Forensic Expert Says Bigfoot Is Real

[Mr. Skinny]

Interesting article at the National Geographic News (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1023_031023_bigfoot.html) web site.


Thousands of people claim to have seen the hairy hominoid, but the evidence of its existence is fuzzy. There are few clear photographs of the oversized beast. No bones have ever been found. Countless pranksters have admitted to faking footprints.

Yet a small but vociferous number of scientists remain undeterred. Risking ridicule from other academics, they propose that there's enough forensic evidence to warrant something that has never been done: a comprehensive, scientific study to determine if the legendary primate actually exists.

[espritch]

An adult male is said to be at least 8 feet (2.4 meters) tall, weigh 800 pounds (360 kilograms), and have feet twice the size of a human's. The creatures are described as shy and nocturnal, and their diets consist mostly of berries and fruits.
Actually, they eat meat. Bigfoot encounters are fairly common, but the vast majority of those who have actually seen a bigfoot haven’t lived to tell the tale. Those who have were just lucky enough to meet a bigfoot that wasn’t hungry.

Ok. That might not be true, but as long as we’re speculating on the habits of an animal that hasn’t even been proven to exist, we might as well make it interesting. :)
Matt Moneymaker had been searching for Bigfoot for years. In the woods of eastern Ohio, he claims he finally came eye to eye with the elusive primate.
I don’t know if Mr. Moneymaker is telling the truth or not, but I can’t help thinking that’s a really unfortunate name for a guy trying to pass off a bigfoot story – especially with no corroborating evidence.

[Lord Kenneth]

Actually, Bigfeet (singular: Bigfoot) are native to Alantis.

[Tricky]

The dietary question could be easily solved if one of these "small but vociferous number of scientists" would simply produce some Bigfoot spoor. But no, there seems to be no definate physical evidence. No bones, no skin, no nothing.

It is amazing that the creatures could be so good at concealing all the evidence of their existence, and yet occasionally leave big tracks just to confound us.

It also seems common that those with the most crackpot theories also tend to be the most vociferous.

[tim]

Bearing in mind all those millions of camera carrying folk trekking through America, isn't it a slight surprise that no one's taken a decent photograph? But then, the same is true of the Loch Ness monster, aliens and flying saucers. Is there a connection? I think we should be told the truth by a government who are clearly involved in a conspiracy to hide the truth........................
:D :D :D

[espritch]

Bearing in mind all those millions of camera carrying folk trekking through America, isn't it a slight surprise that no one's taken a decent photograph?

Perhaps they are just naturally blurry.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Tricky
The dietary question could be easily solved if one of these "small but vociferous number of scientists" would simply produce some Bigfoot spoor. But no, there seems to be no definate physical evidence. No bones, no skin, no nothing.

It is amazing that the creatures could be so good at concealing all the evidence of their existence, and yet occasionally leave big tracks just to confound us.

It also seems common that those with the most crackpot theories also tend to be the most vociferous.


Oh, please, there is mountians and mountains of anecdotal evidence.

[SteveGrenard]

I can tell frog poop from snake poop from bird poop in the woods but how do you propose one distinguishes poop from a putative large hairy primate from a moderately large hairless primate (e.g. human) both of whom, in theory, may have the same sorts of diet.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I can tell frog poop from snake poop from bird poop in the woods but how do you propose one distinguishes poop from a putative large hairy primate from a moderately large hairless primate (e.g. human) both of whom, in theory, may have the same sorts of diet.

Bigfeet poop is more tart, and tangier.

[Mr. Skinny]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I can tell frog poop from snake poop from bird poop in the woods but how do you propose one distinguishes poop from a putative large hairy primate from a moderately large hairless primate (e.g. human) both of whom, in theory, may have the same sorts of diet.
Good question Steve.

Maybe one would begin by weighing the poop size, on average. Analyzing the diet of the poopee might be another.

I suppose one has to start a database of suspected Yeti poop at some point.

Unfortunately, there don't seem to be enough samples out there to do any meaningful analysis.

[Lord Kenneth]

Also, it melts in your mouth, not in your hands.

[Jeff Corey]

I think the feces of a 8 foot, 800 lb humanoid would be of a considerably larger caliber than that of a human. Unless it's a baby bigfoot.

[SteveGrenard]

The caliber and weight of the excrement could be subject to a lot of variation and approximate in morphology as well as weight versus that of a large human being.

Insofar as weight is concerned, you can never be certain you have all of it from a single sample collection either. It may be excreted in smaller aliquots rather than as one large one. Hopefully it would contain epithelial cells which could be subjected to genetic analysis as well. I'd think any tissue sample regardless of how it was left behind, would be valuable in this respect. And yes, you cannot rule out retrieving a specimen from a juvenile specimen.

[SteveGrenard]

Hmm.wondering if Ed's ultimate sniff test would be of any value in distinguishing bigfoot spoor from other types of excrement? I think there may finally be a place for the sniff test in the annals (pun intended) of science.

[espritch]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1001_031001_scatdogs.html
The above is an article from National Geographic about using dogs to sniff out scat. Apparently, scat is an important source of information about endangered species.
The feces of these animals are a treasure trove for researchers, yielding valuable information about the animals, including population size, fertility, gender, stress, and extent of home range.

It also notes:
Even when found, some scat, such as black bear and grizzly bear, look so similar that they are easily confused.
The dogs come in handy. As they find the scat a lot more efficiently than people, and can differentiate similar looking scat from different species. They have even been used on boats to search for whale scat.

Perhaps the bigfoot hunters just need to get some good scat dogs.
" The dogs are an incredibly valuable tool for gathering information," he said. "It's so much better than anything else I've seen out there by a long shot."
Of course the real point is that scat is a pretty important part of biological research and there is a lot of information available about it and a lot that can be determined about the source based on examination of it. I’m pretty sure a competent researcher could differentiate between human scat and bigfoot scat (assuming such a thing actually exists).

I’m not an expert in scat and don’t really have any interest in becoming one. So if the link provided doesn’t pass your sniff test, I guess you’ll just have to dig deeper on your own. The page I linked to was just the first listed when I entered “feces species identification” on Google. There are many more.

[T'ai Chi]

Any actual 'Bigfoot' specimens? Why are they so elusive?

[thaiboxerken]

The creator of the Big Foot legend died and his kids gave evidence of the hoax. People still want to believe in Big Foot, though. It's so sad that people want to believe in weirdness just because they distrust science.

[Mr. Skinny]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The caliber and weight of the excrement ......(snip)

Sorry Steve, but thinking about the caliber of a Yeti @sshole got me laughing. Kinda gives some meaning to that expression "sh*tting bullets".

[arcticpenguin]

They believe there are at least 2,000 ape men walking upright in North America's woods today.
2000 apes, and not one piece of spoor, hair, etc.

We live in the genomic age. I believe it should be possible to identify spoor using DNA analysis. Since there is no known Bigfoot to compare against, you would look for ape DNA that does not match any of the known species.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Mr. Skinny


Sorry Steve, but thinking about the caliber of a Yeti @sshole got me laughing. Kinda gives some meaning to that expression "sh*tting bullets".
Ahem.
I was the one who first speculated about the caliber. In adult human, I understand the appropriate caliber suppository is about 45. The bigfoot would probably range between 78 to 103.
But then again, I'm no scatologist.
But Ella was.

[Zep]

MOVING RIGHT ALONG, PEOPLE...!!!

I would ALSO have thought that there would be many more dead Yetis than live about the place by now - assuming they do breed like "normal" hominids and aren't just there by means of spontaneous generation (or grow on trees??). So that should mean there would be a distinct possibility of finding the remains on at least one, even disturbed by carrion eaters.

Given that bear and other large animal remains are found, even though scarce, surely Yeti remains would be equally findable.

Unless ... they go to a secret Yeti burial ground, which is now covered in acres of precious ivory made of Yeti bones! :D

[Mr. Skinny]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

Ahem.
I was the one who first speculated about the caliber. In adult human, I understand the appropriate caliber suppository is about 45. The bigfoot would probably range between 78 to 103.
But then again, I'm no scatologist.
But Ella was.
Apologies Jeff.

My guess was about 110 so we are close on our estimates of max caliber.

I can't believe you actually posted the Ella reference. It crossed my mind, but I thought I'd be groaned out of the forum if I used it.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by espritch


Perhaps they are just naturally blurry.

That was what they did on the Goon Show once, when they were heading off to Loch Ness to look for the monster. They made sure to pack the camera with the special blurry lens.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Mr. Skinny
I can't believe you actually posted the Ella reference. It crossed my mind, but I thought I'd be groaned out of the forum if I used it.

You old timers might want to explain this one for the kids.

Shoobee doo bop doo bop...

[Suezoled]

For everyone's information I have a crystal clear picture of bigfoot. Oh, wait, no, that's just a lawn gnome. Sorry about that.

So who's Ella? And what's about her amazing ability to find and analyze scat?

And how come Lord Kenneth has been hording all this tasty stuff anyway?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Suezoled
So who's Ella? And what's about her amazing ability to find and analyze scat?

I rest my case. Bedepabodop dah...

[WildCat]

Apparently Jane Goodall (http://www.bfro.net/news/goodall.asp) is a Bigfoot/Yeti woo-woo. It's terrible what happens to the mind as you get older.

[SquishyDave]

Originally posted by WildCat
Apparently Jane Goodall (http://www.bfro.net/news/goodall.asp) is a Bigfoot/Yeti woo-woo. It's terrible what happens to the mind as you get older. My opinion on this is that if you live with non-humans for extended periods, your viewpoint can begin to be skewed. Is it true she is in the habit of greeting fellow humans with a chimps hello grunt? If it is I'm just saying if you think that talking to humans in chimp is a good idea, even in jest, then you need to spend some more time around humans to re-learn how to interact with them.

And perhaps, after a few years of flinging your own feces at your chimp friends, and having them fling theirs at you, you will begin to lose your critical thinking skills. :D

edited to add a "t"

[mythusmage]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Actually, Bigfeet (singular: Bigfoot) are native to Alantis.

They were all hired to work at the resort. That's why you can't find them out in the wild anymore. Give 'em a shower and a shave and you can't tell them from defensive tackles.

But now that I think about it...

[mythusmage]

I see the small minded and disfunctional are having their jollies again.

What part of "scientific problem" is giving you trouble? Why is evidence from a cryptozoologist automatically beyond the pale?. Why does Bigfoot scare you?

You sound like a bunch of 14 year old boys caught in the dark with scary noises all around, trying to out macho each other.

IT'S A PRIMATE, DAMMIT! Get over it.

It's not the Chupacabra. It's certainly not somebody's wet dream. It's a primate. At the very least it's evidence for a possible primate.

Yes, I said "evidence", and you know damn well where it can be found. But go seek it out? Test it to see if it's valid? Why that would be the scientific thing to do, and creati... ...sasquatch debunkers don't do that sort of thing.

The impression I'm getting from you is that you know about as much about the world around you as can be found around your usual haunts. Ever got lost in a forest? Ever been in a forest? When's the last time you visited the mountains? People get lost in the wilderness, and days pass before they are found. Sometimes they're never found. And these are people folks are actually looking for. Remember Chandra Levy? Remember the intensive search for her body in a popular public park, with lots of people visiting it on a daily basis? Remember how she was found? By a dog?

You are an embarrassment to science and to skepticism. You have your dogma and God save those who would differ with you. You don't want evidence, you want a good story. You don't want science, you want reassurance that you are a special creation, separate from the rest of the animal world. You want nothing that connects you to the beast, and you will do most anything, say most anything to deny that fact.

Sorry, but Darwin showed us we are part of the natural world, and such as yetis and bigfoots reinforce that fact.

In the long term, you are only apes, and emotionally insecure apes into the bargain.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by mythusmage
I see the small minded and disfunctional are having their jollies again.

What part of "scientific problem" is giving you trouble? Why is evidence from a cryptozoologist automatically beyond the pale?. Why does Bigfoot scare you?

You sound like a bunch of 14 year old boys caught in the dark with scary noises all around, trying to out macho each other.

IT'S A PRIMATE, DAMMIT! Get over it.

It's not the Chupacabra. It's certainly not somebody's wet dream. It's a primate. At the very least it's evidence for a possible primate.

Yes, I said "evidence", and you know damn well where it can be found. But go seek it out? Test it to see if it's valid? Why that would be the scientific thing to do, and creati... ...sasquatch debunkers don't do that sort of thing.

The impression I'm getting from you is that you know about as much about the world around you as can be found around your usual haunts. Ever got lost in a forest? Ever been in a forest? When's the last time you visited the mountains? People get lost in the wilderness, and days pass before they are found. Sometimes they're never found. And these are people folks are actually looking for. Remember Chandra Levy? Remember the intensive search for her body in a popular public park, with lots of people visiting it on a daily basis? Remember how she was found? By a dog?

You are an embarrassment to science and to skepticism. You have your dogma and God save those who would differ with you. You don't want evidence, you want a good story. You don't want science, you want reassurance that you are a special creation, separate from the rest of the animal world. You want nothing that connects you to the beast, and you will do most anything, say most anything to deny that fact.

Sorry, but Darwin showed us we are part of the natural world, and such as yetis and bigfoots reinforce that fact.

In the long term, you are only apes, and emotionally insecure apes into the bargain.

Yeah, you told us. :rolleyes:

Sounds like it's time for Prof. Farnsworth to make an appearance.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Suezoled
So who's Ella? And what's about her amazing ability to find and analyze scat?
It's sing scat, cat.