I consider myself to be an open-minded person. Just give me some tangible proof and a plausible explanation. I have watched numerous productions on "the search for Bigfoot". I have several observations which I will elaborate on. But, the most prominent aspect of these forays is that the expedition members rarely, if ever, TAKE A FIREARM with them. Now, if Bigfoot really exists, and they feel confident of encountering it; would they have anything to stop an agitated 800 pound Hominoid? If Bigfoot exists, and in the dimensions proffered, [7-9 feet tall, 500-800 pounds], it would have supernatural strength. An average lowland Gorilla, [5' 9" tall, 400 pounds], can bench press 4000 pound without practice! We could safely assume that a Bigfoot specimen would be able to match that, at the very least. From all accounts, the alleged Bigfoot specimens can run over 30 miles an hour! So, we have an alleged creature that could physically overpower any 5 men, and could outrun any sprinter. Hmmm...it would seem unwise to encounter this creature without an adequate means of defense. Even if they would not encounter Bigfoot, there are still dangerous creatures in the woods, [bears, wolves, mountain lions, moose, and even badgers].

I also find it quite curious that no skeletal remains have ever been found of an alleged Bigfoot specimen. I find it rather difficult to believe that all of the amateur enthusiasts and doctorate crypto-zoologists have not found a single bone! A skeletal specimen would satisfy me that the creature does exist.

Now, there are those who claim that the myriad "footprints" provide tangible proof of the creature's existence. Well, many of them have been proven to be fakes. And as for the other ones, anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of podiatry and biology could manufacture capable forgeries.

Finally, we have purported footage from amateur enthusiasts or hunters with grainy images. In some cases, the parties did have a firearm, which was not used. One would think sooner or later, there would be a yahoo who would chance upon the creature with a 300 Weatherby Magnum, kill the specimen, and ransom it to science for a fortune. For that to happen, Bigfoot would have to actually exist.

no skeleton remains of a bigfoot
well if you had read your history books in school
we studied on him and in one of the books they found a bigfoot frozen on a boat
i actually belive he exisit

You must be referring to the "Gigantopithecus" species of great ape. Those remains have been found. But, that creature lived thousands of years ago and is a distinct and extinct species. Bigfoot, if it exists, is a Hominoid, meaning it has human characteristics: [walking upright] etc. "Gigantopithecus" moved on all fours, like modern apes do. They are not the same species. Scientists believe that a Bigfoot might possibly be a descendant of "Gigantopithecus". But, they are not the same species, not remotely.

Big feet are benign giants. Anybody can tell you that*. The explorers usually bring with them a virgin, and offer it to the huge foot who is in a menacing position. The virgin at this point gets flustered, and the Bigfoot retreats into its cave, rather than face a lifetime of tiny bigfeet and a harp for a wife. For bigfoot knows that the more virginal a woman is at age 37 (the usual age for female biology professorial assistants who are still sent out to field work, especially to field dangerous animals with large parts) the bigger harp she is than anyone can imagine. I know, I used to be married to one, and she's still a virgin, after 30 years of marriage and countless children and grandchildren. (We used to adopt like crazy. We both found this a humanitarian substitute to the unacceptable alternative of letting her propagate her genes.)

Bigfoot remains remain to be unearthed still, even at this late stage of the game. This is so because bigfeet, due to the high altitudes they occur in naturally, and due to the many stories circulated about them, are very good eats. They taste like chicken. When you're an explorer party, having been separated from your group, and having aimlessly foraging the forest for food, then you really welcome a huge giant with lots of protein to offer. Some lucky near-starved explorers happen to the Bigfoot nest, in which there is usually 2.45 eggs. (Canada Census, 1998.) If no eggs, but lots of bigfoot, the hungry explorer walks up to the bigfoot, and breaks its neck, and then he eats it like an eskimo wedding party.

You're rigth, OP, footprints are not tangible evidence. What you touch there (or tang) is the once-present void of the evidence. Foot prints do not contain the foot; so there is no tangible (touchable) evidence. Based on this, there is a gang of BigFeet that call themselves the Untangibles. (Intangibles.) They are in an ongoing territorial warfare with the Cripes. Canadian Federal government negotiating teams are called in once in a while to smooth the ruffled feathers of Bigpeds.

: [bears, wolves, mountain lions, moose, and even badgers].
Bears are omnivore scavengers. They don't hunt humans.
Woves don't hunt humans, but they don't refuse to eat human meat as hors d'euvres at sheepskin-parties.
Mountain lions are too small to attack humans. If they did, the cougar population in Toronto would have hunted the Young Men population here to extinction by now.
Moose are herbivores.
Badgers -- Now, what the dickens are badgers? I have no concept what a badger could be. An animal? Or tiny poisonous arrows, of no particular origin, flying about randomly?


* the claim is actually true.

I DID SAY NOT that wolves, bears, and moutain lions HUNT HUMANS. I said they are dangerous and they can and do attack humans. Whether or not they intended the humans as prey is irrelevant. It would be foolish to venture into the woods of Washington State without a firearm. FYI..Moose are very large and have attacked humans. They weight up to a ton and could easily kill you. If you chance upon them in mating season, the males would be very likely to charge you.

" It would be foolish to venture into the woods of Washington State without a firearm." much the same for Washington, DC.

" If you chance upon them in mating season, the males would be very likely to charge you." Yes, I can see that happen and for good reason, too. (I'm likely to woo away the females from those bully guys, with too much testosterone, what with that much facial and chest hair.) But what if I were a woman? The male moose would not charge me! He would do something entirely different. Unless of course he would charge my fees as a female on his credit card.

A couple of weeks ago I saw a video on the web, it wasn't about big foot as much as it was about a possible extraterrestrial origin of man. It did make some interesting arguments about big foot though. I'll try to find it again and post a link.

Found it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMxVXAszDnM

asking if anyone has a scientific basis to BELIEVE in big foot is simply absurd. science does not promote BELIEVING in anything whatsoever. belief requires faith and faith just has no place in science. a sensable question might be, "has anyone seen reports of evidence that will withstand the severe scrutiny of scientific methodoly that supports a theory that big foot exists?" then the question would be answerable. to that question my answer is no. not one shred of evidence.

there is wayyyy too much anecdotal evidence to just dismiss it as fantasy

the native americans had stories of bigfoot hundreds of years before white men stepped foot on the continent

I watched this video. The guy has a lot of pretty good ideas and presents a lot evidence. Some or all of it may not work but he makes a pretty good case. It (the video) is rather long winded.

anecdotal evidence and stories have no basis as far as science is concerned. the question asked if there was a scientific basis. that means evidence that can be tested that produces repeatable and predictable results. there is no way to test testimony such as anecdotes or stories. testimony may work in court but never is even considered as evidence in science.

Actually that isn't true. Science uses first hand accounts to produce statistical medical diagnoses (there is a whole thread about this) as well as calculate whale populations, meteor showers, human demographics ... all kinds of things. It is not unique to legal testimony.

If human "sightings" are the basis of hummingbird migration analysis, why wouldn't they be possible to keep up with bigfoot? The time scale is just shifted and the number of sightings is small.

you are talking about reports from people deemed to be meet standards for the study in question. reports of meteor sightings are often discarded as the source has not been deemed credible because of lacking training or experience. and you're talking about observing material evidence. as for medical diagnosis, again the patient is giving first hand accounts of what he is experiencing. no diagnosis would result by somebody coming in and saying my mom's head aches. in medicin anecdotal evidence is almost always discredited. much testimony that jesus heals but not a shred of physical evidence.

regardless, here we are discussing the physical existence of something. if it exists there must be some physical evidence or it will never even reach the status of a theory in science.

How is that absurd to ask for empirical validation of someone's views? At least in the religious context, one can see the earth, its geology, the various species upon it, as well as the cosmos. Obviously, we are here and the universe had to arise somehow. Either it was created by a divine being or through a geological process, or possibly both.

But, to give substance to mythological creatures without tangible proof IS ABSURD. The Bigfoot legend is nothing more than an incarnation of the "boogeyman". Every culture and primitive society has something comparable. You would think with all of the amateur enthusiasts and doctoral scientists looking for the creature, that they would have provided somehing definitive by now. They have not and cannot because such a being does not exist. It only exists in the minds of those who give it substance. That is not nearly enough to classify it as a living species.

Firsthand accounts are inherently unreliable as "evidence" or proof of anything, much less an unknown species. Let me give you an example. In the context of criminal cases, which generally rely on tangible evidence, "eyewitness identifications" have been shown to be at least 80% inaccurate. Why? Because most people are inattentive, the event unfolds too rapidly, they are too excited, something hindered an optimal view, etc. If 5 people saw an armed robbery, you would have 4 give an inaccurate description of the robber, all other things being equal. And here, we are talking about primitive people and yahoos providing much of the narrative through folklore and blundered expeditions. Human accounts should not be given much weight, even sworn accounts. Many purported Bigfoot sighters naturally seek to sell their accounts to media or tabloid journalists.

Scientists would love for the creature to exist because it would represent the "missing link" between Man and Ape. But, predominantly, the scientific community does not accept the existence of the Bigfoot Hominoid because there is nothing to base it on other than dubious accounts and fraudulent footprints and videos.

the absurd is the concept of BELIEF as relating to SCIENCE. the two words don't belong on the same page much less the same sentence. i've already explained why that is in my previous post.

Again, you are completely wrong. Science has used and will continue to use human observation in many different situations to form theories. A prime example of this is the observation of a few far scattered observers of supernova. Across decades or even centuries, a few observers have found, documented, and led to important discoveries that CANNOT be back checked for verification. I don't know if bigfoot exists or not but I am damn familiar with the scientific method.

You need to remove the absolutes from your statements. Their use is almost always inappropriate in any real scientific discussion.

i'd have to repeat myself after your repeating yourself. we simply disagree. to the op, my answer is no, there is no scientific basis to even support a hypethosis much less a theory that bigfoot exists.

Doesn't that depend on what one considers to be "scientific basis"? Isn't "observation" a critical part of the scientific process?

I think Big foot exists.

BUT I don't think you would be able to shoot one.

You might want to read a book called "Hunt for the Skin Walker."

It is supposed to be a true account of a team of scientists and journalists who spent some time on a ranch near the four corners where some very strange goings on were reported --to include UFO's, and strange creatures (Like big foot) and cattle mutilations etc.

If you have been paying attention at all, you will note that Big foot sightings are also in the same areas of other sightings, like UFO's and strange lights, and cattle mutilations etc.

In the book "Hunt for the Skin Walker" a very large wolf was seen by the people and from the description of the animal it sounded like a prehistoric species that no longer exists. They tracked and shot it several times and with guns that would take down an elephant but it hardly phased the animal. They chased it until they came to a place where its tracks just disappeared -- as if it when into another dimension.

I think Big foot is one of these kinds of creatures and that they are from another dimension. Perhaps a heavier type of matter is involved that would cause our bullets to be rather pathetic in taking one of them down.

That is my theory. -- Don't piss one of these creatures off is my advice. --One day they might not run away and if they come after you, a gun will not be much help to you.