# Bigfoot...Sasquatch, Legend Meets Science **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 22, 2006, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigfoot-sasquatch-legend-meets-science/345648 "2006-02-22T17:03:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![ouryL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ouryl/32/6067_2.png) [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigfoot-sasquatch-legend-meets-science/345648/61 "2006-02-23T06:50:45Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I don’t know if anyone bothered reading any of the links I posted this morning, but I was wondering folks thoughts on this (and what the debunk is): > > In my defense of watching The Discovery Channel…Mythbusters is also shown there. 🙂 > > -XT One was a bulge or hernia in the thigh of the creature as captured in high definition reproduction of a extremely small sequence of the Patterson footage. The bulge went undetected for almost 35 years, Haijcek said, and now some scientists are concluding because of the hernia, leg movements and stride of the sasquatch, it simply is not possible that what has been seen on film for 35 years was a man dressed in a monkey suit. Huh? I thought the original film was lost. How do you make a high-def version of a copy of an eight mil film? ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigfoot-sasquatch-legend-meets-science/345648/62 "2006-02-23T12:14:55Z")
Well, first you hire seethroughart, and then you start using that CSI image enhancement technology. With computers. Some people don’t understand the concept of artifacts in images. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigfoot-sasquatch-legend-meets-science/345648/63 "2006-02-23T14:12:09Z")
> [@Malodorous](#): > > What was the last large mammal of any sort discovered by scientists in N. America? Have thier been any in the last hundred years? The saola (pseudoryx nghetinhensis) - a cow/goat like mammal discovered in Vietnam in 1992. It is the latest of six mammals found in the last 100 years or so. Lack of fossil evidence etc isn’t much of an argument - there is _not one_ single example of a continuous fossil sequence showing stages of evolution, and what we know (well, think) about evolution is based on a soberingly limited amount of fossil evidence, particularly when you think about the millions of humans that have walked the earth in the last six-ten thousand years or so. Ditto for animals, and it’s not like you run across old human or animal remains or bones everytime you take a nature hike. Now, I’m with you guys - I haven’t seen any evidence to make me believe bigfoot exists - but my view was that the _lack_ of particular evidence can’t really be used to argue that it doesn’t exist. But I have zero experience and technical knowlege in this field, so I could well just be talking out my ass. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigfoot-sasquatch-legend-meets-science/345648/64 "2006-02-23T14:57:44Z")
Psst. North America. Not Asia. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigfoot-sasquatch-legend-meets-science/345648/65 "2006-02-23T15:19:30Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Psst. North America. Not Asia. America, Asia, all the same, right? N. America, hmmm. I believe some mammal believed to be extinct was found not too long ago in Cuba? ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigfoot-sasquatch-legend-meets-science/345648/66 "2006-02-23T15:25:15Z")
> [@Khadaji](#): > > One thing that always bothers me is we are quick to dismiss thousands of people who have claimed to see something - and equally quick to embrace one man’s claim that he was in the monkey suit. How much proof does he bring? Where is the monkey suit? _ahem_ SHOW ME THE MONKEY!!! ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigfoot-sasquatch-legend-meets-science/345648/67 "2006-02-23T15:38:29Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > And how would you classify, oh, say a bigfoot? 😉 > > -XT Sometimes a moose, sometimes a bear, sometimes a person in a monkey suit. Yeah, I said monkey suit. “Ape suit” doesn’t have the same comedic ring. Nor fur suit. I use monkey colloquially, the same way creationists like to say I believe we’re monkeys. **DocCathode** , I’d like to see your cite that hair and feces have been found of an unknown mammal. _Not_ results that were inconclusive, but results that concluded these were from an animal never before identified. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigfoot-sasquatch-legend-meets-science/345648/68 "2006-02-23T15:46:13Z")
Having studied ( by this I mean 'read a lot about") Cryptozoology, I’d have to classify Bigfoot as one of those creatures in the 99.99% doubtful class, along with Nessie. To give a more likely example, I’d put finding a live Tasmanian Wolf at over 10%. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigfoot-sasquatch-legend-meets-science/345648/69 "2006-02-23T17:08:18Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > And how would you classify, oh, say a bigfoot? 😉 > > -XT If I discovered it? _Borealopithicus macei_. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigfoot-sasquatch-legend-meets-science/345648/70 "2006-02-23T18:04:30Z")
> [@Khadaji](#): > > I’m not asking you to get on board. Hell, I’m not on board. What I’m asking is, why do we embrace a man’s claim without proof? Ah, I misunderstood you. I don’t embrace that man’s claim to be the one in the suit without proof. I accept that it was a man in a suit based on the film. > [@](#): > > Nonsense. I expect the same rigorous skepticism to be applied to any claim made, even the ones we want to embrace. His confession does not prove that there was a hoax. The film itself is proof of a hoax. > [@](#): > > If he could provide us with proof beyound some rather thin eye witness accounts, that would be proof. The fur suit would certainly be proof. The suit would not be proof. After watching the film, anybody could make a suit to match it. > [@](#): > > We have eye witness accounts that bigfoot exists, and yet we are saying that there are no hairs, no feces, no bones. We are asking for _proof_. I am asking for the same regarding his confession. Was he the man in the suit? Maybe, maybe not. But we have ample evidence that the film is a hoax showing a man in a suit- the film itself. > [@](#): > > Occams razor is just another way of saying in the absence of proof, we’ll go with our best guess. It is not a law and is thrown around here as if it provides an undisputable arguement. It is mere words. It is you who are unfamiliar with Occam’s razor. In its true form, it is simply this “Never multiply entities beyond necessity.”. It is often mistated as “The simplest explanation which fits all the facts is usually the correct one.”. We know that humans exist. We know that some of them put on hoaxes. There is no reason why the subject of the film could not be a man in a suit. Either we accept a creature that has evaded capture for centuries, leaves no clear hair, dung, or bone samples, and can’t be tracked, OR we accept that the film is a man in a suit. Which conclusion multiplies entities beyond necessity? > [@](#): > > But I am reluctant to accept his claim as proof that the film was a hoax. Fine. Just accept the film itself as proof that the film was a hoax. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigfoot-sasquatch-legend-meets-science/345648/71 "2006-02-23T18:10:33Z")
> [@bup](#): > > **DocCathode** , I’d like to see your cite that hair and feces have been found of an unknown mammal. _Not_ results that were inconclusive, but results that concluded these were from an animal never before identified. I never said that. I said that dung and hair samples claimed to be sasquatch always turned out to be _known_ animals. EG “I have proof that bigfoot exists! I have these tufts of hair and these bigfoot droppings!” ``` "After analysis, this hair is not bigfoot but the hair of a bear. As for the feces, we have now scientifically proven that yes, bears do indeed do that in the woods." ``` ---
**Author:** ![Khadaji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Khadaji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Khadaji)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigfoot-sasquatch-legend-meets-science/345648/72 "2006-02-23T20:29:30Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > Ah, I misunderstood you. I don’t embrace that man’s claim to be the one in the suit without proof. I accept that it was a man in a suit based on the film. > \ DocCathode you are being disingenuous. I said: > [@](#): > > One thing that always bothers me is we are quick to dismiss thousands of people who have claimed to see something - and equally quick to embrace one man’s claim that he was in the monkey suit. How much proof does he bring? Where is the monkey suit? > Reply With Quote Why did you respond to a question regarding embracing a man’s claim, if you don’t embrace his claims? And why ask me this: > [@](#): > > Did you read the Wikipedia article on him? The rest of your response to me is made based on you preferring to discuss whether or not the film is a hoax. > [@](#): > > The film itself is proof of a hoax. > [@](#): > > Was he the man in the suit? Maybe, maybe not. But we have ample evidence that the film is a hoax showing a man in a suit- the film itself. > [@](#): > > Fine. Just accept the film itself as proof that the film was a hoax. I have made no claims regarding the film being a hoax. My question was and remains: Why are we so quick to believe a man’s confession based on little evidence? And upon closer inspection of the thread, a much \*better \*response to my question would actually be: No one here \*really \*embraced the claim. The truth is \*\*Xtisme \*\*mentioned it and \*\*ElvisL1ves \*\*helpfully provided a link - but no one really used it as a cite. So my question, in retrospect, is not useful to the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigfoot-sasquatch-legend-meets-science/345648/73 "2006-02-23T21:47:40Z")
I thought Monkey Suits came with cumberbuns. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2006, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigfoot-sasquatch-legend-meets-science/345648/74 "2006-02-23T23:07:57Z")
> [@GargoyleWB](#): > > This is a neat link…an [image-stabilized](http://www.bigfootencounters.com/files/mk_davis_pgf.gif) version of the famous Patterson film. > > It is up to you of course to determine whether or not it could be ergonimically replicated by a human in a suit. > > To my eyes though, it looks like a suit. My call, for what it’s worth: man in an ape suit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bigfoot-sasquatch-legend-meets-science/345648.md?page=3)