# Could Bigfoot be real? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 31, 2014, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-bigfoot-be-real/689680 "2014-05-31T02:52:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![common\_good](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f475e1/32.png) [@common\_good](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/common_good)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-bigfoot-be-real/689680/121 "2014-06-18T21:24:59Z")
I don’t know. If it did, it would have big feet. Plural. That’s about all I got. On the OP’s question, I mean; not the end of my legs, which are frequently being pulled by such inane matters. I don’t mind but my legs get no longer, I note. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-bigfoot-be-real/689680/122 "2014-06-18T23:08:45Z")
I have also looked into “bigfoot” and the so-called “evidence” of Native American myth and legends are vague, fabricated or not properly documented. Bigfoot is 100% hoax and recent hoax, too. Now, a Yeti? Lots of native evidence going back centuries. Doesn’t mean there are any now, or even if there were giant snow apes in recent millennium. But, with that much smoke, going back that far, I think there’s _something_. Likely a sub-species of a local bear? Maybe even a new species? I mean scientists have never seen a live or whole Tibetan blue bear. New, and “large” species are found, every decade. Generally the natives are totally aware they exist, but “white man” misunderstood or didn’t believe or misclassified: Olinguito _(Bassaricyon neblina)_ Caqueta monkey Blossom bat _Syconycteris sp nov,_ mountain porcupine of Brazil _Coendou baturitensis_ Laotian giant flying squirrel.\*Biswamoyopterus laoensis \* (These were been eaten as “bush meat!”) Oncilla = _Leopardus tigrinus_ yellow-striped chevrotain \*(Moschiola kathygre) \* Large-Antlered Muntjac (_Muntiacus vuquangensis_) Myanmar snub-nosed monkey (\*Rhinopithecus strykeri) \* These are all decently sized Mammals. Not Yeti sized, by no means, but the Muntjac weighs maybe 100#. So, that’s a new species of mammal, small human sized, “discovered” only a decade or so ago. No Bigfoot, no. But having the “yeti” be a undiscovered bear? Sure, why not? ---
**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:** [June 18, 2014, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-bigfoot-be-real/689680/123 "2014-06-18T23:31:19Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > These are all decently sized Mammals. Not Yeti sized, by no means, but the Muntjac weighs maybe 100#. > > So, that’s a new species of mammal, small human sized, “discovered” only a decade or so ago. > > No Bigfoot, no. But having the “yeti” be a undiscovered bear? Sure, why not? Because “white men” have been looking for physical evidence for decades. If there was a new bear species, they most likely would have been found by now, or the locals would have a hide or bone or something. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-bigfoot-be-real/689680/124 "2014-06-19T02:57:10Z")
The bottom line is there simply is no reason to believe that Bigfoot is real other than wishful thinking. Honestly, I’m surprised that old myth is still alive, as I’d thought it had died before I even left the US. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-bigfoot-be-real/689680/125 "2014-06-19T03:46:28Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > New, and “large” species are found, every decade. Generally the natives are totally aware they exist, but “white man” misunderstood or didn’t believe or misclassified: > Olinguito _(Bassaricyon neblina)_ > Caqueta monkey > Blossom bat _Syconycteris sp nov,_ > mountain porcupine of Brazil _Coendou baturitensis_ > Laotian giant flying squirrel.\*Biswamoyopterus laoensis \* (These were been eaten as “bush meat!”) > Oncilla = _Leopardus tigrinus_ > yellow-striped chevrotain \*(Moschiola kathygre) \* > Large-Antlered Muntjac (_Muntiacus vuquangensis_) > Myanmar snub-nosed monkey (\*Rhinopithecus strykeri) \* > > These are all decently sized Mammals. :dubious: Blossom bat 20g Olinguito 900g Caqueta monkey 900g Laotian giant flying squirrel 1.5kg Oncilla 2kg mountain porcupine of Brazil 4kg yellow-striped chevrotain 9kg Myanmar snub-nosed monkey 20kg Large-Antlered Muntjac 40kg Of your 9 “large” species: One weighs about as much as three quarters and would comfortably fit in your pocket. Four of them weigh less than a large bottle of soda and would fit in a shoebox. One weighs as much as a house cat, one as much as two housecats. Either would fit in a bucket. None of them weighs anywhere near as much as an adult human; the largest of them weighs less than the smallest rottweiler. IOW 6 of these animals would live inside a rabbit hutch, and the remaining three are smaller than a popular family pet regularly kept inside apartments. The other point to note is that these animals all live in areas with multiple other closely related and near-identical species. It’s not like somebody discovered a new species of porcupine living in France or a new species of monkey living in Australia. To the extent that these animals were discovered, it was a discovery that they were new species, not a discovery that an animal of that size, shape, ecology and genus was common in the area. And of course the criticism that is always justifiably leveled at these discoveries. These species were either new classifications of existing known animals and/or always well known to the local populations who could obtain specimens on demand. If the yeti exists, none of this pertains. It has to be larger than 60kg in size, it has to be of a type of animal radically different to any known to already exist in the area and it has to be unable to be trapped even by the local population. It has to be so clever and reclusive that the locals can’t even obtain hair or dung. All of that makes it fairly much impossible for a yeti to exist. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-bigfoot-be-real/689680/126 "2014-06-19T05:55:12Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Remember how Bigfoot started out as a phenomenon of the Pacific Northwest–and stayed there from whenever the reports started until the 1970s? > > Well, look where they are, now: > [BFRO Geographical Database of Bigfoot Sightings & Reports](http://www.bfro.net/gdb/) Data in hand, we can at least learn more about these reclusive creatures that leave behind no physical evidence. First let’s consider the correlations between bigfoot sightings and state characteristics. For those less familiar with statistics, the [correlation coefficient](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_coefficient) is a number between -1 and 1: a value of zero indicates no relationship. ```auto . corr bigfoot pop area percap (obs=50) bigfoot | sightings pop area percap -------------+------------------------------------ bigfoot | 1.0000 pop | 0.6301 1.0000 area | 0.0960 0.1079 1.0000 percap | 0.0335 0.2435 -0.0448 1.0000 ``` There’s a decent positive correlation between bigfoot sightings and state population, but almost no relationship with state area or state per person income. It’s surprising that Bigfoot doesn’t favor states with wide open spaces: I guess he likes people. Now let’s look at the multivariate effects: after controlling for population, maybe there is a relationship with these other variables. ```auto . reg bigfoot pop area percap Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 50 -------------+------------------------------ F( 3, 46) = 10.77 Model | 248411.77 3 82803.9234 Prob > F = 0.0000 Residual | 353508.81 46 7684.97412 R-squared = 0.4127 -------------+------------------------------ Adj R-squared = 0.3744 Total | 601920.58 49 12284.0935 Root MSE = 87.664 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ bigfoot | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- pop | .0000116 2.07e-06 5.61 0.000 7.45e-06 .0000158 area | .0000242 .0001435 0.17 0.867 -.0002646 .000313 percap | -.0026393 .0024473 -1.08 0.286 -.0075655 .0022868 _cons | 120.8771 88.80452 1.36 0.180 -57.87709 299.6314 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ``` Nah, not really. State bigfoot sightings only have a statistically significant relationship with state population. Since there are only 2 variables of interest, we can view the scatterplot: [http://wm40.inbox.com/thumbs/7e\_130b40\_7a31e5\_oP.png.thumb](http://wm40.inbox.com/thumbs/7e_130b40_7a31e5_oP.png.thumb) There’s a rough relationship between state population and bigfoot sightings, with 2 outliers. Washington State and to a lesser extent Oregon have more sightings than that which would be predicted by their population. Unsurprisingly, as the fad started there. ---
**Author:** ![BMalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@BMalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BMalion)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-bigfoot-be-real/689680/127 "2014-06-19T13:13:28Z")
> [@](#): > > Chevey Chase as Gerald Ford I was told there would be no math. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-bigfoot-be-real/689680/128 "2014-06-19T15:27:45Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Because “white men” have been looking for physical evidence for decades. If there was a new bear species, they most likely would have been found by now, or the locals would have a hide or bone or something. Well, they do have Yeti scalps and etc, they just are not willing to hand them over. And, cientists have never seen a live or whole Tibetan blue bear or even significant parts there-of. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-bigfoot-be-real/689680/129 "2014-06-19T15:48:09Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Large-Antlered Muntjac 40kg > > Of your 9 “large” species: > None of them weighs anywhere near as much as an adult human; the largest of them weighs less than the smallest rottweiler. > > IOW 6 of these animals would live inside a rabbit hutch, and the remaining three are smaller than a popular family pet regularly kept inside apartments. > > The other point to note is that these animals all live in areas with multiple other closely related and near-identical species. It’s not like somebody discovered a new species of porcupine living in France or a new species of monkey living in Australia. To the extent that these animals were discovered, it was a discovery that they were new species, not a discovery that an animal of that size, shape, ecology and genus was common in the area. > > And of course the criticism that is always justifiably leveled at these discoveries. These species were either new classifications of existing known animals and/or always well known to the local populations who could obtain specimens on demand. > > If the yeti exists, none of this pertains. It has to be larger than 60kg in size, it has to be of a type of animal radically different to any known to already exist in the area and it has to be unable to be trapped even by the local population. It has to be so clever and reclusive that the locals can’t even obtain hair or dung. > > All of that makes it fairly much impossible for a yeti to exist. I didnt call those species “large” I called them "decently sized’. I did say “New, and “large” species are found, every decade.” But I didn’t call any of those mammals anything but “decently sized”. The Muntjac gets to over 100#, which is MUCH larger “than the smallest rottweiler” (which according to wiki weigh in at 35-60kg and you say yourself the Muntjac weighs 40kg, but which wiki sez is “30–50 kg”, so indeed they weigh just about what a rottweiler does). I admit some people are crazy enuf to keep a very large dog like a rottwieler is a apartment, but that’s pretty rare. And I \*said \*that they were usually known to the local natives- which indeed the yeti is. Nor does the yet have _to be of a type of animal radically different to any known to already exist in the area_ many think they are simply a misidentified bear. Bears do exist in that area, and there are several species in that area which are so rare as to be almost unknown. It’s then quite possible this is just a very rare new species or variant of bear. In fact one of the "yeti artifacts’ was found to have DNA of some bear species- which they weren’t able to identify. _IF_ there is a Yeti, and it is found simply to be a new rare bear species, I doubt if this would shock the scientific community. If it is some species of _Gigantopithecus_? This is so very doubtful that I’d be shocked. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say impossible. Many reputable scientists are saying that the yeti is simply either a misidentified known bear or quite possibly a new rare bear species. Why is that so hard to accept? ---
**Author:** ![RivkahChaya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rivkahchaya/32/8919_2.png) [@RivkahChaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RivkahChaya)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-bigfoot-be-real/689680/130 "2014-06-19T16:09:26Z")
When I connected the Yeti with Gigantopithecus, I said that it was possibly a legend based on finding remains of Gigantopithecus, or, less probably, legends that had been handed down from a time when it was possible humans and Gigantopithecines existed at the same time. The second is doubtful, but it is accepted science that Gigantopithecus went extinct only 100,000 years ago. ---
**Author:** ![appleciders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85f322/32.png) [@appleciders](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/appleciders)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-bigfoot-be-real/689680/131 "2014-06-19T16:16:30Z")
> [@RivkahChaya](#): > > Is bear hunting legal in the area bigfoot is supposed to exist? If it is, I think that at some point, someone would have accidentally shot a bigfoot, mistaking it for a bear. Yes, and also cougar hunting with packs of dogs who try to chase the cougar down and corner it or tree it so the hunter can shoot it. If there were Bigfoot up in the mountains around here, the hunters would be bringing down a couple every year. ---
**Author:** ![RivkahChaya](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rivkahchaya/32/8919_2.png) [@RivkahChaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RivkahChaya)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-bigfoot-be-real/689680/132 "2014-06-19T16:25:00Z")
> [@appleciders](#): > > Yes, and also cougar hunting with packs of dogs who try to chase the cougar down and corner it or tree it so the hunter can shoot it. If there were Bigfoot up in the mountains around here, the hunters would be bringing down a couple every year. Wow. The guy in the Bigfoot suit who gets shot by a hunter is a situation just begging to happen. ---
**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:** [June 19, 2014, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-bigfoot-be-real/689680/133 "2014-06-19T16:34:44Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Well, they do have Yeti scalps and etc, they just are not willing to hand them over. Well, gee, I wonder why? > [@](#): > > And, cientists have never seen a live or whole Tibetan blue bear or even significant parts there-of. They have analyzed fur and bone samples. With modern DNA methods, any piece that contains DNA is “significant”. ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Render](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@Grim\_Render](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Render)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-bigfoot-be-real/689680/134 "2014-06-19T20:00:03Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Because “white men” have been looking for physical evidence for decades. If there was a new bear species, they most likely would have been found by now, or the locals would have a hide or bone or something. It was found, and the locals did. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Well, they do have Yeti scalps and etc, they just are not willing to hand them over. And, cientists have never seen a live or whole Tibetan blue bear or even significant parts there-of. They were willing to hand over enough for DNA analysis to an Oxfird university research team in 2013 though. Which showed that some of the “scalps” matched already known creatures of the area, but several samples, independently obtained over an 800 km range, had a 100 % genetic match with an extinct variety of polar bear. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-bigfoot-be-real/689680/135 "2014-06-19T22:54:16Z")
> [@Grim\_Render](#): > > It was found, and the locals did. > > They were willing to hand over enough for DNA analysis to an Oxfird university research team in 2013 though. Which showed that some of the “scalps” matched already known creatures of the area, but several samples, independently obtained over an 800 km range, had a 100 % genetic match with an extinct variety of polar bear. Evidence? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-bigfoot-be-real/689680/136 "2014-06-19T23:05:05Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I live in suburbia, have (I think) 2 squirrel families living in my back yard, and I get at least one dead one to clean up every year. So far this year, it’s been 2 already. > > With bigfoot, we are talking ZERO direct physical evidence of any kind after decades of deliberate looking. Yes, you’d think one of them would have, as a poster upthread said, fallen off a cliff or gotten killed by a bear or something. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-bigfoot-be-real/689680/137 "2014-06-20T00:14:19Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Evidence? One article found via google [Yeti mystery solved? Geneticist links Abominable Snowman hairs to bears  ](http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/yeti-mystery-solved-geneticist-links-abominable-snowman-hairs-bears-f8C11410698) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-bigfoot-be-real/689680/138 "2014-06-20T00:28:39Z")
In any case, if Bigfoot were real, the species would have been established on this continent since prehistoric times. It would have left traces in the fossil record (maybe even a whole skeleton or two in the La Brea Tar Pits, if it ever ranged that far south). But no trace has ever been found of nonhuman anthropoid primates in the Western Hemisphere pre-Columbus. The only native nonhuman primates here are monkeys. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-bigfoot-be-real/689680/139 "2014-06-20T15:36:18Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > In any case, if Bigfoot were real, the species would have been established on this continent since prehistoric times. It would have left traces in the fossil record (maybe even a whole skeleton or two in the La Brea Tar Pits, if it ever ranged that far south). But no trace has ever been found of nonhuman anthropoid primates in the Western Hemisphere pre-Columbus. The only native nonhuman primates here are monkeys. There are also no valid native legends, tales or stories. If there was a Bigfoot, the indians would know of it. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2014, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-bigfoot-be-real/689680/140 "2014-06-20T16:08:23Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > One article found via google [Yeti mystery solved? Geneticist links Abominable Snowman hairs to bears  ](http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/yeti-mystery-solved-geneticist-links-abominable-snowman-hairs-bears-f8C11410698) From the Article > [@](#): > > His findings have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, but they will be the focus of “Bigfoot Files,” a documentary series premiering Sunday on Britain’s Channel 4. Scientists who talk to the press before the journals always make me a bit skeptical. I did a search for papers by Sykes B\* with the key words Yeti, Bear and Ursa and came up empty so it sounds like he still hasn’t published. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-bigfoot-be-real/689680.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-bigfoot-be-real/689680.md?page=8)