• Forums Software Updates

    The forums will be undergoing updates this weekend: Saturday 7th - Sunday 8th June 2025.
    Little to no downtime is expected.

Besides Patterson/Gimlin...

I think the complete lack of DNA evidence from such a supposedly large animal speaks for itself.

No hair, no nails, no teeth, no bone fragments - no faeces?

I find it statistically unlikely that a breeding population of large hominids could exist for so long without leaving any biological evidence anywhere.

If they exist, and have done for millennia, where are all the bones? Is there a big foot graveyard?

For me, I think, this is a most unlikely cryptid.
 
Ascalon said:
I think the complete lack of DNA evidence from such a supposedly large animal speaks for itself.

No hair, no nails, no teeth, no bone fragments - no faeces?

I find it statistically unlikely that a breeding population of large hominids could exist for so long without leaving any biological evidence anywhere.

If they exist, and have done for millennia, where are all the bones? Is there a big foot graveyard?

For me, I think, this is a most unlikely cryptid.
Click to expand...
In amongst all the noise and blatant fakery, my money is on something paranormal: long-extinct apes time-slipping into our existence and back out again or inter dimensional hairy mates of the fae folk
 
Last edited:
Has a professional tracker ever investigated some BF tracks.

Its not like they are even rare, how many are found in a year?

What about dogs?
 
Paul_Exeter said:
In amongst all the noise and blatant fakery, my money is on something paranormal: long-extinct apes time-slipping into our existence and back out again or inter dimensional hairy mates of the fae folk
Click to expand...
At this point, for a large creature to be seen everywhere, but nowhere, and leave no evidence, it's no longer behaving like a natural animal. I can totally see people wanting to hold on to their belief when all the scientific routes have failed them, so they experience the supernatural creep: "When normal processes and causes fail to satisfactorily explain events or answers to questions, then the reasoning slips beyond nature, into super nature, beyond the testable claims of science."
 
Kondoru said:
Has a professional tracker ever investigated some BF tracks.

Its not like they are even rare, how many are found in a year?

What about dogs?
Click to expand...
American and Canadians use hounds to track bear and mountain lion.
 
Kondoru said:
Has a professional tracker ever investigated some BF tracks.

Its not like they are even rare, how many are found in a year?
Click to expand...
It would be very easy to follow tracks of a physical animal during winter,I left tracks for several miles today,impossible to avoid doing so.
20250105_120322.jpg
 
stu neville said:
He said - from memory - that he believed Standing was sincere when he said he believed he had had genuine experiences.
Click to expand...
Yes,BUT he didn't say he believed him,Les Stroud himself says he is a healthy sceptic about bigfoot,I met him last year i asked him,he describes bigfoot as a "phenomenon".
 
stu neville said:
He said - from memory - that he believed Standing was sincere when he said he believed he had had genuine experiences.
Click to expand...
Find the link to that please,so I can listen word for word.Standing in the video for his $3500 bigfoot interaction trips says "I got les stroud to video the top of a bigfoots head" as a selling point.Stroud said nothing of this last year when I met him.
 
stu neville said:
He said - from memory - that he believed Standing was sincere when he said he believed he had had genuine experiences.
Click to expand...

Druk said:
Yes,BUT he didn't say he believed him,Les Stroud himself says he is a healthy sceptic about bigfoot,I met him last year i asked him,he describes bigfoot as a "phenomenon".
Click to expand...
This is really important, and a formula I have had to use many times when interviewing customers and witnesses and reporting to senior colleagues.

It is perfectly possible to believe that someone is sincere in their beliefs without believing that what they are saying is true.

Someone may say something that they sincerely believe to be true (they are not lying) but they may be mistaken, mis-remembering, or misinterpreting what they have seen.

That said, I would take it a step beyond "Bigfoot is a phenomenon" and say "The fact that Bigfoot sightings are reported is a phenomenon."

This removes the implicit assumption that "there is something that is Bigfoot" and opens the scope to "people report experiences that they interpret as seeing Bigfoot." Those experiences could be, for example, neurological or psychological: subjective rather than objective.

I see this as a more reasonable step than postulating a whole new speculative area of physics (interdimensional beings, timeslips, shape shifting, tulpas, etc.) which is based on no evidence other than the fact that some reports remain unexplained.
 
Druk said:
Yes,BUT he didn't say he believed him...
Click to expand...
No, he didn't. I phrased it badly first time round - see point after next:
Druk said:
Find the link to that please,so I can listen word for word.Standing in the video for his $3500 bigfoot interaction trips says "I got les stroud to video the top of a bigfoots head" as a selling point.Stroud said nothing of this last year when I met him.
Click to expand...
Bloody hell, it was an interview with Stroud years ago. If and when I get time I'll see if I can find it, but as Mike pointed out:
Mikefule said:
It is perfectly possible to believe that someone is sincere in their beliefs without believing that what they are saying is true.
Click to expand...
This is what Stroud was saying (as have a few people who have met Standing: it seems likely he has had genuine subjective experiences, whatever their actual nature, but his proffered 'evidence' is another matter altogether).
 
Last edited:
stu neville said:
No, he didn't. I phrased it badly first time round - see point after next:
Click to expand...
Yes,it was phrased badly,I read what you put and thought "He didn't say that at all",I understand that.
 
Standing wants 1000 people to sign up to his patreon (£££) so he can choose 50 bigfoot hunters :chuckle:
 
Sharon Hill said:
At this point, for a large creature to be seen everywhere, but nowhere, and leave no evidence, it's no longer behaving like a natural animal. I can totally see people wanting to hold on to their belief when all the scientific routes have failed them, so they experience the supernatural creep: "When normal processes and causes fail to satisfactorily explain events or answers to questions, then the reasoning slips beyond nature, into super nature, beyond the testable claims of science."
Click to expand...
Well we have the footprint evidence in the form of plaster casts. My hunch is that an in-depth study of the evidence would show the quality of the footprints evolving over the decades i.e the flat soles of the P-G casts compared with more recent ones replete with dermal ridges. So, is this because the casting technology has evolved or hoaxers have got better at making convincing casts?
 
Paul_Exeter said:
Well we have the footprint evidence in the form of plaster casts. My hunch is that an in-depth study of the evidence would show the quality of the footprints evolving over the decades i.e the flat soles of the P-G casts compared with more recent ones replete with dermal ridges. So, is this because the casting technology has evolved or hoaxers have got better at making convincing casts?
Click to expand...
I recall reading that dermal ridges are a result of plaster casting. I've not checked it myself, but I have spilled a lot of casting plaster in my time and it does have them.
 
Paul_Exeter said:
Well we have the footprint evidence in the form of plaster casts. My hunch is that an in-depth study of the evidence would show the quality of the footprints evolving over the decades i.e the flat soles of the P-G casts compared with more recent ones replete with dermal ridges. So, is this because the casting technology has evolved or hoaxers have got better at making convincing casts?
Click to expand...
I don't find casts to be at all convincing. The dermal ridges stuff is highly doubtful. In order to preserve such detail, the sediment has to be just the right grain size and consistency. OldRover is right, Matt Crowley showed that at least some suspected dermal ridges are not from the print but from the casting process. https://skepticalinquirer.org/newsletter/experiments-cast-doubt-on-bigfoot-evidence/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top