Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Crispy78 wrote:
I dunno. It seems pretty unlikely that there is some undiscovered large animal hiding in the wilderness of a country where it is basically a national pastime to head out into the wilderness to shoot large animals...

From my understanding people don’t go out so far that they can’t drag their kills back to the car. Every time I drive through Northern California, Oregon or Washington, I am humbled by the sheer magnitude of the wilderness. Looking for side streets or shortcuts on a map app shows just how inaccessible the bulk of that territory really is to the vast majority of people.

While I tend to feel similarly to MDG, in that I doubt the existence of most cryptids but I would love to be proven wrong, I also admit there is a crapton of unexplored land that could hold all kinds of biodiversity we aren’t aware of yet. This isn’t Loch Ness we’re talking about here.

I am inclined to say that there probably isn't a bigfoot, today. However, given the legends and myths of native americans in the pacific northwest it is possible that there was a giant ape which lived in the area back in the Ice age. Stories of which have been passed down and given life in the cultural zeitgeist. If it was real it most definitely extinct today or we would have found something.

However, I do think a related creature could still exist. The Yeti in the areas of Nepal and Butan, with the latter being more likely. It is a very isolationist country which doesn't allow very many foreigners(and technology) in. The Yeti features quite prominently in their culture and not just as a mythical creature.

There could easily be a population of rare large apes in those areas which are extremely isolated and don't have the penetration of modern technology which would make it hiding a lot more likely.

 Easy E wrote:
So, this thread has devolved into the usual sauce with this sort of thing, and is dipping close into crack-pottery.

Therefore, let's change the perspective on this thread a bit to make it something useable? Let's talk a bit more about how Bigfoot fits into the "culture". For example, in my rural, very conservative, mountainous area; Bigfoot representations are very common. As far as I know, there have been no popular bigfoot sighting in this area yet his image and legend is all over the place.

Perhaps, Bigfoot is now a totem for a certain type of cultural preference? A more rural, counter-culture that rejects "modern" thinking and prefers a certain romantic "back-to-nature" naturism or even a more self-sufficient outlook? Therefore, Bigfoot is now an extension of the post-modern Culture War rather than an actual thing to be discovered.

I wonder if UFOs and Fairy abductions also fall into these "Romantic" reactions to Modern culture? Pretty sure this is not a unique take, so does anyone know any good Folklorists/Anthropologists who have researched the topic?

This became a real problem with UFOlogy in the 90’s or even before.

People reported encounters. People wanted to believe. When mainstream science did not find extraordinary evidence for their extraordinary claims, people became resentful and then mistrustful. Then groups of people found themselves at odds with “science” or mainstream perspectives, and splintered into a bunch of rabbit holes.

While trying to read up on documented experiences, I’d often find myself in undated with questionable, agenda-driven BS, from Raelians to Annunaki to mystics to millennialist Christians. And I think it’s due to the counterculture effect you describe.

Looks like Bigfoot has gone much the same way, with people seemingly tying in the Bigfoot cryptids with paradigm-shifting-anomalies, hints that demons are real or there’s a sinister conspiracy at the heart of reality, something that would blow the sheeple’s minds open.

 JNAProductions wrote:

This 10000000% - I used to believe in a lot of things, but I have known for decades with everyone toting a camera that we are sadly not living in a world with much left undiscovered. UFOs, maybe, as there are always new military videos coming out. But Bigfoot? No... Also, the plethora of bigfoot expedition shows? Fer Gad's sake, why watch them? They will never find anything and if they did it would be on the 6 o'clock news way before your episode comes out.

 MDSW wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

This 10000000% - I used to believe in a lot of things, but I have known for decades with everyone toting a camera that we are sadly not living in a world with much left undiscovered. UFOs, maybe, as there are always new military videos coming out. But Bigfoot? No... Also, the plethora of bigfoot expedition shows? Fer Gad's sake, why watch them? They will never find anything and if they did it would be on the 6 o'clock news way before your episode comes out.

For the same reason I occasionally binge watch episodes of Ancient Aliens. Its entertaining as hell to watch people spin their wheels saying insane things. None of those shows will ever have this guy though. And his hair that gets more out of control every season as his spray on tan gets more orange with it.

They need to bring Red Alert back and then just hire that guy to be in it as one of the characters!

 MDSW wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

This 10000000% - I used to believe in a lot of things, but I have known for decades with everyone toting a camera that we are sadly not living in a world with much left undiscovered. UFOs, maybe, as there are always new military videos coming out. But Bigfoot? No... Also, the plethora of bigfoot expedition shows? Fer Gad's sake, why watch them? They will never find anything and if they did it would be on the 6 o'clock news way before your episode comes out.

Mentioning the 6 o’clock news made a penny drop.

Cryptozoology, like Bigfoot hunting, is probably the easiest way to gain scientific fame. You don’t need particularly fancy equipment. You don’t need a high level of education.

Provided you have a camera, and the gumption to not disturb a find (at least at first) you’re away. If you could find say, a cave which is where Bigfoot stash their dead? You’re now famous. You just proved Bigfoot exists, or at least existed.

And such “whoa!” finds have been made. Consider Skara Brae, a Neolithic Orcadian village which predates the Pyramids.

I think there is still a ton left to be discovered in the world, we do it all the time.

That doesn't mean I believe in every Cryptid. However, we discover new species frequently, and old ones we assumed were extinct pop back-up too.

This muddies the water for a lot of people about Bigfoot, Loch Ness, that Dino in the Congo, and even Giant Snakes in the Amazon/Everglades.

The Amazon has anacondas, those are giant and the heaviest known snake species.

Unless folk mean bigger than that?

 Easy E wrote:
I think there is still a ton left to be discovered in the world, we do it all the time.

That doesn't mean I believe in every Cryptid. However, we discover new species frequently, and old ones we assumed were extinct pop back-up too.

This muddies the water for a lot of people about Bigfoot, Loch Ness, that Dino in the Congo, and even Giant Snakes in the Amazon/Everglades.

Thing is if you look at the recently discovered animals its predominantly smaller species on land

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/13/new-mammals-discovered-10-years


Whilst with larger species its more a case of known populations being reclassified through new studies.

Finding a much larger land based species that's both totally unknown to science and isn't a simple hybrid/reclassification of already known populations - now that's exceptional. I'd argue you'd have to be looking at areas which aren't just remote but functionally isolated via the geography. Not just a big area, but one where migration is nearly impossible. Otherwise even if an area is vast, the species itself could easily migrate around.

Indeed with climatic change you'd have expected potentially more sightings of Bigfoot as its environment and climate change and shift.



Personally I think the only place we'll find larger mammalian creatures that are totally unknown to science is the deep sea. Same for larger non-mammalian species.

The trouble is fitting Bigfoot into the wider picture.

We know other hominids existed. We find remains fairly regularly, and entirely new species are a cause of excitement.

But. Bigfoot is seemingly native to North America. Which has no native species of Great Ape at all. Nor have we found fossils/remains of tall, bipedal hominids or Great Apes anywhere else in the world. That’s unusual, because of the evolutionary traits for bipedalism we see in modern humans and other hominids in the records. So there’s nothing particularly compelling to suggest a Bigfoot would be out there.

And so if it is real? It would be a significant discovery, as it would add a big old “not currently known” branch to the tree.

Yep its the same problem as the Loch Ness Monster surviving for generations in a single loch with an isolated population that manages to breed and remain viable for millennia without really being seen or leaving no corpses or evidence.

I’m more inclined to believe in Dinosaur like creatures in the deep Amazon, because that is a truly massive area of Stuff. And a complete sod to explore, either just in general or with an archaeological or palentoliogical intent.

And there are really bizarre areas. I saw a documentary a while back which included a lagoon/pond area which was either incredibly acidic or really hot. Or something like that. We understand how that all works though, so unusual but not mysterious. But it goes to show that other unusual areas most probably do exist, so applying What We Know is a poor second compared to actually going and finding out in that instance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Though another thought on Plesiosaurs and Nessie and that?

We know that, at least at one point? That was a successful body plan. Long neck with fine, needle like teeth, limbs adapted to paddles, and presumably able to hold its breath for significant periods work. And so whilst I very much doubt a species of Plesiosaur remains alive anywhere? I’m not going to rule out another species evolving into much the same niche, with much the same body plan.

Especially in barely explored areas like the Amazon or Congo. And so “but dinosaurs are extinct therefore no Nessie, Moseley-Mbembe etc” is a somewhat blinkered view, as really it only rules out those Cryptids being extant dinosaur species, not the possibility of their existence, period.

 Overread wrote:
Yep its the same problem as the Loch Ness Monster surviving for generations in a single loch with an isolated population that manages to breed and remain viable for millennia without really being seen or leaving no corpses or evidence.

Well, Loch Ness isn't isolated. It is open on both ends to the ocean.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Yep its the same problem as the Loch Ness Monster surviving for generations in a single loch with an isolated population that manages to breed and remain viable for millennia without really being seen or leaving no corpses or evidence.

Well, Loch Ness isn't isolated. It is open on both ends to the ocean.

Which is why I favour the "greenland shark" explanation for Nessie it is within their range and they do occasionally come to shallower waters. There are old accounts of possible shark incidents in Scottish lochs.

Or? It could be something with set breeding grounds, in the manner of Salmon. And so not always present in the Loch. And if it somehow didn’t have annual breeding seasons, we might reasonably expect sightings to be rare.

This thread got me reading one of Loren Coleman’s books on Cryptozoology, and it’s surprising how many places keep reporting sightings of short, furry hominids. The accounts range from the coasts of Africa to Vietnam, Siberia to Florida. Often the descriptions include white patches or piebald coloring, skittish behavior and whistling types of noises. Bigfoot seems to be the odd hominid out, being a giant rather than diminutive.

On the one hand, the consistency of the descriptions* sure makes it sound like people are seeing the same kind of thing. On the other hand, the lack of physical evidence seems even more significant if such creatures are really so widespread. Seems like we have a type for misidentifying forest critters.

*The book classifies sightings of furry bipeds hanging out with UFOs, or having three toes or pointed ears, to be something else, as they tend to fit into a different pattern, more like Mothman sightings and the like.

To me its a little like the sightings of a "big cat" and how similar they are the world over.


It might well simply be a function of the human mind a little like how many people who get sleep paralysis envision a person standing over them; or the nightmare of teeth falling out.


Ergo there is a pattern taking place, but its more to do with how our brains work rather than something actually being there. So it could be that when we have an incomplete image of a situation - drunk, dark conditions, foggy, disorientated, panicked etc... - the brain tries to fill in the gaps and does so in a series of ways that are very similar.

Perhaps often landing on "ok I don't know what that is but that shape is KIND OF like a big cat/predator so DANGER THREAT. Especially when you consider that a big cat is very similar to a large dog or any other major four legged predatory animal.



So its something that's triggering a series of thought patterns that's creating the very same (or similar) mental image of a threat or potentially threatening thing. Notice how in all these cases its often something threatening, scary or otherwise dangerous.


Things like this have been used to justify things such as "Genetic memory" and "instinctive knowledge" and so forth. Using the argument that many people in the model world have never had reason to fear a big cat because they don't exist in the wild as a threat. So you wouldn't "learn" it. However it seems to be a bit different to that in that it is something on a genetic/instinctive level, but not quite the whole genetic learning angle (that is generally regarded as fake science).

Well, much of the world has big cats, with lots of physical evidence. And they do pose a danger as they sometimes attack and even kill people. I consider most of the sightings the world over to be credible.

Also, people keep Big Cats as pets. And by no means is everyone doing that meant to be doing that.

So whilst I don’t think we’re looking at a wild, breeding population in the UK? ABC’s escaped from captivity seems plausible - especially if the erstwhile owner recaptures it on the quiet.

It makes sense from a basic evolutionary perspective. Primitive people whose minds are better at pattern recognition, and can more easily make out a lurking predatory beast, are less likely to be eaten by said beast and will be more likely to pass on their genes to the next generation. It may end up to the point where some false positives are generated, but that has relatively little evolutionary cost when compared to being much less likely to be scoffed by a lion.

OK, people aren't getting eaten by lions regularly in most of the world nowadays - but once a trait is in the gene pool it doesn't get back out again easily.

I posted guff about just that early on in this thread.

Super short version is those risk adverse would see something vaguely bear/lion shaped, and leave it well alone. Whether it was such a beasty or just a lump of stuff? The risk adverse survive. The reckless might kick the lump, and so not always survive.

Caution is a beneficial approach. Whether that’s instinct or education, those who practice caution had a tendency not suffer largely avoidable death.

There is also an evolutionary advantage to being curious, which may be why we find both curiosity and caution in humans.

And Gullibility - which is an offshoot of basically rapid response to stimulus/information.

It's why we don't stand there and wait for the shadowy thing that "could" be a big cat to get close to confirm it. We accept very readily that FIRST impression that its a "big cat" in the shadows and we respond to that. It takes a LOT more information on the situation for us to change that first impression.


As noted, this is a good survival element to have because it makes us quicker to react to possible dangers and risky situations which boosts the chances of survival. Of course it has to be tempered otherwise we'd be jumping at everything and so forth, but it is right there in all of us

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Yep its the same problem as the Loch Ness Monster surviving for generations in a single loch with an isolated population that manages to breed and remain viable for millennia without really being seen or leaving no corpses or evidence.

Well, Loch Ness isn't isolated. It is open on both ends to the ocean.

Not really..?

Just for general conversation, we do need to consider when it comes to descriptions of Cryptids that we in the modern day are spoiled.

I know and have seen with my own eyes that Elephants exist. The same with Duckbilled Platypus.

Yet if you were to describe them to someone utterly unaware of their existence? They’d think you were having them on. Indeed the Duckbilled Platypus was originally considered a hoax, with a pelt and sketch sent to Great Britain subjected to all sorts of checks, including looking for stitches.

Narwhal’s are another one. Basically a sea unicorn, yet they absolutely do exist. And like Rhino horn, Narhwal tusks were once presented as Unicorn horns to royalty.

And so who knows what other creatures with bizarre and unique body plans might exist out there.

I’m going to be charitable and show my desire for genuine transparency and goodwill here and make the statement that I believe all of the comments in this thread are coming from a place genuinely interested in stimulating lively discussion. The alternative isn’t flattering, particularly if it reveals various positions that are argued to be more ‘truthful’ as actually those based in relative ignorance of the topic itself, so let’s proceed by covering some basic points that I think can be labeled ‘uncontroversial’ and easy to verify without much effort.

1. My stated aim opening this thread was to hear about other people’s ‘thoughts’ (stated clearly as such) on the issue of what is called ‘Bigfoot’. I stated I had some thoughts on the matter, and I stated I have spoken to some who claim to have had personal experiences with this ‘entity’ or ‘phenomenon’, and that is all I said. Nowhere did I state I had scientific propositions, anything approximating scientific theory, uncontroversial evidence or that I wished to provide a philosophical treatise on the nature of the scientific method. If people here have seen anywhere in my original post evidence of these things I am sorry you experienced such an event and can only speculate as to what that means. If they haven’t, and let’s face it they haven’t, then what has slowly unfolded over the course of this ‘discussion’ here represents either a misunderstanding, malice, or something else. I believe the nature of the possible ‘something else’ might indeed be found in the philosophy of science, but as I have been keen to reiterate, time and again, that is not and was never what this thread was opened with the intention to discuss, and I have reiterated that point to absurdity at this stage. I will ignore all attempts to steer the conversation in that direction, so do not take my silence on the matter as evidence of anything other than me not engaging with a topic I have explicitly reiterated I have no desire to get into the weeds about. If you are satisfied the lack of ‘empirical data’ means little more can be said on this topic and you are inclined to dismiss it as all bunk as a result I congratulate you on your steadfast commitment to this view and feel it is a very sensible position to take. It is NOT my position at all, for reasons I will out line.

2. I have stated, time and again, that the cultural phenomenon of ‘Bigfoot’ cannot, is not, and will not ever be reduced to an argument for the existence of a large unknown primate. This does not represent the phenomenon in question accurately at all. What IS an accurate representation of the phenomenon is a vast amount of anecdotal evidence that for centuries human beings have been recounting stories of encounters with a large, often hairy, upright walking creature that seemingly can appear and disappear with ease in a host of environments leaving little else but footprints in its wake. Is that all? No, far from it. Accounts include descriptions of Bigfoot as apelike, more of a baboon shape, doglike, wolflike or something akin to an ‘ogre’ (whatever that is supposed to mean). Moreover, the accounts include descriptions of strange lights (yes, that is UAPs these days), the ‘oz’ effect, disorientation, electrical malfunction and a host of other bizarre events. Why is this important? Well in order to discuss a phenomenon you need to have a working appreciation of the claims that are being made regarding said phenomenon in the first place. So far in this thread I have seen individuals discussing the unlikelihood of a large primate wandering around parts of the Pacific Northwest or other isolated regions. That’s valid, and fun, and it might be true (I personally do not think that is what we are looking at) but let us all be clear here… such a view of the phenomenon of what is called ‘Bigfoot’ simply does not accurately represent the information in the cultural field we have readily available to all.

3. What is called ‘Bigfoot’ is closely associated with UAPs and other ‘woo’ amongst many interested parties actively discussing the topic. I think that point is made clear in the above section, but the meaning of that point is often lost by those who simply hear such a thing and immediately begin to drift off into a knee jerk desire to ‘deboonk’ the phenomenon. Why is this fact important? Well, because we have admissions by scientifically minded individuals that the study of UAPs has been actively undertaken by government entities for a very long time, with concomitant funding and the scandals you’d expect in such matters occasionally breaking into mainstream news. In fact, it is even more spectacular than that, we have a situation where ‘scientific’ interest in the issue is being publicly ‘admitted’ through the very social institutions whom the public turn to in order to gauge acceptable attitudes towards this subject. Furthermore, it has created a dichotomy (at least perceived amongst many) that science itself might be unable to fully account for some form of ‘phenomenon’ with which our institutions of government are claiming to be worthy of ‘study’. If the societal implications of this are lost on people here I admit defeat and indeed agree there is nothing worthy of discussion. See you all back in the Stone Age,

To put it succinctly, no outcome here, in turns of an explanation of what is actually going on, is particularly comfortable to contemplate,

Now, if it makes one more comfortable, we can agree to discuss what function such narratives surrounding ‘Bigfoot’ might serve either unconsciously or consciously to our social and cultural milieu, and I have no problem with that, but in the meantime I hope I have made my position here clearer, and I hope any misunderstandings can be laid to rest.

I suspect there are a few people here whose views I do not share at all, in fact I suspect I might find them severely lacking at a fundamental level, but let’s not act surprised about that. One can find the necessary clues as to the basis for such disagreements very very early on in this thread, and it is clear an exploration of those topics is not on the agenda, so in the interest of keeping this friendly and good natured, let’s see where we can agree.

I think you should read your first paragraph with fresh eyes, as if someone else wrote it, and ask yourself if you would want to have a conversation with the guy who wrote it.

Also, brevity is the soul of people reading past your first paragraph.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I think you should read your first paragraph with fresh eyes, as if someone else wrote it, and ask yourself if you would want to have a conversation with the guy who wrote it.

Also, brevity is the soul of people reading past your first paragraph.

Not sure exactly what you’re getting at here Bob? I’m clarifying my position for those who have trouble understanding it, at least that is my intention. What strikes you as off?

I’m asking this genuinely. What is problematic here and I’ll make appropriate changes so as not to offend etc

Minor quibble:
Sasquatch being associated with UAPs and other "woo" phenomenon is fairly recent. I think it was early 2000s when it started getting linked together?