Fossilized Bigfoot track reported found

[scotthm]

If your mind is so firmly made up, why are you bothering to even discuss the subject?

Seriously, what sense does it make to ask for evidence, then admit that you will not consider said evidence and, further, then announce you will not consider position other than where you started?

I haven't said I wouldn't consider evidence or be willing to change my position if convincing evidence is found and presented. But I haven't seen any indication of such compelling evidence in this thread. All you've given me is a stone found by a retiree, but not yet investigated by experts, and the name of a couple of books, which I'm not going to buy, but I'm more than happy to have you discuss in detail, if you'd like.

Have there been any papers published in peer reviewed scientific journals about any of this evidence you believe exists? Are significant numbers of bona fide scientists convinced that "Bigfoot" may exist in modern times?

you just act as an irritant and a harrassing detractor. You admit you're not informed on the subject. You refuse to BECOME informed on the subject and you act as if your ill-informed position is somehow relevant and justified.

What I admit is that I'm not buying any books on the subject. You and others are more than welcome to inform me as to the facts right here, if you'd like. I'll read it, and give the information due consideration. As I said earlier, I don't know that Bigfoot doesn't exist, I'm just not convinced that such creatures do exist. If my skepticism irritates you, I'm sorry.

---------------

 

[Zachary Smith]

If your mind is so firmly made up, why are you bothering to even discuss the subject?

Seriously, what sense does it make to ask for evidence, then admit that you will not consider said evidence and, further, then announce you will not consider position other than where you started?

I haven't said I wouldn't consider evidence or be willing to change my position if convincing evidence is found and presented. But I haven't seen any indication of such compelling evidence in this thread. All you've given me is a stone found by a retiree, but not yet investigated by experts, and the name of a couple of books, which I'm not going to buy, but I'm more than happy to have you discuss in detail, if you'd like.

Have there been any papers published in peer reviewed scientific journals about any of this evidence you believe exists? Are significant numbers of bona fide scientists convinced that "Bigfoot" may exist in modern times?

you just act as an irritant and a harrassing detractor. You admit you're not informed on the subject. You refuse to BECOME informed on the subject and you act as if your ill-informed position is somehow relevant and justified.

What I admit is that I'm not buying any books on the subject. You and others are more than welcome to inform me as to the facts right here, if you'd like. I'll read it, and give the information due consideration. As I said earlier, I don't know that Bigfoot doesn't exist, I'm just not convinced that such creatures do exist. If my skepticism irritates you, I'm sorry.

---------------

What irritates me is NOT your "skepticism" but rather your insistence that I somehow convince you that this issue merits some consideration. Research HAS been conducted; I referred you to TWO quality books on the subject. Do your OWN research if you are interested because I'm NOT particularly interested in duplicating a bunch of other people's work for your consumption because you are either too lazy or too disinterested to consider the information for yourself. Or maybe "teh Google" doesn't work on your computer.

I can't respect your "skepticism" because you are unqualified to have an opinion worth considering because you have done NO research at ALL on the subject. You've merely formulated a superficial opinion based on gut-feeling that you want to repeat over and over while decrying the fact that I won't hold your hand and repeat a lot of other people's work in easy-to-igest bits for you to chew on. Ain't my job to convince you. If you want to discuss some aspect of the inquiry or the evidence or the results of people's work, I'm glad to consider it. If you want me to TUTOR you on the subject so that you can then "debte" me over the information I gave you n the first place, I'm NOT interested. That just tells me you're more interested in arguing than you are in the subject.

Go read a book, spend some time studying on the internet (it's FREE, ya know!). Learn something about the subject and I'll discuss any aspect of it with you. Just don't expect me to TEACH you about it so you can debate me. I'm NOT that much of a masochist. Ya see, the subject interests me, NOT you and you uninformed opinions.

 

[Psion]

Put me in the 'skeptical, but it'd be fascinating if it's real' camp. As SamuraiBlue has pointed out, there are lots of fossils out there that don't fit current theory if taken at face value. Creationists love to point out dinosaur and human foot print fossils as evidence of their cherished beliefs.

This bigfoot fossil is either a genuine fossil print left by a large organism, a carefully manufactured fake that's capable of duping news reporters, or a simulacrum that looks like a foot, but was in reality left by an unlikely arrangement of stones, leaves, or other, less "compelling" prints that was later distorted. The same can be said for each of the other weird fossils mentioned.

At this point, I'd give each theory about this print's origins about the same weight, pardon the pun, and look forward to a detailed report from experts.

As far as Bigfoot as an organism in modern North America is concerned, it sure seems unlikely that such an animal would have escaped scientific notice by now. I suppose a shy hominid that buries its dead is possible ... and there's no question that mainstream scientists treat Bigfoot like a third rail for their career, but there are dedicated cryptozoologists out there and so far, the best they seem to be able turn up are interesting footprints, matted grass, and occasional scat samples that don't seem to lead to anything. It'd be nice if there was a well-funded expedition into the north west forests specifically organized to look for the beast, but as I've observed, the liklihood of any zoologist with serious credentials trying to organize such a hunt is about the same as Bigfoot turning himself into the local forestry service for questioning.

So we're left with a mystery. Blurry movies, grainy photos, odd footprints, and questionable eyewitness accounts. The lack of solid evidence isn't enough to prove the lack of the animal, but it doesn't do anything to bolster the stories, either.

I hope they do find a living specimen some day. I like some mystery in my world, and it'd be so cool to be able to turn to my fellow skeptics and say, "We said Bigfoot wasn't real for sixty years and we were wrong ... how can you be so sure about this other mystery?" A little humility is a good thing, you see. Heck, maybe it'd prove to be a major boon to science, grabbing the imagination of school kids and diverting a little money into reexamining dogmatic preconceptions that have made a number of fringe sciences dangerous career choices.

And it'd be neat to look into such an animal's eyes and see our own past. If Bigfoot is real, he's almost certainly an offshoot of hominids, possibly even a direct ancestor of homo sapiens. An over-sized h. erectus or h. ergaster, perhaps? Or maybe there's something even weirder involved ... a breakdown in realities that lets "supernatural" beasts from different worlds crossover ... glitches in the computer or program that runs our reality ... anti-social outcasts of a vast, subterranean empire of hairy giants ... experiments or pets of visiting extraterrestrials that have escaped ... inbred families of feral trekkies that have lived in the woods for centuries and now have little in common with their human ancestors.

I just want a little more to go on than a footprint and some blurry photos, that's all.

 

[scotthm]

What irritates me is NOT your "skepticism" but rather your insistence that I somehow convince you that this issue merits some consideration.

Well, you're the one that started this thread in the first place, and called the footprint "compelling", so any burdon of proof (and as far as I'm concerned there is none) would fall to you.

But calm yourself with the knowledge that I'm expecting the information to come my way quite readily if proof of a contemporary Bigfoot is found. After all, the hoaxes have no problem making the news, I'm sure the real thing would catch at least as much attention.

---------------

 

[SamuraiBlue]

The problem with modern Academia and our society as a whole is that we tend to cling on to solution that shows promise but may not provide answers to promise as methodology progresses and/or new evidence proves otherwise.

We are taught of history and it is conceived that history does not change because it is of the past.
This is the biggest mistake since although it is the history we will always find controversial evidence to doubt initial assessment or we may find an all right fraud within evidence intential or otherwise to mislead findings.
Everyone is so sure that events happened one hundred years ago is correct to the letter and yet as we do research you may find compeling evidence to consider otherwise.
If you take this learning in to archaeology or anthropology, are you confident that things that may have happened suggested by bones are actually the whole truth?

Wether it be conspiracy or compeling evidence you really need to scrutinize all evidence not just the one that were handed by the prosecutors but also the one think that people consider as anomaly and reach your own opinion.

 

[Zachary Smith]

What irritates me is NOT your "skepticism" but rather your insistence that I somehow convince you that this issue merits some consideration.

Well, you're the one that started this thread in the first place, and called the footprint "compelling", so any burdon of proof (and as far as I'm concerned there is none) would fall to you.

But calm yourself with the knowledge that I'm expecting the information to come my way quite readily if proof of a contemporary Bigfoot is found. After all, the hoaxes have no problem making the news, I'm sure the real thing would catch at least as much attention.

---------------

Which is, of course, your own elaborate method of saing you're NOT really interested in the subject. Pro or con, truth or fiction, so long as someone ELSE brings you the news, you're receptive to hearing it. Big deal. Your participation is nil--other than your muckraking.

Yeah, I started the thread because I consider it an interesting topic. You charged in, ill-informed on the subject and bursting with a superficial negativity based on a gut-instinct which you want to over-qualify as "skepticism". What you are really exhibiting is nothing more than a cynical hubris--the belief that you are qualified to make a judegement on the matter even though you have considered NO evidence. When presented with the option of LOOKING at the evidence, you protest, at least honestly this time, that your interest in the subject is insufficient to sustain the time/expense and you'd rather I read it to you in the form of a bed-time story.

What an absotlutely STRANGE mind-set you have here. Do you enter into other threads where a concept is being discussed, expecting one side or the other to EDUCATE you in the background of the subject so you can participate? Do you join in games, expecting to play on the team before you know the rules?

Look, EVERYONE is entitled to an opinion--even superficial, ill-informed opinions. If you want to have a CREDIBLE opinion, it helps to have done a bit of research on the matter at hand. Coming in shouting, "I know NOTHING about this subject beyond the basics and I REFUSE to learn but by GOD! I'm here to disagree with you" really amounts more to some kind of weird performance theater than it does intelligent debate.

I started this thread because I'm interested in this subject and I'm curious in hearing other people's thoughts about this story. Now, I've seen enough of your postings in other threads to get a sense that you pride yourself on being a "skeptic" (though, if you are as ill-informed on other subjects are as you are this one, you are NOT a skeptic but, rather, an uninformed doubter). You, no doubt, are certain you are "nobody's fool" and seem to actually hold a certain contempt for thoughts that lie outside the main-stream. You probably fancy that you are quite intelligent and feel there is some deficit in the thinking of those who hold opinions you see as "silly". Now, you may be right and you may be wrong on any number of subjects. There are OBJECTIVE truths at the heart of all matters. Case in point, either Bigfoot exists of it does not. OPINION, neither yours nor mine, alters that reality in the least.

What IS important, IMHO is the consideration of possibilities. Now, it's all good and fair if you're just not interested in a subject--hell, there's any number I'm not interested in. But I WILL absolutely submit to you and I will maintain that in ALL things, there is more to be gained in the consideration of possibilities than there is in the outright dismissal of an idea without proper examination. No, none of us will examine all ideas with equal vigor. Some things interested us more than others. As such, if you CHOOSE to participate in the examination of ideas, one has the obligation of either BECOMING educated on the concepts of the subject or acknowledging that his opinion is superficial and based on spurious reasoning.

Now, as I said, I started this thread because this is a subject that interests me. Clearly it does NOT interest you. What interests you is the promotion of your "skepticism" and the advancement of your public identity here as a "skeptic". Again, there is more to being a "skeptic" than simply being a naysayer and pointing the finger and shouting "burden of proof on you". You need to KNOW something about the subject under consideration in order to have credibility. To argue with nothing more than "common sense dictates" or "extraodinary claims/extraodinary evidence" is just lazy. It's also just a simply courtesy to learn a bit about what's being discussed before entering a coversation.

 

[scotthm]

so long as someone ELSE brings you the news, you're receptive to hearing it.

Quite right. I'm interested in news, but don't plan to devote my life to searching for Bigfoot.

By the way, the very first words of your OP were...

Any naysayers care to theorize...?

so I'll just let that speak for itself. Admittedly I haven't offered an alternative theory for this 'footprint', and so with that, I guess I'm done. Sorry to have gotten you so worked up.

---------------

 

[Zachary Smith]

so long as someone ELSE brings you the news, you're receptive to hearing it.

Quite right. I'm interested in news, but don't plan to devote my life to searching for Bigfoot.

By the way, the very first words of your OP were...

Any naysayers care to theorize...?

so I'll just let that speak for itself. Admittedly I haven't offered an alternative theory for this 'footprint', and so with that, I guess I'm done. Sorry to have gotten you so worked up.

---------------

I'm not upset. I just get frustrated when people seem to make determinations about something when they haven't considered all the facts.

 

[Psion]

Absolutely SamuraiBlue! Look at how many reinterpretations of Jefferson and Lincoln we've seen ... even with the same core set of facts, historical truths take on different meanings when seen from different perspectives. The Japanese tell a different version of World War II than do Americans or Chinese.

 

[Zachary Smith]

Put me in the 'skeptical, but it'd be fascinating if it's real' camp. As SamuraiBlue has pointed out, there are lots of fossils out there that don't fit current theory if taken at face value. Creationists love to point out dinosaur and human foot print fossils as evidence of their cherished beliefs.

This bigfoot fossil is either a genuine fossil print left by a large organism, a carefully manufactured fake that's capable of duping news reporters, or a simulacrum that looks like a foot, but was in reality left by an unlikely arrangement of stones, leaves, or other, less "compelling" prints that was later distorted. The same can be said for each of the other weird fossils mentioned.

At this point, I'd give each theory about this print's origins about the same weight, pardon the pun, and look forward to a detailed report from experts.

As far as Bigfoot as an organism in modern North America is concerned, it sure seems unlikely that such an animal would have escaped scientific notice by now. I suppose a shy hominid that buries its dead is possible ... and there's no question that mainstream scientists treat Bigfoot like a third rail for their career, but there are dedicated cryptozoologists out there and so far, the best they seem to be able turn up are interesting footprints, matted grass, and occasional scat samples that don't seem to lead to anything. It'd be nice if there was a well-funded expedition into the north west forests specifically organized to look for the beast, but as I've observed, the liklihood of any zoologist with serious credentials trying to organize such a hunt is about the same as Bigfoot turning himself into the local forestry service for questioning.

So we're left with a mystery. Blurry movies, grainy photos, odd footprints, and questionable eyewitness accounts. The lack of solid evidence isn't enough to prove the lack of the animal, but it doesn't do anything to bolster the stories, either.

I hope they do find a living specimen some day. I like some mystery in my world, and it'd be so cool to be able to turn to my fellow skeptics and say, "We said Bigfoot wasn't real for sixty years and we were wrong ... how can you be so sure about this other mystery?" A little humility is a good thing, you see. Heck, maybe it'd prove to be a major boon to science, grabbing the imagination of school kids and diverting a little money into reexamining dogmatic preconceptions that have made a number of fringe sciences dangerous career choices.

And it'd be neat to look into such an animal's eyes and see our own past. If Bigfoot is real, he's almost certainly an offshoot of hominids, possibly even a direct ancestor of homo sapiens. An over-sized h. erectus or h. ergaster, perhaps? Or maybe there's something even weirder involved ... a breakdown in realities that lets "supernatural" beasts from different worlds crossover ... glitches in the computer or program that runs our reality ... anti-social outcasts of a vast, subterranean empire of hairy giants ... experiments or pets of visiting extraterrestrials that have escaped ... inbred families of feral trekkies that have lived in the woods for centuries and now have little in common with their human ancestors.

I just want a little more to go on than a footprint and some blurry photos, that's all.

The numbers of creatures that would make up a viable sustaining breeding colony DOES seem a major negative whn considering wheher Bigfoot is real, as does the lack of remains recovered from those who may have died a natural death (assuming Bigfoot does not bury their dead--as has been speculated).

It's questions such as these that make the topic tantalizing to me. If Bigfoot is NOT real, who is manufacturing these increadibly detailed footprints, which are anatomically correct for a creature of tremendous weight and reveal details such as dermal ridges and sweatpores? If Bigfoot is NOT real, who is going around for years at a time, planting such tracks and maintaining enough variety in their faking technique that INDIVIDUAL characteristics can be seen, in some cases for DECADES at a time?

OTOH, if Bigfoot is real, WHERE are the numbers? How do breeding colonies sustain themselves without being discovered. Where ARE the dead ones? PEOPLE get hit by cars, why not Bigfoot? Why has it never once shown up on one of the millions of game-trail camera monitors placed around in various woods? Etc Etc?

It's the contradictions that make it a compelling and interesting subject for me. The stories of Bigfoot predate the discovery of a creature in the fossil record that might WELL match the anatomy of the legend. Is this an example of some kind of "species memory" or have some members of Gigantopithecus Blacki survived?

IF Bigfoot IS real, I have no doubt it will be eventually proven and, likely sooner than later, given the intensity of how Man is encroaching on Nature and swallowing up every acre. If it is NOT real, the legend will likely persist for a time and then, eventually, like stories of unicorns and dragons, fade into myth entirely.

 

[Unicron]

Those are indeed very interesting questions. I'm on the fence as far as Bigfoot, Nessie and other cryptids go; I don't think the odds are totally against the possiblity of these creatures, but some are definitely against them. It also seems odd to me that a creature like Bigfoot, if populations exist, wouldn't be detected by modern surveillance equipment.

I dunno. Personally, I'm more inclined to believe that ghosts are a better possibility, perhaps because their reports not only extend a long way into the historical record, but because hauntings (if some are genuine) seem to be recurring events.

 

[Zachary Smith]

Nessie, I do NOT believe in as that lake has been TOO well examined for anything to be hidden there. More, it seems like most of the "best" evidence for Nessie is pure hokum. This is not to say I'm closed to the idea of other "lake creatures". I find the Ogopogo interesting and I'd bet cash money there are undiscovered ocean dwelling animals.

As to modern survellience equipment, one wonders how many serious and quality attempts have been made. My 11 year old nephew pointed out, while we were watching one program about researchers looking for Bigfoot, "they ALWAYS do the same thing and they NEVER find one." And he's right. They camp out in a remote spot, howl into the woods and leave motion activated cameras along game trails. And they NEVER find Bigfoot. Is it because Bigfoot doesn't exist or is it because they simply keep trying the same FAILED ways of looking for him?

Personally, if I were to try to look for bigfoot, first I would look to apes. Examine their characteristics--see, for example, how well they they show up at night on starlite scopes, night scopes, infra red. Do they give heat signatures or does their hair hide that? Does weather and temperature effect their signal? I dunno.

I'd see which imaging system worked best at detection of an ape-like creature and then I'd set off above the forest in a hot air balloon, staying above the tree tops and scanning for traces. A hot air balloon is quiet, virtually silent compared to a plane or a helicopter. Scent would be WELL above the game level and no animal is likely to sense an odor from well above it. Porbably would disturb NOTHING on the ground that wasn't happeneing to look up at just the right moment. Pure stealth. I'd like to think that whole chunks of the forest could be scanned at a time using the right imaging equiment and I'd do test runs, using people and, perhaps even have some apes (with keepers, of course) present for test runs to see what we could see.

Anyhow, I think that beats nailing a motion-sensing camera to a tree on a game trail for the millionth time.

As to ghosts, a WHOLE another matter entirely. Could be a lot of things, from residual energy in the environment to conscious entity to psychological phenomenon. Subject or a whole different consideration IMHO.

 

[Unicron]

I agree. Some ghost hunters do the same thing - they either don't set up their equipment properly, or they too eagerly attribute things to the paranormal which are natural. Orbs are a primary example of this, as they're the least reliable form of evidence. True orbs are supposed to be manifestations of energy, and that's why they're important to the research, but visually it's too easy to catch dust, bugs, or reflections. They look pretty much the same, so they are unreliable.

 

[Crewman47]

Excuse my ignorance on this but how can a foot print survive thousands, or even millions for Dinosaurs, of years in order to become fossilised? It's like that whatever made the print was able to do so that that spot would never get disturbed again by any other event. How can that be?

 

[PlixTixiplik]

So the big question is: considering the rock he found the track in Mississippian in age (i.e. 320-360 million years old), why would anyone think it could be Bigfoot? To make it plausible he should have at least found it in an area with late Cenozoic rocks. Not to mention that what he has doesn't even look like a footprint at all.

-MEC

 

[Unicron]

Excuse my ignorance on this but how can a foot print survive thousands, or even millions for Dinosaurs, of years in order to become fossilised? It's like that whatever made the print was able to do so that that spot would never get disturbed again by any other event. How can that be?

Because once the fossilization takes place, the footprint becomes rock. Rock, though not immune to erosion and other natural effects, is pretty resilient. I've found fossilized sea organisms (primitive barnacles, shells, and even a segmented worm) in the mountains of West Virginia, very well preserved. These specimens are in fairly small rocks now, of course, but when the animals were fossilized that material was part of the Atlantic Ocean floor. At some point in time they were broken off from the WVA mountains and swept by water to the point where I found them.

Actually, I took pictures of the worm fossil. I should really upload those to my host. One thing I found interesting in the shell specimen, which includes the shells of several different species (all of which still exist) is that some of the shell impressions are quite deep, which means the mud that became rock must have been fairly soft.

 

[Crewman47]

Sorry I wasn't clear in my question. I understand in lamens terms how fossilisation works but I just don't understand how a foot print can be fossilised. When you put your foot on the ground hard enough to cause a noticeable imprint then how much of a chance is there that a person or animal of similar size, or anything else, can't go over that print in a way that levels out the ground to it's previous, or similar position.

Or is there much more to this that I don't know about?

 

[Timo]

As I understand it, all fossilized footprints found so far are of muddy river banks or similar soft surfaces that were covered in volcanic dust or a layer of silt from a deluge basically immediately after the beast had disappeared around the bend. There would be two layers of dissimilar material there, then, one perturbed and the other not - but the second layer would have to become very thick very rapidly so that further beasts walking on it wouldn't disrupt the boundary layer.

If it weren't that unlikely to happen, one would assume fossilized footprints would be more common than pebbles, really.

Timo Saloniemi