Bigfoot found??? (1 Viewer)

[Ruz-El]

no one has here I don't think. I really doubt they well ever be found in North america though. not like there's thousands of miles of uncharted territory left. And if theirs. ahem... "There are only estimates. The informed estimates range from roughly 2000 - 6000 individuals for all of North America (which includes all Canada and southern Alaska)." If their was that many, I'm sure hunters would be tripping over them constantly no? none have been observed other then the (being polite here) Patterson film, no DNA gathered and analyzed by a reputable source, no foot prints that were not proven fake by actual anthropologist and zoologists...... it's safe to say they haven't been found yet.

 

[Bob Turnbull]

And if that's the best evidence out there after many, many years of searching - evidence that is at best questionable - then there really isn't much. And considering the size of the beast in question, the claims made about it and the fact that most of the facts have been proven to be hoaxes, it should take some rather extraordinary evidence to prove Bigfoot. Given that, I think the simpler answer is that he doesn't exist.

As Russell said, that's different than saying it CANNOT exist. But Occam's Razor should really point towards the likely solution.

 

[RobertR]

Exactly right. By the way, I've always thought Bigfoot was a rather dull subject for "paranormal" speculation. Why does anyone care if there's an apelike creature running around in North America (vs. known great apes in other parts of the world)? At least UFOs and the like have more interesting possibilities.

 

[Scott McGillivray]

Here is the follow-up aritcle explaining that, indeed, it was a hoax.

Bigfoot claim a fake, ex-enthusiast says - CNN.com

For the life of me I simply do not understand what people are thinking when setting up these hoaxes. What is the friggen point? They wont get rich. They wont be famous. They will just be known as lying jerks.

Jerks.

 

[drobbins]

It is stories like this that has prompted my recent ditching of CNN for news.

 

[Ruz-El]

They get to be on TV for a little bit though. Plus it's advertising for their goofy hunting thing. Tourists well still go, and they can show the tape of the press conference for a more total experience. They wont get rich, at least I hope not, but they well get something.

 

[Bryan^H]

Even if the Patterson film was fake, that does not discredit the many thousands of sightings by credible people(people know what a bear looks like) that has dated back to Native American truths of the western world.

Also I watched a special on the History channel about Bigfoot. The scientests and researchers involved in researching the Patterson film all came to the conclusion that a Human in a suit could not move the way the creature does. Unless that person had a severely broken ankle it would be physically impossible. I believe in Bigfoot. Until Gimlin states it's fake, I won't believe it's a hoax.


You believe what you want, and I will believe in what I want.

 

[Ruz-El]

the reason why the Patterson film isn't credible evidence:

One fact which complicates discussion of the Patterson film is that Patterson says he normally filmed at 24 frames per second, but in his haste to capture the Bigfoot on film, he did not note the camera's setting. His Cine-Kodak K-100 camera had markings on its continuously variable dial of 16, 24, 32, 48, and 64 frames per second and was capable of filming at any frame speed within this range. The speed of the film is important because, as Napier writes, "if the movie was filmed at 24 frame/s then the creature's walk cannot be distinguished from a normal human walk. If it was filmed at 16 or 18 frame/s, there are a number of important respects in which it is quite unlike man's gait" (Napier, 94 [2nd printing]). Unfortunately, the film is so shaky that it is difficult to be certain which speed is correct.

It also casts doubts on Patterson himself, since he wouldn't confirm the speed. DISCOVERY CHANNEL and HISTORY always run crypto-zological specials for sweeps. Doesn't mean it's true. A&E has a reality show about psychic kids and psychic detectives, despite there being no credible evidence of psychic powers.

As far as credible people seeing them... again, who knows? They never have evidence. My dad claims to see UFO on a near weekly bases, yet he has no real proof other then stories of lights darting about like all the other sighting stories. Curious about the "experts", on the shows I've seen (and I've seen a bunch) and they always seem to be missing crucial evidence. I have no problem discounting legends.

 

[Greg_S_H]

Bigfoot found? One giant severed foot? Oops. Wrong Scott McGillivray thread.

 

[Brian W.]

I saw that, too. But other researchers have come to different conclusions. Rick Baker has said the Patterson creature is obviously a man in a suit, and not even a good suit. You should follow the long thread on Randi.org regarding the Patterson film. There really is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that it's a fake, though no one can prove anything either way.

I used to be a hardcore Bigfoot believer, but I pretty much don't believe anymore for the simple fact that, after all this time, someone would have come up with SOMETHING definitive. Peter Byrne said in 1975, "I think we'll come to a conclusion quite soon." Over 30 years later, nothing.

People like to cite the 1902 discovery of the mountain gorilla as proof that a large primate could live undetected in the "modern world." The part of the story they leave out is that the mountain gorilla was found on the VERY FIRST expedition that went looking for it.

But there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of expeditions into the wilderness to look for Bigfoot, and after 50 years of searching, no one has come up with one piece of hard, indisputable evidence. I can come to no other conclusion than there's nothing out there to find. I hope I'm wrong, but...

I can't explain why so many credible witnesses have apparently seen a bigfoot. Then again, no one can explain why, over 50 years, no one has caught, shot, or gotten really good, indisputable film footage of a bigfoot.

 

[Edwin-S]

Nobody would believe it anyway.

 

[Ruz-El]

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.

 

[Edwin-S]

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.

 

[Bob Turnbull]

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.

 

[RobertR]

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.

 

[Steve_Tk]

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.

 

[BrianW]

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?

 

[Jeff Gatie]

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?

 

[Garrett Lundy]

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.

 

[Bryan^H]

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.