Bigfoot

Contrary to popular belief the presence of a big mammal is not hard to proof even if population density is low.
Bones, hair, feces and so on are easily sampled even if the actual animal is shy and rare. Regular surveys for conservation efforts have no problem turning up evidence and estimating populations of large mammals living in vast nature reserves. Bigfoot would be no exception.

Just as an example, the eurasian lynx is extremely rare in places because it is lives an ecosystem that has much less biomass than the forests bigfoot is supposed to exist in and on top of that it is a pure carnivore. That means if anything its population density would be a lot lower than that of the bigfoot. It is also extremely shy and solitary and constantly roams through its huge territory and yet proofing its recent presence in the ecosystem and estimating populations is not problem at all.

In recent years metabarcoding approaches of environmental DNA have also become very popular and widespread and the presence of an unknown mammal, let alone ape would have been both easy to proof and find. This hasn't happened.

Bigfoot is cryptid bullshit that doesn't hold up under closer examination.

>>2258392
What if it's close to an hominid or an hominid, and all traces are interpreted as human?

>>2258392
Well said.

>>2258396
A *single* hair or excrement sample or bone would disprove that. In case of the hair and bone due to their morphology and DNA and in case of the feces through the DNA.

In a metabarcoding approach a single OTU that was clearly mammal or simian but otherwise unknown would be immediately obvious.

Also human DNA is THE #1 contaminant in ANY study involving DNA so the methods for avoiding false positives from that are ubiquitous and well tested.

>>2258407
Haven't we more than once analyzed DNA, results turned out inconclusive or "unknown" and research stopped at that?

>>2258412
I'm not talking about "inconclusive" (low hit quality or otherwise unusable samples). And "unknown" can still be very clearly assigned to a taxonomic group. Of course bigfoot DNA would be "unknown" but even in the case of low quality reads it would still show up as at least a mammal, an unknown mammal. And that would certainly be unusual.

Also like I said, we'd need A bone, or AN hair and that would be enough to at least generate interest. Even if there is no DNA evidence, the morphology would be different.

Are you telling me a mammal that has been inhabiting an ecosystem for at least 10.000 years (since the last ice age) has not left ANY bones ore ANY other trace of its existence behind?

Especially when we can do that for every other mammal that lives there? And when literally every conservation report is based on methods like this? (No one actually goes into a forest and counts bears or tigers, every single population estimate is done by measuring ecological impact and traces)

Bigfoot doesn't exist.
The end.

File: Esz584S.jpg (108KB, 660x1005px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 660x1005px

>>2258384
I drove by the Skunk Ape Research Center a couple months ago and I regret that I couldn't stop and visit. The skunk ape Florida's bigfoot. First sighting with was near the Myakka River but it's been seen in multiple places in central/southern Florida.

Pic related

>>2258449
Honestly if Bigfoot is anywhere it'd be Florida

Sasquatch is real. This isn't a statement or a claim, this is a fact. There have been hundreds of thousands of sightings over the years, they can't all be bears standing on their hind legs.

>>2258456
>Jesus is real. This isn't a statement or a claim, this is a fact. There have been hundreds of thousands of sightings over the years, they can't all be hippie burglars standing on their hind legs.

>Aliums is real. This isn't a statement or a claim, this is a fact. There have been hundreds of thousands of sightings over the years, they can't all be swamp gas reflecting the light of venus off a weather baloon.

>Angels is real. This isn't a statement or a claim, this is a fact. There have been hundreds of thousands of sightings over the years, they can't all be winged giraffes with fevers.

>>2258462
Where's the video footage of jesus?

>>2258449
That's just a normal Florida inhabitant.

>>2258384

I love to imagine they do but not a scrap of evidence has ever been found.

Surely hunting dogs would have turned one up by now?

What I do find curious is that nearly every culture on earth talks about a humanoid ape in their folklore, the Maori here in NZ have the Mohau which is twice as tall as a man and has long fingernails and could rip a warrior limb from limb.

>>2258464
Mel Gibson has it

>>2258466
AFAIK, it's claimed that the evidences are usually not very good, disregarded and dismissed because of the low interest of the community, or something like this. Like Occam's razor being applied on this more often than not, unless you are one of the bigfoot enthusiasts (who are not taken very seriously).

>>2258466
We have the yowie here in aus. Literally every culture on earth has tales of bigfoot like creatures, yet somehow all of the people in those cultures are blind or mistaken.

>>2258471
>no glasses
>everybody looked like a hairy troglodite
First hunk seen in the distance is a bigfoot.

>>2258469
if it actually existed we'd have hit one with a car by now.

there's no terrestrial vertebrate in north America that hasn't been found dead on the side of the road at least once.

>>2258474
https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/why-has-no-hunter-ever-shot-and-killed-a-bigfoot/

Several killed bigfoot.

It is just a blog post, tho. People have time and time again claimed this kind of stuff and faked evidence for attention for ages.

>>2258477
yeah, so you've got this discovery that would make you tens of millions of dollars and instantly famous and you can't bother taking it to a lab to be confirmed?

sounds legit.

>>2258449
(((spooky)))

>>2258480
Oh yes, and that's why not a single hair or bone or feces have ever EVER been found. Especially bones, which accumulate over time. Over the tens of thousands of years that these mysterious apes have lived all around the globe apparently. Not a SINGLE one. No fossil evidence either.

How mysterious that of every mammal on the planet only these creatures have managed to escape our attention so completely until now. It's almost like they don't exist.

>>2258624
You wut mate?

Many species were, and still are, undiscovered including large mammals, just because bigfoot it's unlikely to exist, it doesn't means that other creatures don't exist out there.

>>2258628
No unknown terrestial mammal has been found within the last 40 years that weighed over 20 kilogram.

There are good estimates for how many unknown species there are left to be described for different groups: https://www.currentresults.com/Environment-Facts/Plants-Animals/number-of-undiscovered-species-living-on-earth.php
As you can see mammals don't even show up because they are almost certainly very complete. Mammals are the best decribed group with the least surprised next to angiosperms.

The impact of such a large mammal roaming such a huge area would still be noticable:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1026096204727

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/0471667196.ess5051/abstract

Especially when the proposed species lives in an area that has seen thorough research and sampling due to its other large mammal inhabitants. Especially especially when just such estimation methods are already used in those areas to calculate populations for conservation efforts.

And that still doesn't explain why NO hair, NO bone, NOTHING has ever turned up. EVER.

>>2258465
Kek

>>2258480
Wait, who is giving away TENS of nmillions for shit like this?

>>2258688
that's your book deals, movie rights, lecture circuit, television appearances, etc.

The rock ape in Indochina was spotted a lot by troops in Vietnam. There might be a Bigfoot in Indochina because it's a thick fucking jungle, but it's unlikely in America.

>>2258715
>some hick who got lucky shooting a Bigfoot with a shotgun would make millions on the lecture circuit
I don't think so.

>>2258392
This.
Everyone shut up, bigfoot isn't real.

Since someone will bring this up, gorillas weren't discovered until the mid 1800s by westerners because aside from coastal regions of Africa it was difficult as fuck to travel through, they only had so many supplies and were aware of new diseases they had never been exposed too and were worried about. Natives knew about them, though.

>>2258633
>No unknown terrestial mammal has been found within the last 40 years that weighed over 20 kilogram.
Sunda clouded leopard, saola, sumatran orangutan(i think, but more so 'oh this is a separate species and not a subspecies. same with the leopard).. I guess saola counts since we didn't even have remains until the early 1900s.
I agree with you on everything else.

>>2258788
>Sunda clouded leopard, saola, sumatran orangutan(i think, but more so 'oh this is a separate species and not a subspecies. same with the leopard).. I guess saola counts since we didn't even have remains until the early 1900s
By focusing on the details of anons statement, you are completely missing the point that an animal the size of bigfoot remaining undiscovered is HIGHLY unlikely. Bringing up the examples you used in no way changes this fact, however it is interesting and does add to the discussion.

>>>/x/
bigfoot isn't real you dumb bitch

>>2258462
it is a bear standing up. The brain does wacky things when it only captures an outline. Most people don't expect bears standing up. If you turned around and saw a bear rubbing on a tree suddenly, you'd quickly make out a tall bipedal hairy thing. This is enough information for most people to run before they make out the full image. When the brain has limited information it makes brash decisions.

If it truly was a murderous meat eating primate it would of been captured on camera already eating one of those nutjob people who go searching for it. All those bigfoot shows or anything is all staged, its all fucking fake for entertainment.

>>2258799
>No unknown terrestial mammal has been found within the last 40 years that weighed over 20 kilogram.
I was responding that and to that and that alone. I don't think its possible for bigfoot, or a creature that size to exist completely unknown in North America.

>>2258818
Apparently I was the one who missed the point then. My apologies.

>>2258384
I think sasquatches are real. It's been awhile since I looked at the numbers, but from what I remember there's something like a new sighting reported every 2 days on average. Then factor in all the UNreported sightings from people scared to come forward.

Now, I think a lot of the stuff coming out of the Great Plains is BS because honestly where is an 8-9 foot tall beast going to hide there? But along the US/Canada border it makes sense. I have not see one but I think there are too many reports for it to be fake. It's statistically near impossible for all the tens of thousands of sightings to be either lies or weird bears. Even if just one of them is legit then it means something's living out there that is unknown to us.

>>2258919
It's also statistically impossible for that many sightings to be real and still not have any hard evidence. Where isn't there ANY physical proof? Not one tuft of hair, not ONE bone. EVER

So if we get a sighting every two days we should see A LOT of proof in the form of bones, hair or feces or remnants of feedint. Every single individuals leaves MANY of these clues behind. There are HUNDREDS of these clues PER individual. So where are they? Why do these idiots always ignore simple facts like these?

PROOF makes things real, not a lot of people believing in them.

>>2258633
>No unknown terrestial mammal has been found within the last 40 years that weighed over 20 kilogram.

Pretty sure they discovered a new deer not more than a few years ago. Don't remember its name.

>>2258480
Some people might not want the life altering attention.

Bigfoot is real, that's a fact. I'm not being ironic and I'm not baiting

There is something out there, and whether or not it can be complained by conventional science is to be decided. But the fact remains, there is some large hairy ape creature out in the woods that thousands, if not millions of people report seeing each year, not to mention the sightings that go unreported because the witnesses fear ridicule. Are most of these sighting true? No, most likely not. But even if 1 out of every 100 sightings is the honest to god truth, then there is still merit to be had. There is no way that each and every one of these eyewitness testimonies are hoaxes or misidentifications, it simply cannot happen that much, especially given the wide range of people that have swore that what they saw was Bigfoot.

And that's not even in regards to the rest of the evidence.

>>2258392
>>2258633
>>2258788
These posters have very valid points. Although who's to say real, tangible evidence isn't already out there? The scientific community is so afraid to touch the topic that anything remotely conclusive may have either been pushed under the rug or rejected completely.

Regardless, though, despite the lack of ""evidence"" (that primarily meaning rock solid DNA analysis or the discovery of a body) there still stands some sort of very real phenomena at place. We're still missing something to this puzzle, but needless to say, there is some sort of creature roaming the woods and mountains across the globe.

>>2258452
lol classic

>>2258464
video footage of someone in a Jesus costume?

>>2258960
You're dumb as shit

Guys, if you're keen on finding unclassified/undocumented species, a large land dwelling mammal is not the place to look. There is all kinds of spooky shit living in the deep sea that hasn't been studied at all yet. DEEP ocean, mind you, not the fucking loch ness.

>>2258938
People ignore those facts because they think they're super smart and know how to hide. Which is their only excuse as to why they can't find any real proof. No fur? They groom themselves and bury it. No remains? They bury their dead. Bigfoot apologists are the worst. There is no convincing them. They are so close to saying they use magic.

>>2258960
The very real phenomena is the human capacity for delusion and hallucination. And also enjoyment of perpetuating falsehoods for lulz and profit.

One reasons put forward as to why there are no remains is because bigfoots bury their dead. As for bodies they couldn't reach to bury scavengers can take apart a body in a day or two. Then factor in how many people are actively roaming the woods and are likely to find a partial corpse. It's a needle in a haystack. How many bear carcasses have you come across. Probably extremely few, if any. It's much more likely you'll see bones of a prey species like deer since they are routinely killed, but predators' remains are much more rare.

>>2258392
>Contrary to popular belief the presence of a big mammal is not hard to proof even if population density is low.

That was pretty much '/thread'.

It's impossible that this thing exists and no one has found a single bone of this thing yet. They myth developed long before we could say that with certainty. But now we can. Just like the Loch Ness monster. And we'll throw in god, as well.

>>2259051

Also, people are excavating all the time. You are always finding news articles about people finding cool shit while digging up large plots to lay down buildings. Even IF they were buried, we still would have found one by now. It would resemble a human enough that authorities would be called and the can of worms would be opened. It would only take 1. Just 1.

But nope.

>>2259049
Bigfoot discussion boards are hilarious to read. They share these fuzzy youtube clips where every unclear moving blob gets identified as a possible Bigfoot sighting, and their explanations for why there's no decent footage outside of the Patterson-Gimlin clip get so ridiculous ("they can sense trail cameras and they're intelligent enough to know that they must not be caught on camera, and they know just how to always stay out of their range, and this ability could even be supernatural, they might be able to teleport or shift into another dimension in order to hide away, and they might actually be aliens").

The part that makes me a little curious about Bigfoot is that some people appear so earnestly shaken when they describe their encounters, and some others are apparently reluctant to talk about their experiences at all because they know that people are gonna think they're crazy. It kinda makes me wonder if an instantly dismissive and skeptical attitude could actually prevent people from discovering a reclusive species.

However, the lack of anything substantial makes me believe in Occam's razor in the end. There's no decent proof of Bigfoot because it doesn't exist. Everyone's got cellphones with cameras these days, something better than that one clip should've come up by now.

>>2258960
>Although who's to say real, tangible evidence isn't already out there? The scientific community is so afraid to touch the topic that anything remotely conclusive may have either been pushed under the rug or rejected completely.

Why the hell would they? It's not the first time that a criptid turned out to be a real specie and scientists had no issue recognizing it. It didn't seem so in the case of the okapi at least.

If anything, scientists would KILL for a discovery as huge as this one. A new specie or even genus, of a big mammal related to humans and knowing the impact of the bigfoot it would be fucking everywhere, and that kind of publicity is desired in the community.

Now that everybody has camera phones you would think it would be much easier to find photographic evidence of bigfoot.
The only reason it's existence has never been proven is because sasquatches are not real. If you can't accept this fact then you are a very gullible person.

File: wasreal.jpg (451KB, 2048x1371px) Image search: [Google]

451KB, 2048x1371px

>>2258384
Big foot existed 120,000 years ago in India.

>>2259051
Wait what? If they bury their dead and you were right that scavengers wouldn't get to their bodies (they do) there would be MORE evidence because that preserves the bones better, so they would accumulate over the years.

Usually you find skulls as the last remnant because scavengers usually don't destroy them. If they were buried deep enough to protect them from scavengers we would have lots of bones on top of skulls.

>>2258960
People see and hear what they want to see and hear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jve3p0ws-nI&feature=youtu.be&t=37m4s

Watch this. Even better watch the entire thing.

>>2258384
As much as anyone would like to believe bigfoot exists. He doesn't. For if he did exist, at some point one would die, we'd find a carcass. Maybe hit by a car or truck. I see more dead deer on the side of the road, than I do alive. So I know deer exist.

>>2259056
Not many people are building huge strip malls in the middle of the northern Canadian wilderness. It would still be a needle in a haystack to pick the exact spot in the millions of acres that they chose to use as their grave site.

>>2259180
A lot of sightings take place in just a couple of seconds, and catch the person completely by surprise. They have to process what they're seeing, ID it as a bigfoot, find their camera and not fumble it with shaky hands, then hold it steady enough and focus it on a dark creature in a dark forest, all within 5 seconds. I try to photograph birds and giant herons standing right in front of me in broad daylight often get away before I can get a decent picture.

>>2259209
Like I said, no one's up there digging up the right spots in remote forests.

>>2259270
Apparently you missed the last part of my post, that if you believe in bigfoot you're a gullible person.

>>2259270
>Like I said, no one's up there digging up the right spots in remote forests.

The right spots? You mean those same right spots where all the sightings take place? Like not far from civilization at all? Or those other right spots where forests once stood where towns and fields are now?

And "remote" forests? You mean like those that were cut down almost entirely during and after colonization for the lumber industry? Those forests that are only now growing back?

Or do you mean those that are permanently gone because there are people living there now and growing crops and shit. You know, those forests that were in the same climate zone, with the same ecosystem and fauna and flora as those that are still standing that would surely also have supported an animal that is inventive enough to bury its dead and hide its shits.

No, wait I know. When bigfoot saw man approaching and cutting down their forests in their entirety they dug up all their buried ancestors from millenia back, including all fossil evidence and moved them. Such intelligence, wow.

And that's why also why we've found everything else that lives in those forests and there hasn't been a new mammal species discovered there since the first taxonomists bothered describing them in the early 19th century.

Or why not a single piece of physical evidence has turned up, ever. Even though an ape of that size that surely would get quite old would leave countless clues to its existence over its lifespan. Many, many more than just the one set of bones it would leave at its death or the temporary and random sightings.

It's like trying to argue with religious fundamentalists. You BELIEVE in bigfoot, there is no argument to be had.
You can continue to believe in bigfoot but unless you can produce some physical facts, which this entire thread has told you would not be hard to come by if bigfoot exists, don't expect anyone to also believe in your bullshit.

>>2259184

Stuff like that almost makes me believe in genetic memory sometimes.

>>2259291
>genetic memory
Nah. Cultural memory though, that's fascinating.
Look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasmotherium#Possible_historical_witnesses

File: 1476761467111.png (613KB, 640x639px) Image search: [Google]

613KB, 640x639px

>>2258384

>>2259300
this should have been the one and only reply to this thread

>>2259296
Wooly rhinosorus was a thing

>>2258474
Unless there's only one or two left.

>>2259047
This guy knows what's up, there's so much cool shit down there.

>>2258466
I know history channel actually did an experiment with hunting dogs tracking down a bigfoot after sniffing allegedly bigfoot hair samples. They called the dogs off after they the woods became too thick to follow them anymore

File: kekliosaurus.png (170KB, 847x874px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 847x874px

>>2258468

>>2258960
I feel like the person you're replying to laid out a much more compelling case. Your argument was basically, "yuh huh, people have seent bigfoot tho". I don't know m8 I'm not exactly convinced.

>>2260347
>couldn't deliver a compelling and convincing argument that bigfoot is real
Gee, I wonder why?

I know bigfoots are real. I've been to their grave sites. They bury their dead. That's why we don't find their bones. They know we're looking for them. They want to be left alone.

>>2260649
>bigfoot is real
I don't believe you.
Prove it.
I'll wait.

Heres from a conservation standpoint. From here on out lets just assume bigfoot is real.

Do you guys really think they'd just be like "yeah that legendary large ape species with low population density actually exists"? Can you imagine what would happen? Fucking everyone would start heading out there to try to see one, harass them, get pictures, shoot some, etc etc etc.

The easiest way to protect them would be to just keep saying they don't exist. I'd bet money this is done with populations of endangered species and possibly a couple recently extinct things. (What better way to stop rhino poaching that to officially declare there are no more?)

>>2258392
>when /x/cucks get BTFO

>>2260680
To build on that I've heard a version where the government is suppressing news about bigfoot because it would majorly hurt the logging industry since millions of acres of woods would have to be declared protected zones.

File: Bonobo%206[1].jpg (533KB, 1600x1350px) Image search: [Google]

533KB, 1600x1350px

Fig 1: Bili Ape/Bondo Ape that hides in the Congo deep in the rain forest. Not unreasonable to assume an ape could live in the pacific northwest and not be discovered, the problem is, people seem to actively look for such a creature, yet they do not find it.

I wouldn't be surprised if an ape got discovered there dead or alive. Survivor man was talking about it on Joe Rogan saying "I just go out there and if I see anything I see it, if not, whatever." I don't recommend watching it unless you want to see Joe Rogan and Bryan Redban being cocksuckers for no reason to one of their more interesting guests.
>DUUUUUUUDE THERE'S NO FUCKIN WAY THAT SHITS REAL
>penis
>uh guys I'm just saying that I go out and there to see if people are bullshitting, there's a spectrum to bigfoot belie-
>DUUUUUUUUUUUDE SCIENCE AND SHIT
>haha what if you ate a big plastic bag full of food and shit it out and then ate it you wouldnt have to carry as much
bryan redban actually said that

>>2258392
>>2261315
Also, Survivorman touched on this. He was saying
>who knows man, maybe they bury their bones and their droppings, could be intelligent
>DUUUUUUDE
>haha dicks

Bigfoot is a human subspecies. All traces are discarded as human.
Hypertrichosis, large size and extreme cultural shyness.
They're an uncontacted tribe, and go to great pains to remain so.

Think the most inbred of appalachian hillbillies, only with a culture of isolation that stretches back millennia, not a couple hundred years.
Populations are tiny, and shrinking. There's maybe 95 individuals in north america. They practice ritual defleshing and pulverize the bones of the dead, to keep the remains from being used in dark magic.
They keep strictly nocturnal, and travel long distances at night. They are mostly vegetarian, they don't hunt but will take fresh meat when they can get it without conflict. They compete directly with feral pigs, any environmental disturbance they cause is usually attributed to wild hogs.
These are human beings, not animals. They're smart enough to disguise themselves when moving through populated areas. A fairly tall man in a long coat doesn't draw much attention at a distance. They don't use fire, they don't make tools. They have always existed as cultural parasites, using what tools they can collect from the cultures around them. They make no camps. If something can't be carried in the hand it is left near where it was found.
Halfbreeds abound in history, in cultures that were still stone and some early bronze age.
As mainstream human culture progressed, it became increasingly "alien" to them and thus was ever more studiously avoided.

Only regions that were relatively recently thrust into modernity still have occasional sightings.

File: 887572_heroa[1].jpg (34KB, 620x430px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 620x430px

>>2261331
I think I've found your subspecies. Case closed.

>>2258449
How has nobody pointed out that that is just an orangutan

>>2261369
I think most experts agree that particular photo is of an escaped pet. It comes up a lot so it's not really even worth taking the time to debunk anymore.

>>2261315
Good point about the Congo ape. Bigfoot in North America as we know it is probably not real but how do you all feel about things like anon's pic, smaller primates like Orang pendek and the Yowie that are not officially recognized by science?

>>2259050
This x100
People are fallable as fuck, which is why science has standards.
Bigfoot is fictional as shit.

>>2260649
If you've been to their fucking grave sites why didn't you take pictures? Video feed? Any evidence at all?

I swear to god, bigfoot 'hunters' are the dumbest boxes of rocks on the face of the planet. It could be a serial killer burying bodies for all we'll ever know.

>>2261369
It was supposedly taken in someone's backyard in Florida, so that would still be pretty odd. If it was somebody's orangutan or escaped pet, you'd think they'd probably have come forward looking for it, but I guess maybe not necessarily considering how people dump their exotic pets sometimes.

>>2259047
Fuck the Lochness, shit ain't getting my tree fiddy

>>2261530
Campers usually only carry bare essentials to lighten the load. A few unnecessary ounces will be a pain in the long run.

>>2258407

>A *single* hair or excrement sample or bone would disprove that.

Maybe bigfeet bury their dead and their feces, and their hair, when it sheds, simply falls onto the forest floor or swamp water and decomposes.

>>2261652
see >>2259270 and then >>2259282