of humanity to accept dubious a particular thesis, regardless of how little material substance there may be to back it up (witness the many allegations of encounters with harpies, gorgons, Nessies, Ogo-Pogos, dragons, sea-serpents, flying saucers, alien abductions, etc.) because it makes a good yarn and is fun to speculate about
• It would be wonderful to welcome a new primate to the fold, especially one with sufficient cunning to have remained just out of reach for so long. And where would we be without a little mystery out there? I'm still mostly skeptical, however. On preview - we don't need no steenking tails, we gots our beeg feet.
• I gots a bucket to soak 'em in.
• 1) lack of fossil evidence: no one is looking because old world apes aren't supposed to be in the Americas. Experts a priori dismiss claims of old world apes in NA because they aren't supposed to be there. Thus, to date, no study has ever been undertaken into fossil evidence of hominid species in the Americas. 2) No tailless apes: see above a priori assumptions. Note that an hypothetical bipedal ape would have the same opportunities to cross land bridges as early man. Equines spread from NA to the old world in this fashion, the reverse might be possible. 3) Lack of body parts: again, nobody is looking. Chimps are known to perform funeral rites over the bodies of their dead, distributing the remains. Query: How often are bear bones & cougar remains found in NA wilderness? Would a rare/elusive species be more/less obvious in its remains than these known species? 4) Sasquatch does not inhabit climactic extremes. If it exists, it exploits remote locales & niche biotopes within the comfort range of primates, given adaptation. Even the Himalayan Yeti, probably a mythical creature, is not said to live above the snow line. 5) True.
• Didn't they give one a shave and elect him twice?
• Ah ha ha ha! You said Bush Sucks!! /spittle
• well-known tendency of humanity to accept dubious a particular thesis, regardless of how little material substance there may be to back it up (witness the many allegations of encounters with harpies, gorgons, Nessies, Ogo-Pogos, dragons, sea-serpents, flying saucers, alien abductions, etc.) because it makes a good yarn and is fun to speculate about That's funny, I thought humanity had a well-known tendency to doubt a particular thesis, (witness the allegations of creationists, flat-earthers, holocaust deniers, etc... all who deny a particular thesis).
• Much of the Pacific Northwest is quite temperate as far north as Alaska, especially near the ocean, where there are abundant sources of food and fresh water in the bush. With the possible exception of (very rare) cougar or bear encounters, the odds of survival for a reasonably clever primate would be pretty good. The most significant threat to their existence, if Sasquatches really do exist, is probably us. /Bush snorts
• I subscribe to the Edible Animal Existence Test. If Sasquatches exist, someone, somewhere, sometime, would have eaten one. Since we sure as shooting would have heard about that but have not, I'm comfortable in saying that I do not believe in them. Great, now I'm hungry.
• I ATE BIGFOOT
• That's a man in a suit.
• Heh. Why not both, then, like the optimist/pessimist view of the half-glass of water, Mr K? 1.Thus far, a great many fossils have been found in the Americas, and especially in North America. If we're lucky, InsolentChimp may give us more details of this. To assert that all putative experts would dismiss fossil evidence that would bring their names to prominence and make their reputations is an unverifiable utterance. And one I find disturbing, really, because this is to impugn human integrity, even to the point of denying it can exist. Although I know this cynical attitude is the tendency in our Age of Online Snark and widespread political disillusion, I must utterly reject it. People of probity have existed in all fields and hopefully will continue to do so. Thumbnail sketch of the evolution of the horse: equids, ancestors of modern horses, asses, zebras etc originated in the New World, and crossed into the Old World. The equids left in the New World died out completely. Horses then evolved further in the OLd World. Modern horses only returned with the Spaniards. Now, the Wikipedia article puts forth the suggestion a population of (possibly arboreal) horses may have survived into modern times because of Native American/Indian accounts, but I haven't read anything more than this to substantiate it. All modern horses are grass-eaters; these modern animals don't have the digestive set-up of ruminants and don't survive in the wild by browsing on leaves. 2.I cannot prove a negative, but mere speculation is no substitute for proof, as I'm sure ye know. That land bridges and ice bridges have existed between Asia and North America is not in itself any sort of proof that hypothetical New World tailless apes or monkeys, the existence of which has yet to be actually demonstrated, can be more than asserted. But this fantasy, not science. Not history. What's needed is fossil or other credible evidence that thnings exosted at all. Which reminds me - islander, to assume that any conditions which now prevail did so in times so long removed is very doubtful. Going back even a mere 30,000 years, there have been shifts in tide lines, in glaciations, and climatic and consequent changes in flora and fauna sufficient that little we experience now can be assumed to have held true Way Back When. [breaking this now]
• The conditions that allowed humans to thrive for hundreds of generations in North America could have also allowed a similar, as yet undiscovered, species to survive. But as you say, bees, we have no evidence.
• God, I love it that there are websites like this. To wit: Let us end all this nonsense about the late Ray Wallace faking Bigfoot tracks all over the NW using large carved fake feet as big as snowshoes. Simply absurd to a thinking man, and any high school physics student. Large feet or snowshoes make barely a mark on dirt or mud due to WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION OVER MANY SQUARE INCHES OF SURFACE. (The "Snowshoe Effect") and carved wooden feet do not provide any FLEXIBILITY IN TOES OR THE FOOT PLACEMENT. All such tracks are the same,same,same.
• 3.Lack of body parts etc - assertion again. to date, no study has ever been undertaken into fossil evidence of hominid species in the Americas ... er ... We, homo sapiens sapiens, aka modern man, are hominids. So no end of studies have been done. Chimps are known to perform funeral rites etc OK. But in what way(s) is this more pertinent to the existence of the Sasquatch than the fact we nowadays often cremate our dead in North America or that the Parsi rely on buzzards for disposal of their dead? I ask because we seem really to have no clear idea what relationship might exist between these two critters, nor whether one might be ancestral to the other. Short-faced bears, now extinct, inhabited may of the areas the Sasquatch supposed does. Brown bear fossils. North American bear remains. Lots and lots of bear remains, actually, too numerous to list. Puma, cougar, mountain lion, panther, panther etc is native to the Americas. La Brea Tar Pits are worth a visit for anyone in LA. Puma/cougar and sabertooth remains of many other beasts have been taken from this site, (in which, many decades ago, I did some volunteer labour. Fascinating experience for anyone interested in prehistory and North American critters!) 4.It's impossible as matters stand for me to credit that Sasquatch ancestors somehow escaped the Ice Ages and other extreme alterations to the landscape, climate, etc. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but thus far ain't. If Sasquatch or the yeti actually exist, we will doubtless have a great deal to learn from them about preventing the pneumonias to which all known monkeys/apes seem to be so susceptible. The conditions that allowed humans to thrive for hundreds of generations in North America could have also allowed a similar, as yet undiscovered, species to survive. Think this doubtful, islander as ye would then also have to suppose that they had clothing, and/or fire as well as adequate food sources. If. My problem is that I think one if piled atop another is no better nor more convincing than the first if. And in fact a series of ifs impresses me as a perilously shaky argument. 1491 is fun to read only to the degree I can approach it as speculative. Haven't quite finished it, but suspect I may have exceeded my if-quota this past week-end. Meanwhile, I remain, albeit wistfully, a skeptic.
• Also posted today on boing-boing, the Bayer stone head. The “Bayer Head” is an intriguing find. What could it be showing us? A good representation of a Windigo (an Eastern Bigfoot to some)? A carving of someone’s pet? A North American Ape head chiseled in stone, which was seen elsewhere on an ancient trade route of the Iroquois, among various southeastern First Nations? A likeness of a person? Native American art of a child? A long-haired individual? What?
• I subscribe to the Edible Animal Existence Test. *looks around, burps Sorry, they were tasty.
• Even off-trail, the Northwest is a travelled place. While large creatures like cougars and bears might be rare sightings for some, anyone spending time in wilderness areas will see them. Last year on one 7 day hike, I saw 9 black bears. But a more common sighting is scat and tracks. I don't recall anyone coming across unknown types of poop or prints.
• Unknown prints? Are you kidding me? Why do you think they call it 'bigfoot'? Because of the ginormous footprints it leaves everywhere. As for shit, that's been found, too. Loads of sign, like branches twisted off trees higher than 8 foot, little bivouac type dealies, hair, hand prints...
• Hair would yield either DNA or when the last time the Squatch was in the patch. Scat could also be analyzed. Why do people that find these things just keep that at home next to their other knick-knacks and not send it out to a reputable lab?
• But why does it have a trapdoor flap on its butt?
• "Hair would yield either DNA" And what's the problem with DNA from an unknown species that is 95% identical to human? Lab says it's a human. Back to square one. I'm just saying these things have been found. Reports of Bigfoot go back to time before white settlement. Tracks have been shown to come from flexible feet, with dermal ridges. These are from separate sites all over the country. So if it's hoaxers, they are running around making sophisticated tracks with dermal ridges (like fingerprints) for 50+ years, which seems stretching it. No doubt there are lots & lots of crazies, & lots of hoaxes & misidentification, but the subject seems to be worth inquiry beyond dismissal.
• Reminds of of crop circles. These are from separate sites all over the country. So if it's hoaxers, they are running around making sophisticated tracks with dermal ridges (like fingerprints) for 50+ years, which seems stretching it. Whatever the DNA would show, the thing is no sample has been produced....and I thought your jury was still out! hehe Hey, I'd like nothing better than to come across one of these on one of my hikes in the wilds! I'd say the odds are about the same as getting hit by a stray returning piece of space debris. Possible...but very unlikely.
• My jury is out on the PG film. But the evidence for an unknown primate in north america is not inconsiderable. Look, the problem is this: there's plenty of scat & hair that's been found, but no scientist wants a bar of this research because they don't want to look like a crank. Thus, there is no serious assessment of the evidence, what there is of it. Catch-22. Officially, no evidence of Bigfoot can exist, because Bigfoot doesn't exist. D'you see? However, the internal consistancy & period of time over which Jack Napes has been seen & tracks found belies it being all bunk. I mean, it may well be, but until such time as someone does a proper search, it's all up in the air. Once upon a time the gorilla was seen as a fantasy, and that is not that long ago. Also: see Coelacanth.
• Look, the problem is this: there's plenty of scat & hair that's been found, but no scientist wants a bar of this research because they don't want to look like a crank. Yeah. I understand that. There was a Dr. Grover Krantz at Washington State University who believed but never came up with enough proof. I suppose a body will have to be found. You mention a proper search. As I mentioned before, even the wildest parts of the Pacific Northwest are travelled every year by at least a few. I'm part of an hiking forum whose members spend probably hundreds of hours per week hiking all parts of the State. Nothing has been reported. Tracks in snow could be followed easily, but none have been seen. One or two such creatures could manage to hide I suppose, but such a population wouldn't be viable.
• If Sasquatches are found to exist and are conclusively identified as a unique and hitherto unknown species, our imaginations will surely continue to provide us with other avenues of inquiry.
• And what's the problem with DNA from an unknown species that is 95% identical to human? Lab says it's a human. Chimp DNA is 99% identical to human, yet the labs can distinguish between the two. Hell, they can distinguish between two different humans. I think the problem is that (1)no labs will examine it, (2)if they did it's an expensive process for anything beyond a cursory examination, and (3)even if it is Bigfoot poop, the lab isn't going to be able to identify it as such, since they don't know what Bigfoot DNA looks like in the first place. The best they could do is just say "it looks like it probably from a primate, but not any we have on file". That's not proof or disproof of much. And that is assuming the thing is genetically a primate. It might not, in the same way that the koala bear isn't really a bear, but just seems to be related. Once upon a time the gorilla was seen as a fantasy, and that is not that long ago. Hell, even narcolepsy and ball lightning was disbelieved until video cameras came along. It was simpler for doctors and scientists to dismiss the reports instead of study them.
• "As I mentioned before, even the wildest parts of the Pacific Northwest are travelled every year by at least a few." The expanses are huge, and the animal is allegedly shy, & mostly nocturnal. I don't personally accept that every inch has been traversed. We're talking about ginormous ranges, & hikers stick to tracks, as do hunters. You're not trying to tell me that the pacific northwest is fully populated with hikers 24/7, 365? My understanding was there are places noone ever goes, & that are wilder than a buffalo's weedy ass. This is a huge area we are talking about, not a prosaic woodland near suburbia. Forgive my hyperbole. It should also be noted that Sasquatch is not a Yeti. Ideas about tracks in snow are bogus. The animal, if it exists, shares habitat with bears etc. They are, if they exist, staggeringly rare. Still, these are similar to demographics who report hundreds of encounters yearly. Tracks & vocalisations are regularly reported by dedicated outdoors folk. "they don't know what Bigfoot DNA looks like in the first place." Exactamundo.
• It should also be noted that Sasquatch is not a Yeti. Ideas about tracks in snow are bogus. The animal, if it exists, shares habitat with bears etc. Bears leave tracks in the snow....it can snow any month of the year in the Cascades. Yes this is a huge area but it is all hiked....even the wildest areas. Pick a spot from your map and I'll post pics of the area and probably be able to point you to several people who have been there. Still, these are similar to demographics who report hundreds of encounters yearly. Tracks & vocalisations are regularly reported by dedicated outdoors folk. Not by the outdoor folks that I know...and I know many. We're talking about ginormous ranges, & hikers stick to tracks, as do hunters. I don't and many others also like to travel cross-country.
• Nuh. They're not the holy ghost, dude.
• Maybe it's the Holy Ghost's scat and hair. I mean, if the pope shits in the woods, it's not that far a stretch...
• Somebody has no idea whatever of what DNA analysis can do, and it isn't Mr Knick. I encourage actual scientists to speak up on this matter, if any are reading this abominable (fnnnrr) thread.
• Look, the problem is this: there's plenty of scat & hair that's been found, but no scientist wants a bar of this research because they don't want to look like a crank. Maybe they can't get funding, but looking like a crank rarely seems to bother scientists. If they really thought there was an unknown ape in North America they would be desperate to find proof of it. It would be a huge find.
• "If they really thought there was an unknown ape in North America they would be desperate to find proof of it." They don't think there is an unknown ape in North America, because it is impossible for there to be an unknown ape in North America. There is no evidence for Sasquatch because Sasquatch does not exist. QED. This is the same reasoning that lead Antoine Lavoisier to declare that "no stones fall from the sky, because there are no stones in the sky." His conclusion delayed the acceptance of meteorites for decades. Farmers who presented evidence of 'thunder stones' were dismissed as bucolic simpletons. Most scientific researchers owe their livelihood to grants & internships. 'Fringe' research & subjects that fly in the face of accepted theory are inimical to tenure. There are scientists who buck this trend, but they are few. In primatology, there are some notable figures who believe that research into Sasquatch is worthwhile, but they are by & large dismissed by the majority of zoologists & primatologists. And rightly so, because Sasquatch does not exist. Because if it did, we would have found it already. Thus, any evidence presented is bogus. Nobody looks for any evidence, because such evidence cannot exist. Anyone who presents it is a fool or a hoaxer. Reports of Bigfoot are relegated to silly season filler in the press. The truth is, it's unlikely that there is an unknown bipedal primate stomping around in the wilds of NA, but it's also true that there's never been a serious study into the possibility. /shrug
• Look! It's Jane Goodall with a Sasquatch footprint cast. Meanwhile, at another forum, folks are splitting Sasquatch hairs.
• I suppose a body will have to be found. To this and to bees' earlier point about fossils, I add the comments of author Bill Bryson in his excellent book "A Short History of Nearly Everything" that based on what we know about the ocurrence of fossils, if every living human were to drop dead where they are today, there might be a sum total of seven (7) complete skeletons preserved as fossils. I don't know if that's exactly true, I'm not a doctor. But I play one on MonkeyFilter. Cough, please
• I will be preserved in amber. Then in the future they will extract DNA and recreate me. There will follow a scene with me chasing Laura Dern.
• If I were to say, today, for instance, that there is flowing liquid water on Mars, I would be dismissed, because the prevailing textbook scientific standpoint is that liquid water sublimates in the low pressure near-vacuum of Mars' atmosphere. It is impossible for liquid water to exist at the Martian surface. But if I were to make this claim tomorrow.. who knows? ;)
• Today is fine.
• That was funny. You two might be our Abbott and Costello.
• Proof that Sasquatch is alive and well in the Pacific Northwest.
• Compare with yeti.
• Yeti has better chops. ;)
• One or two such creatures could manage to hide I suppose, but such a population wouldn't be viable. That's what gets me. I would love to learn that BigFoot exists, but it doesn't add up. To have a genetically viable population, we would know about them by now. If there were a half dozen running around for the last few hundred years, then it would be totally possible. But an entire species? Hmmm, immortal Yeti. I think I can get behind this idea...
• You're assuming evolution is true.
• QED. Read dng's comment again and turn down the smug. The cost of a DNA test is insignificant. It's easy to compare the result against other profiles of great apes, etc., and the kudos for the person who established evidence of a heretofore unknown primate in North America would be huge. Career-making. Although if conspiracies and unknown bullshit float your boat, go ahead and piss on your foot. Just don't pretend it's a giant ape making your shoes all squishy.
• Or the Western European Quidnunc.
• My partner used to think that when an animal was described as 'lesser spotted' it meant it was rarely seen, rather than being the smaller speckled version of something. The Western European Quidnunc is migratory, I think.
• Mmmm, squash.
• European or African Quidnunc? Dromedary or Bactrian?
• Woot!
• That is to say, "the definitive analysis of the Patterson-Gimlin film (via Monkeyfilter)" - woot!
• Saskatchewan sasquatch sightings.
• It says they found a tuft of brown hair - what happened to this hair?
• Same thing that always happens. Officials from the government took it, or it was 'mysteriously stolen'. Or belonged to a goat. You decide.
• Or it was a piece of a weather balloon.
• No, no. Marsh gas.
• Swamp gas. YES, IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST SWAMP GAS! Now mind you don't drop them boards. And don't talk back.
• dang we need a previ-*ungh!* *klunk*
• Goat on a Pole is far easier to believe than another tale of Sasquatch who, being glimpsed, then ups and leaves a lot like Nessie in her gloomy lake who blurs herself as folk her picture take
• YOU MUST BELIEVE IN SASQUATCH