*massive sigh of disappointment*

For some odd reason I spent a bunch of time last night looking up theories on Bigfoot. It was some pretty interesting stuff. There were a few who claimed that up to 2000 could be living in North America. Their explanation as to why we don't see them much is that their ancestors were hunted to near extinction by homo erectus. Thus, those Bigfoots that survived became nocturnal, hide during the day and now avoid humans out of habit, thus allowing them to survive. My friend Andy, a paleontologist, tells me that this kind of rapid evolution squares nicely with the evolutionary theory called Punctuated Equilibrium. Which states that evolution is not so much "survival of the fittest" but is rather "those who survive the major disasters breed". On top of all this, Jane Goodall actually believes in Bigfoot based on the evidence that she has seen. And considering her years of experience with primates...

Now, I realize that all of this sounds extremely reasonable, and I worry that my being reasonable is going to screw this thread up pretty bad. So, one other theory that I read last night is that Bigfoot is actually a trans-dimensional being who can go in between our world and any other dimension at will. If only the things I smoked were actually that good...

On this more serious note, Yetis and Bigfoots (Bigfeet?) are, to me, in there with UFO sightings based on fuzzy reports and photographs. Clearly punctuated equilibrium makes sense (I have read that all living Cheetahs descend from only a dozen or so from a ten to twelve thousand year ago near extinction and yet still barely hang on (endangered by a defective sperm gene and too closely related)), but it's tw's point that there would have been at least one killed by a hunter by now and brought forward for examination, or the remains of one discovered somewhere.

To really spoil any latent belief, read "Ten Reasons Why Bigfoot's a Bust"

there are all sorts of perfectly reasonable theories to go along with the perfectly unreasonable ones. for instance, a Jungian approach would be to say that Bigfoot is an unconscious archetype derived from proto-human experience - we come out of the womb with a 'wild man' image in our heads the way that chickens come out of the egg with an instinctive recognition of the silhouette of a hawk. or a cultural anthropological approach would be to say that bigfoot is a persistent story handed down from pre-cultural experiences with neanderthals (I've heard similar explanations of UFOs, incidentally - UFOs are simply the modernistic manifestation of the same thing that made older cultures see angels, demons, afreet, etc.). until there's some reasonable evidence that people are actually seeing something concrete, we have to consider the possibility that people are seeing something that we are all predisposed to see, even when it's not actually there. a kind of complex optical illusion...

you can distinguish reasonable theories from stupid theories on the grounds of logic, but to distinguish which of several good theories is correct, you need evidence. otherwise it's just a matter of belief. Bigfoot as an as-yet unseen species is not a stupid theory by any means, but I would have expected some evidence given the interest in the subject (corpses, hair detritus, scat, telltale foraging marks, refuse heaps).

Well, my personal take on it is this. I don't believe bigfoots exist because there is no evidence to support the claim. But, I don't believe they don't exist either, because I've seen enough circumstantial evidence to leave a reasonable doubt in my mind as to his lack of existence... If that makes sense. Basically I'm a bigfoot agnostic :D.

I personally don't buy into the idea that we would have seen substantial evidence by now if these guys existed. First off, we may have said evidence already (who knows, maybe one of those videos is the real thing), but no one will believe it because we all think it's a hoax. As for collecting evidence... Well, the only people who are willing don't have the credentials that would make any of us believe them. And, sadly, no one with the credentials is likely to try. Why? Because they would be laughed right out of the academic community, possibly lose funding for projects they are working on, etc etc. No sane person, with a family and career to support, would jeopardize themselves like that.

Anyway, my hope is that some day someone will make a serious investigation into the matter. Perhaps get some funding so they can go do infrared scans of deep woodland areas during the night. See if they find anything interesting. I personally won't be convinced that bigfoot (feet?) don't exist until someone (with credentials and funding) has made a serious effort to try to prove that they exist, and failed.

so after a well thought through conclusion,,you came up with maybe?

real intellects we got here

My own take is that the likelihood that Bigfoots (...feet?) exist (along with Yetis, etc.) is about the same as the likelihood that Elvis is alive and well.

Well.......


Never mind too easy, :rolleyes:

I knew there'd be one! :D

I think you're confusing "maybe" with "needs more research". And, by the way, you can't compare Elvis and Bigfoots, with Elvis we have a body :D.

That's because it's not a theory - at best, it can be labeled a hypothesis!

A real intellect only draws a conclusion when there is sufficient evidence to merit one. A 'truly astounding intellect' just sits back and takes cheap shots at the real intellects :p

whooo im astounding.... though i'll be honest, not the first time ive heard that :p

errr... Schrodinger's bigfoot???

not even, really. at best it's a speculative assertion. A hypothesis would require fitting bigfoot into the current theoretical framework so that it explains something other then the occasional random bigfoot sighting

ah, piffle. :) as I always say, the difference between regular people and scientists is that regular people jump to conclusions, while scientists wait until they trip over them.

what does that make me

a goon? :D

For those still doubting the existence of bigfoot here is more evidence of their claim.

But he looks nothing like any of the previous photos I've seen!

I guess they cleaned him up for the press conference.

Not necessarily true - bigfoot is just one more name in the search for the "missing link". The theoretical framework, as mentioned earlier, is Punctuated Equilibrium. The primary difference between bigfoot nuts and "missing link" proponents (aside from scientific training and socioeconomic background among other things) is the fact that the bigfoot nuts believe the missing link is still alive today.