Bigfoot found??? (1 Viewer)

[Malcolm R]

Well, there was also the recent discovery of an unknown population of thousands of gorillas that effectively doubled the known population of that animal. Gorillas ain't exactly small, so how did tens of thousands of them remain unknown until 2008?

I'm not really a Bigfoot believer, I'm just noting there are still apparently some surprising discoveries to be made on our planet despite all of our technology and knowledge.

 

[Ruz-El]

Dermal ridges, audio recordings, and thousands of eye witness accounts... yet not one clear photo or hair sample, in a heavily populated area...... Hmmmm..........

Again, those gorillas are in a relatively un-populated area. I'd guess that hobbyist Bigfoot hunters out number gorilla hunters, and just hunters and regular folk in the area where all these Bigfoot sightings supposedly happening probably out number all the above.

As far as the legends, they are just stories used to teach life lessons (like most legends and myths), unless you believe that Manitous grow out of people and stuff like that, which is fine by me. As far as the people having nothing to gain, that doesn't mean they are seeing or hearing a Bigfoot. They could hear an old tree groan in the middle of the night and if they have Bigfoot on their mind, it's bigfoot. there's a reason why circumstantial eyewitness info is taken with a grain of salt in the courts, and used in support of the ahrd facts, not as the facts themselves.

Most of those Dermal ridges have been taken as cast impressions from most people in the know on making casts. As much as I would love to have Bigfoot running about, I sadly just don't think it's happening.

 

[Bryan^H]

Remember the Tsunami in 2004 that hit Indonesia?
Well after the waters subsided, there were many species of fish that had washed up with it. Some were unknown, and some were thought to be extinct for millions of years. Impressive!

It goes to show you the world is a big place. There is always room for discovery.

 

[TravisR]

Exactly.

 

[Ruz-El]

And the sea is still largely unexplored. Like Seattle and Oregon where the Bigfoot are....

 

[Scott McGillivray]

Haha...yeah I am not sure why I have been caught up in oddball threads latley! I guess I have been rather bored at work and tend to surf the Internet...A LOT!

Now if Bigfoots foot washes up on the beach near Vancouver...do I get a prize or something?

 

[Bryan^H]

Your like Scully....except with Mulder's sense of humor
Let's keep it going. I like debate.

 

[Steve_Tk]

True. For a long time a giant squid had never been filmed. Ever. Because of it's overall area of habitat was so vast, and the fact that it lives at the bottom of the oceans. But surprisingly it still wound up in fishermens nets when dead. Strange to think that an animal that was never caught on film by scientist in all their years of searching was still able to be found a poor fishermen trying to make a buck...........in an expanse as large as the oceans, which by the way are also pretty deep and completely unexplored. But even the slightest bit of evidence that a bigfoot is real? What about a set of fossils from a dead one? The myth has been around since the 1800s, so they have to be breeding out there.

 

[drobbins]

I also think that the term "discovery" needs to be defined. Like Columbus "discovered" the Americas. An ancient ruin was "discovered" when local tribesmen took the scientist to the site.
My sister studies gorillas in Africa, but not at the location of this discovery. They did not discover a new species of gorilla. They used a different method to count them and found that there were more of them than they previously thought. Saying that 125,000 Gorillas were "discovered" sounds a lot better than saying that we are adjusting our population numbers based on a new census method. I also have asked about the difference of highland and lowland gorillas. Are they really 2 different species just because they decided to live at different altitudes? Is there DNA so different that they can not inter breed? Would they "discover" a new species if they saw some gorillas living halfway up the mountain?

 

[TravisR]

What if their numbers are extremely small or they've gone extinct? IF Bigfoot exists/existed, it's not like there's lots of them or they most likely would have been discovered already.

 

[drobbins]

I was just wondering about that also. In order for the species to survive, how many are needed? How many generations need to exist at one time? Do they travel in a family group or a tribal group? The more of them there would be needed, the more likely there would be evidence. If there are many bigfeet (bigfoots?) Where do they sleep? What do they eat? A group would definitely leave more of a trail. If they are loners and avoid each other, that would increase the odds of seeing one. There should be traces of them to be found. Do they shed? Where is all the hair?

 

[Ruz-El]

So theres lots of evidence, and no evidence... there is at least "hairs that match each other but no known wild animals, and large scats that could not be made by any known species, are all "physical evidence." Hairs! Poo! Man, they must have TONS of DNA samples and such to confirm without a doubt that bigfoot exists. Except... none of it's on the site. Sure, they got the Patterson film (not conclusive proof) and howls recorded, but none of the hair and poo reports from a recognized scientific body. And before you say that recognized labs ignore this stuff, your wrong. When a hair sample showed up in Alberta in 2006, a proffesor at the University Of Alberta (one of the leading research hospitals in the world) studied it. It was Yak hair, from a carpet. but it shows that people will study the evidence, if there is evidence.

Science isn't about disproving, it's about confirming. so far, the evidence to confirm Bigfoots existance is non-existant.

 

[Ruz-El]

In the same cave with the unicorns....

 

[BrianW]

At least nobody (yet) has said, "Oh, yeah? Well, you can't prove Bigfoot doesn't exist!"

 

[Jeff Gatie]

I'm with Eddie Murphy:

 

[Ruz-El]

LOL! the Discovery Channel website has a report on the suit, with notes from the researchers.

LOL. It's a fucking mask! No shit it was unually hollow. And they had to wait for the feet to be exposed to realize it was rubber? WTF? If they are this oblivious to man made materials, how is ANY supposed evidence to be taken seriously?

Why this is so funny to me is if this is the picture they were going off of to buy it...



then really, they should of realized it was fake within about 5 seconds of being in the same room with it!

This is why I love bigfoot stuff so much. If we ever found a live one, it would be amzing, but till then, the comedy of errors in all these false ones are comedy gold.

 

[Steve_Tk]

The mere fact that Bigfoot is so elusive leads me to believe he buries his turds, so the fact that someone found a bigfoot scat is completely false.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Perhaps King Pellinore could seek Bigfoot instead of the Questing Beast.

 

[Bryan^H]

The Bigfoot species are nocturnal. So think about how often would you see a species that has low numbers to begin with in the remotest parts of thick forests.


Day sightings are relatively rare. A successful expedition would require trained trackers in Bigfoot areas, with Starlight vision, and a lot of luck.

 

[Bob Turnbull]

Anecdotal evidence just doesn't equate with physical evidence and doesn't enter into any kind of scientific enquiry on the subject. Maybe if there is enough of it, it can point to areas that require further study. And when you do the further study and find nothing...

And what did all of these eyewitness accounts actually see? An actual 8 foot hair-covered lumbering beast? Or something that appeared to move in the bushes? Or something they couldn't recognize far off in the distance?