Bigfoot found??? - Page 2

Re: Bigfoot found???

Nobody would believe it anyway.

Re: Bigfoot found???

I disagree. I'm a skeptic, not a cynic. If someone had good scientific evidence, I'd believe it. Just haven't seen any yet as far as Bigfoot, psychics, UFOs, etc. are concerned. I'm sure many feel the same way.

funny thing is, the people who do profit over this stuff and are "experts" on bigfoot, all clamour to be a part of these hoaxes. they must be terrible experts to get fooled so many times.

Re: Bigfoot found???

Well, that is where we differ. I'm a cynic. The evidence could be thrown right in people's faces and they will deny it, because they don't want their comfortable, empirical "scientific" world disturbed.

There are plenty of qualified observers who have reported UFOs that defy explanation, and there is plenty of photographic evidence. A lot of the photo evidence is of good quality, but people don't want to admit that there could be more advanced civilizations out there. We humans are so egotistical that we just cannot believe the possibility that someone else has figured out a way around the light speed barrier. In fact, we don't even want to contemplate the possibility because the idea that someone out there could be more advanced than we are, frankly, scares us.

Re: Bigfoot found???

If someone is denying facts in front of them, then they aren't being overly scientific are they? Science is very impersonal and non-emotional. If you choose to ignore evidence (or the lack of evidence) then don't blame "science".

But evidence of what? An "Unidentified Flying Object" is just that - unidentified. So why assume an absolutely extraordinary solution when there are still hundreds of other possible logical ones? Just because investigators haven't been able to figure out what an object is in a piece of film or photo, doesn't mean that there still can't be a simple reason to explain it. It just means they don't have enough information to state with 100% certainty what it is.

Well Edwin, that's a pretty huge generalization regarding the human race. I would love, LOVE, for there to be evidence of previous visitations by alien species from other planets to ours. But here's the thing - there is no evidence. Not a single shred of documented proof. Oh sure, there are records of things we don't understand or individual "eyewitness" stories, but if you want to be scientific then there is nothing to support the theory that other civilizations have visited us. Now if you simply WANT to believe it, well that's your perogative I guess.

Just to be clear, this doesn't mean that it hasn't happened or could not. Just that there is no reason to believe that something so incredible has occurred when there are many other possible simpler solutions to the things that have been seen.

Re: Bigfoot found???

Being a skeptic does NOT imply a hostile or fearful attitude towards the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere. It certainly doesn't for me (I've been fascinated with the idea ever since I can remember), and it certainly didn't for the late Carl Sagan, a prominent skeptic and member of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (http://www.csicop.org/si/). He wrote Intelligent Life in the Universe and Contact, which hardly expressed fear of advanced civilizations; in fact they expressed the opposite attitude. Yet, like other skeptics, he had a "show me" attitude. My favorite quote from him is "an extraordinary claim demands extraordinary evidence". In this age of digital image manipulation, mere photographic evidence doesn't cut it. People want artifacts or a REAL alien, not some special effects dummy.

Re: Bigfoot found???

Even the most endangered large land dwelling mammals on this planet are filmed by scientist. I think a few years years ago national geographic filmed some leopard in some country that had not been seen in 10 years and is rumored to only be in the hundreds in population. And this is a leopard, a smaller, camouflaged nimble creature living a very unpopulated dense area of the world. But yet bigfoot lives in an area where hikers and campers are YEAR ROUND, yet mysteriously he has never walked into a campsite and eaten any of the campers food. And he's a Bipedal seven foot creature that can not be confused for anything else on this planet. Yep, he's an ellusive one that bigfoot. If bigfoot were to go fishing he would probably use an alien as bait and catch Nessy.

I believe in the possibility of aliens. With the hundreds of thousands of stars out there, and planets that surround them, that one of them in this galaxy, or one of the several thousand other galaxies, probably has life on it. But a myth that just doesn't make any sense right here in our own backyard, I just refuse to believe in it till proven otherwise.

Re: Bigfoot found???

I'm skeptical. Got any evidence to back up this claim? Or does my fear of having my "scientific" world disturbed preclude the need for such evidence?

Re: Bigfoot found???

The downfall of The History Channel. I want Romans, Nazis, and Huns, I get Bigfoot, feral hogs and guys driving on ice. Pfft!


Oh no Miss Scarlett, we'uns scientists isa skeered o' havin our world rocked. Hide me! Hide me!

Jeebus, we go through this every year, don't we?

Re: Bigfoot found???

I'm also fond of 2 hour documentaries on distilleries, marijuana laws, and how they build really big things in other countries that fall apart soon afterwards killing thousands.

I'm still waiting for a 12 hour miniseries on torture devices or the pornography industry.

Re: Bigfoot found???

3 reasons that Bigfoot is real:


1-Dermal Ridges. You know all those plaster casts made of the Bigfoot prints? Well most have Dermal ridges. Just like fingerprints, feet and toes also have intricate dermal ridges. Now if a hoaxer were to make fake feet, he'd have to be one hell of a craftsman to cook up something like this. He would then have to jet set all over North America, and lay the tracks down. He would also have to have been doing this since the early 60's through present day. Wow that's devotion.

2-Audio recordings. Near found Bigfoot tracks, many enthusiasts camp and make audio recordings of a supposed Bigfoot cry. This has been going on since the early 70's. Nearly 3 dozen different audio recordings(different times, and places) have been made, and they are quite scary to listen to. Most have been analyzed by the scientific community. The result..not human, nor any known animal species. Label under unknown primate.

3-Again with the eyewitness accounts. Take away all the Bullshitters, and publicity hounds, and you still have thounsands of credible witnesses dating back to Indian times. People that have absolutely no gain involved and report sightings mostly because they are disturbed by something they have seen. Sounds reasonable to me.

Re: Bigfoot found???

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.

Re: Bigfoot found???

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.

Re: Bigfoot found???

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.

Re: Bigfoot found???

Exactly.

Re: Bigfoot found???

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

Re: Bigfoot found???

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

Re: Bigfoot found???

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.

Re: Bigfoot found???

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?

Re: Bigfoot found???

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.

Re: Bigfoot found???

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?

Re: Bigfoot found???

Well, the "experts" say "There are only estimates. The informed estimates range from roughly 2000 - 6000 individuals for all of North America" from the site linked elsewhere.

also from the site, which is the main problem with all this mythical beats, paranormal things...

On the matter of Physical evidence:


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.

Re: Bigfoot found???

In the same cave with the unicorns....

Re: Bigfoot found???

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

Re: Bigfoot found???

I'm with Eddie Murphy:

Re: Bigfoot found???

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


They paid for it. Which is why the hoaxers keep doing this....

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.

Re: Bigfoot found???

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.

Re: Bigfoot found???

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

Re: Bigfoot found???

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.

Re: Bigfoot found???

You mean "3 reasons that Bigfoot MIGHT be real".

Not having spent much time looking into the details of Bigfeet, I've never heard that. But off the top of my head two things spring to mind: 1) when I leave hand prints or bare foot prints in the dirt, do I leave my dermal ridges clear enough so that a cast would pick them up? I doubt it... 2) the simpler solution is that those ridges are actually created during the process of creating those casts. I don't know of course, but it certainly sounds more plausible to me.

By the way, what would a group of Bigfeet be called? A herd? A pack? A Biggle?

Unidentified sounds in the woods. Again, that could be numerous things. And likely completely different things on each recording - I highly doubt that the many recordings made all sound similar.

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?