76 replies to this topic

[mace13]

Fstop, on 21 February 2013 - 10:30 PM, said:

I just would like to clarify that I am not here to ridicule anyone.

I've never ridiculed anyone on this forum or anywhere else.


If you feel ridiculed by that, then that is your problem, not mine.  I state my points respectfully and logically.

And actually I think i'll argue with you on this as well. Just on this article alone you have made either discouraging or smartass remarks to people that legitimately expressed interest in the subject at hand. I also just read through some of your other posts that you have made and found the majority of them to be similiar.

If you want to argue about the possible existance of whatever the topic of the day is then go for it. Thats what the forums are for and why we are here. But what is the point of you coming here if you're just going to make fun of people and talk down to anyone who either believes in this stuff or has experienced it?  I don't appreciate the condescending remarks you've been making and i'm sure most of the other people don't either. I don't care for bullies. Internet or otherwise.

[mace13]

Clobhair-cean, on 22 February 2013 - 07:55 AM, said:

Because Native Americans have not been encountering them for hundreds of years. There is no evidence of that. Native Americans have all kinds of Wild Man legends that are very divergent and there is nothing that points to the directions that they are about an actual biological creature as opposed to a spirit or a bogeyman from mythology. Bigfoot stories in the United States started in the late 19th century. We recently had a thread about this It was interesting to see that all the reports came from small-town newspapers that reported events from the other side of the country. This was also the era when journalists were just making stuff up to fill the pages. There aren't really any bigfoot reports from before that time. Then, as the bigfoot craze go, all kinds of vaguely human-like mythological beings started to be branded as bigfoot and we arrive to today's cryptozoology media empire, where a lot of money make a living out of perpetuating myths.

Well apparently i'm going to have reread a lot of my bigfoot/native american lore then because I have read quite a bit over the years that contradict what you're saying. I'm sure some Native Americans would argue with you as well. I've also read reports of where some exploreres had encounters with Bigfoot type creatures upon arriving here in North America. I can't remember them off hand but i'll try looking them up.  I know the term "Bigfoot" came from a newspaper report about tracks being found at a logging site in the 50's. But  just because that was one of the first times it had been reported in popular media doesn't mean that is where it started. By that standard I'm assuming you also believe that all the crop circles came from two blokes with a rope and wooden plank that just left a pub.

Clobhair-cean, on 22 February 2013 - 07:55 AM, said:

Why are we not seeing any images of bigfoot? People have been actively searching for them for over fifty years. The BBC Natural History Unit can find any obscure animal, no matter how few of them are left in the wild in about two years of searching and provide high definition video footage of it. How come thousands of people could not take a single clear photograph of a large animal in the United States?

I thought we were seeing a lot more photos or video of bigfoot in recent years. Is that not what I said? Look on youtube. There are all kinds of videos because everyone now has cameras. Are a lot of them fake? Yes, they are. But I wouldn't put them all in that category.  The BBC kind of have a heads up on where the animal in question resides. Regardless of how few they are. Most of the times it is just a certain area.  With Bigfoot it's a little different. Here you have a creature that supposedly resides in all of North America in uninhabitable forests. The only way in is by walking. That drastically limits the time you can spend there.

Clobhair-cean, on 22 February 2013 - 07:55 AM, said:

This is actually not true. Just google "bear carcass" and you'll be treated to plenty of photographs of bears that died from natural causes.

I just googled "Bear carcass". Every photo I clicked on was a bear killed by a poacher or hunter. I didn't find any that said it was from natural causes.I quite possibly am wrong on the bear carcass point. There probably has been a bear that died naturally found by someone at some point. But it is still rare.

Clobhair-cean, on 22 February 2013 - 07:55 AM, said:

Also, how do you explain that bigfoot is the only animal (including humans) in North America that never gets hit by cars? That never has been hit by a car since cars exist?

You can't say that for sure. I've read or seen more than a few Bigfoot sightings where it ran in front of a car. And it's more than likely that there are ones that haven't been reported. Say if you did hit a bigfoot and it messed up your car but ran off. What are you going to tell your insurance company or the police? Umm, I hit a bigfoot? Or, I hit a deer? Of course I say that light heartedly but it's a possible scenario. And it's funny that you mentioned that because I had my own experience with it not long ago. I posted the story in werewolf section though. You might can find it through my profile or i'll provide a link.

Clobhair-cean, on 22 February 2013 - 07:55 AM, said:

Umm, we can capture humans with ease. Even if they are hiding in a forest. Is bigfoot smarter than humans? Is bigfoot, a primate (a group of animals not really famous for stealthiness, quite the opposite) stealthier than a leopard? Because people are still capturing and killing Amur leopards even though less then thirty of them live in the forests around the Russian-Chinese-North Korean border. Talk about remote area.

Well again, Forests are THEIR natural habitat. Not ours. Even if you have survival training you'll have to come in for supplies eventually. Plus they are supposedly a lot stronger and faster than humans. And they supposedly Shun human contact. I realize that you can say the same for most animals but this is a bit different. Why can't we find those plane crashes I mentioned earlier? You'd think with the tecnology we have those would be easy to find but apparently not. Bigfoots have been reported in that same area. If we can't find around 100 plane crashes what makes you believe we can find one of them?

Edited by mace13, 22 February 2013 - 09:33 AM.

[Clobhair-cean]

mace13, on 22 February 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

Well apparently i'm going to have reread a lot of my bigfoot/native american lore then because I have read quite a bit over the years that contradict what you're saying. I'm sure some Native Americans would argue with you as well. I've also read reports of where some exploreres had encounters with Bigfoot type creatures upon arriving here in North America. I can't remember them off hand but i'll try looking them up.  I know the term "Bigfoot" came from a newspaper report about tracks being found at a logging site in the 50's. But  just because that was one of the first times it had been reported in popular media doesn't mean that is where it started. By that standard I'm assuming you also believe that all the crop circles came from two blokes with a rope and wooden plank that just left a pub.

Could you please provide any links, and not from Bigfoot websites or books. I am yet to see any independent confirmation that a large, hairy apelike biological creature was believed in by native americans. Different kinds of spirits, yes, but if you look into them closely, you'll see that all they have in common is that they are vaguely human-shaped and live in the wild. That doesn't make a bigfoot.

mace13, on 22 February 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

I thought we were seeing a lot more photos or video of bigfoot in recent years. Is that not what I said? Look on youtube. There are all kinds of videos because everyone now has cameras. Are a lot of them fake? Yes, they are. But I wouldn't put them all in that category.  The BBC kind of have a heads up on where the animal in question resides. Regardless of how few they are. Most of the times it is just a certain area.  With Bigfoot it's a little different. Here you have a creature that supposedly resides in all of North America in uninhabitable forests. The only way in is by walking. That drastically limits the time you can spend there.

All of the photos videos are blobsquatches. And yes, the BBC heads to where the animals reside. Like the Hindu Kush mountain range in Pakistan, that is immensely more remote than anything in North America. And they always return with crystal-clear footage, usually provided by a single cameraman who camps out in the wilderness alon. While half a century of bigfoot research failed to produce a single clear photograph. This should be somewhat telling. We have numerous examples of researchers going in to a remote area, I always bring up the Bili Ape of the Congo Basin as an example, to find an elusive animal, and they always find it rather quickly. Why? Because if an animal is real, it can be found, unlike bigfoot.

You really don't think that it's weird that half a century of research by thousands of enthusiastic individuals produced exactly nothing?

mace13, on 22 February 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

I just googled "Bear carcass". Every photo I clicked on was a bear killed by a poacher or hunter. I didn't find any that said it was from natural causes.I quite possibly am wrong on the bear carcass point. There probably has been a bear that died naturally found by someone at some point. But it is still rare.

There are plenty of ones that don't indicate any poaching. Like this one:



Or this, found by skiers:

mace13, on 22 February 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

You can't say that for sure. I've read or seen more than a few Bigfoot sightings where it ran in front of a car. And it's more than likely that there are ones that haven't been reported. Say if you did hit a bigfoot and it messed up your car but ran off. What are you going to tell your insurance company or the police? Umm, I hit a bigfoot? Or, I hit a deer? Of course I say that light heartedly but it's a possible scenario. And it's funny that you mentioned that because I had my own experience with it not long ago. I posted the story in werewolf section though. You might can find it through my profile or i'll provide a link.

If you hit a bigfoot, you'll get hair. And blood. DNA. You can start out on that. Most probably, the bigfoot would die and would be found. Every known animal in the United States has been hit and killed by cars, even some invasive species or strayed captive animals. Every single one, except bigfoot. This is once again, a fact that should not be overlooked.

mace13, on 22 February 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

Well again, Forests are THEIR natural habitat. Not ours. Even if you have survival training you'll have to come in for supplies eventually. Plus they are supposedly a lot stronger and faster than humans. And they supposedly Shun human contact. I realize that you can say the same for most animals but this is a bit different. Why can't we find those plane crashes I mentioned earlier? You'd think with the tecnology we have those would be easy to find but apparently not. Bigfoots have been reported in that same area. If we can't find around 100 plane crashes what makes you believe we can find one of them?

Plane crashes, as I've said, are not like animals. Animals aren't covered by the undergrowth, they aren't generally composed of little pieces and they can't get buried underground and covered with foliage. Well, they can, but you see my point. Plane crashes are a bad analogue, because we are talking about living-breathing, moving animals and not stationary objects.


But really, ask yourself the question. How come bigfoot is unlike every other animal in the United States? Bears, pronghorn, mountain lions and many other species live in the remotest parts of the country, yet we have crystal-clear moving and still images of them from the remotest segments of North America. Nothing of the sort about bigfoot. Hikers find them dead. All of them, on a rare, but regular basis, except for Bigfoot. All the animals are hit and killed by cars. Except for bigfoot. We have fossil evidence from all of them. Except for bigfoot.

What is more logical? That bigfoot is completely and utterly different from not only all known North American animals, but from all the animals in the world, and that's why there are not traces of it or that it simply isn't there?

[mace13]

Fstop, on 22 February 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

A well written and passionate rebuttal.  Thank you for that.  

I assume (perhaps incorrectly, and if so please forgive me) that since you are in a position to judge my knowledge of Bigfoot puny and insignificant, you must be some sort of expert in the field of Sasquatchery.  I am in fact quite well versed in the history of the legend of bigfoot and its roots in the storytelling traditions of our Native peoples.  At an earlier time in my life I read everything I could get my hands on that referenced Bigfoot.  I was a stalwart believer.  Really quite obsessed for a time with Cryptozoology in general, but with Bigfoot in particular.  I've changed my position on Bigfoot's existence however, for the reasons (silly though you might think them) listed in the post you so generously quoted.  

Alright, your most likely as knowledgeable as I am in Bigfoot lore. I won't argue that. I'm no expert on the matter but I know more than most people. As like you, I have either read or watched quite a bit on the subject myself over the years. And it has convinced me that there is a very good possibility of its existance. There are too many stories that go back many years,too many sightings, too many photos,too many tracks found and too many recordings for me to disregard all of it as nonsense.  Are some of these possibly hoaxers? Yes, they are. Are some of them due to the overactive imagination of the witnesses? Yes, I believe that to. But not all of them. And that is where I find most fault with your reasoning. You're saying that all eye witness accounts of basically anything are unreliable because of our fallible senses. You're using that for just Bigfoot at the moment. But if you truly believe that then that applies to everything. Such as witnesses to a crime, The observance to an experiment, Who the winner of a race was or etc.,. That is a pretty broad statement for you to declare.

Fstop, on 22 February 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

I think you are missing my point, though.  Bigfoot, if bigfoot exists, is an animal.  Just like you and I are (again forgive my assumption).  Whether you like it or not, bigfoot - being an animal is going to have to be verified and vetted by biologists and zoologists - by scientists - in order for it to ever come out of the shadows of crypto-land and take its rightful place among the other real creatures of our world.  Maybe that will happen some day, if one is ever caught alive, killed, or a bigfoot carcass is happened-upon......and maybe it won't.  When that happens, all the stories, all the blurry blobsquatch photos, all the audio recordings of something yelling and howling in the woods,  all the footprints, will THEN become evidence that supports the existence of the creature.  Until then, these things are just documentation of a something.  What that something is, we don't know, because the something has never been proven to exist. All of those things I mentioned - you have to have a verified animal to tie them to before they are anything but just unattached information.  

I agree to the fact that we(humans) are animals and if he exists,so is Bigfoot. That is just basic information. But we are unlike other animals are we not? And I also believe that Bigfoot would be classified more as a human than a regular animal,say a dog or a bear or even an ape. As I previously said, most reports suggest that they seem intelligent. So why wouldn't it be possible for them to be able to avoid us if we were looking for them? Especially given the areas that they live in and their small population. Since they are unlike any other creature(animal) on earth why would they be assumed to behave like them? And I believe the reverse of what you stated. I believe the photos,footprints,sightings and recordings are evidence that support the existance of the creature currently.

Fstop, on 22 February 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

If or when that happens, I will be thrilled because then I can believe in Bigfoot again.  I'll be first in line to admit I interpreted the signs wrong.  Under what circumstances will YOU admit you are wrong?  None, I'll wager.  Yet you accuse me of jumping to the conclusion I want and ignoring evidence.  There is no evidence - yet.  All those things you mentioned - not evidence until a damn bigfoot turns up and gets studied, classified, dissected, etc like ALL OTHER ANIMALS.

I can admit when i'm wrong.I have no problem with that. But I believe you are far from proving myself and many others wrong. Especially with the current line of reasoning that you're arguing with.

Fstop, on 22 February 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

You mention bears.  Know what the difference between a bear and a bigfoot is?  We KNOW bears are REAL. We have studied live and dead ones, we have taken bears apart and put them back together.  We proved bears exist.  Not so much with Bigfoot.

My point on that was, yes, we know bears are real but rarely find dead ones from natural causes if at all. So finding a bigfoot carcass would be even more remote since we can't find a live one. But that doesn't mean they don't exist. We have been looking for the Giant Squid for how many years now and we just finally got the first footage of it in it's natural habitiat. I suppose you didn't believe in it despite previous evidence either huh? It was just an old drunk fishermans tale by your logic.

Fstop, on 22 February 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

You mention Native Americans and their history with Bigfoot.  Last i checked, Native Americans were humans, no better or worse than the rest of us.  Living in the forest doesn't make you immune to mistakes or misidentifications ESPECIALLY if your Native American belief system tells you that Bigfoot is a real critter running around out there somewhere.  I don't say this to denigrate or disrespect NA culture.  Just sayin that they are people, prone to people-mistakes.

Yeah, they were humans but they were in a completely different enviroment than us to. They weren't living in houses in cities where you hardly see a wild animal except maybe a racoon or a feral cat. They were actually out there living with nature. You know, where Bigfoot is supposed to live. I'm sure they encountered every animal imaginable. If they say they saw hairy,10 ft tall wild men running around i'm more inclined to believe what they had to say versus someone on a message board that like me is an armchair detective.

Fstop, on 22 February 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

Obviously you and I are going to have irreconcilable differences here.  Which is cool - because this is a discussion board.  Things would be pretty dull if we all agreed with each other.  I'm willing to consider the possibility that I could be wrong.  I'll change my tune when a Bigfoot is found and studied.  What about your tune?  Is it flexible?  Maybe Meldrum will find some Bigfoots with his photo-blimpie thing.  But what if he doesn't?  What will it take to sway you?  Be honest with yourself.  If the answer is that nothing will sway your opinion...then who are you to call others and their beliefs stubborn and intractible?  Most of us skeptics would be thrilled if Bigfoot were proven some day.  That'd be big big news.  Just because we have our doubts doesn't mean we don't care about it, you know.

Regardless of what I am saying on here I am a very skepticle person myself. I don't believe everything I read or hear at face value.I take everything with a grain of salt. Like you, I know that people are prone to over exaggerate stories and have overactive imaginations. But I look at all of the evidence and make my decision based on that. If it somehow proven that Bigfoot doesn't exist then okay. Present the evidence to me so I can weigh it all in. But at this moment to me the evidence is leaning more in Bigfoots favor. One thing that differentiates myself from you is that I had my own encounter. I mentioned it in a response earlier. I posted the encounter on here in a werewolf section. If you can't find it i'll post a link later. So after having my own experience and not just reading about it you're going to have problems swaying my opinion.

And I apologize to everyone for tempoarily hijacking the forum. That was unintentional. And also to Fstop. After reading some of your posts earlier I was getting a little hot headed. But i'm calmed down now. I still stand by what I said though. You shouldn't be making snarky or underhanded comments to people. Play nice.

Fstop, on 22 February 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

Thanks for your post.  I look forward to reading more of your thoughts.

[Fstop]

mace13, on 22 February 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:

Alright, your most likely as knowledgeable as I am in Bigfoot lore........

Not going to repost your entire post...that makes the thread tediously long.  I'd like to apologize to Mace13 and anyone else I've offended with my snarky comments.  Unfortunately that is my sense of humor - dark and sometimes a little caustic.  I'll try and tone it down for the sake of discussion.  

Mace13 - as unlikely as this may sound to you, I am not actually seeking to prove you or any other believers wrong. I know that is technically impossible - proving a negative, I mean.  No one will ever prove conclusively that Bigfoot does not exist. All I've been doing, or trying to do is explain what I believe and why. I believe that at this point the lack of evidence supports a conclusion that Bigfoot is highly unlikely to be real.  You and I can debate what is evidence and what is not til we fall over from boredom most likely.  Many times, that is what the BF discussion finally boils down to, the question of "what is actually evidence?"  

The only thing that will change my mind is the careful and scientific study of an actual creature under controlled settings, just like other animals have endured to be classified.  I'm an empirically driven person - to a fault probably.  To me, until we can get our hands on one of these things, all the other stuff you feel is evidence has other more probable (in my opinion) explanations.  

I do respect your position and that of those who feel they have had encounters.  If my snarky choice of words makes it seem otherwise then I am quite apologetic.

[danbell06]

Totah Dine, on 21 February 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

I have been a member of this site since 2010 and have held my peace due to the ridicule and derogatory remarks that plague these threads.  There's a big difference between skepticism and poisonous cynicism.  I had an experience over 25 years ago in my front yard.  Less than 10 feet from me.  I have lived here since birth and spent my childhood roaming the woods by the river.  I have seen just about all the wildlife this area has to offer.  Me and my brothers would camp out during the summer and never encountered anything unusual.  

Not until one summer night when I was showing two of my nephews the stars.  Since that night I haven't been camping or hiking in the woods.  I won't even go outside after dark unless I absolutely have to.  Like I said, this was over 25 years ago.  I'm 50 now.  I won't look out the windows after dark.  There is no mistaking what I saw.  

I won't share my encounter.  I've seen the ridicule and denigration that some members seem to take pride in and sharing would only add more kindling to the fire.

It was a traumatic experience that has altered my life and I wish it had never happened.  Every time the dogs start barking at night I don't sleep.  I stay away from the windows and pray with all my heart that what I saw never comes back.

I was a skeptic and as a Christian was entirely sure that God would never allow something like that to walk the earth.  My encounter shook me to the very core of my being.

Now I'm going to slip back into the ether and never mention it again.

You can't tease me like that and not explain your encounter. There are thousands of others who have had sightings, so not everyone is lying. That's why I still believe that bigfoot has existed. Not sure if its still knocking about now, but at some point they were there.

[dharma warrior]

Ridicule aside, all us skeptics are asking for is some testable scientific evidence. Photos, videos, footprint castings and eyewitness accounts are not scientific evidence and don't count. The latest claim by a so called bigfoot "researcher" states that there is a population of 50,000 spread across North America. Yet not one shred of evidence has been presented. It just doesn't add up.
Keep in mind that it's not the skeptics job to prove that bigfoot doesn't exist.
If you're not skeptical about the existence of bigfoot, then you're not thinking straight.

[Guyver]

Totah Dine, on 21 February 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

I have been a member of this site since 2010 and have held my peace due to the ridicule and derogatory remarks that plague these threads.  There's a big difference
I won't share my encounter.  I've seen the ridicule and denigration that some members seem to take pride in and sharing would only add more kindling to the fire.

Now I'm going to slip back into the ether and never mention it again.

That's too bad.  You may have made the most believeable post in this entire thread.  I take it from what you've said here that you got an up close and personal look at a creature that has really terrified you.

PS. to the person who mentioned the cemetary.....

Checking Google maps, I see that there is a very large wildlife preserve in close proximity to this sighting....and along wetlands/water sources.  It's called the Sabine National Wildlife Refuge.

[Hawkin]

Just because there is "No Evidence" doesn't mean "No Existence".

[scowl]

Mag357, on 23 February 2013 - 12:15 AM, said:

Just because there is "No Evidence" doesn't mean "No Existence".

Just as "evidence" doesn't mean "existence". Look at my avatar if you need an example.

[QuiteContrary]

scowl, on 23 February 2013 - 12:33 AM, said:

Just as "evidence" doesn't mean "existence". Look at my avatar if you need an example.

Aw, scowl...I was hopin' they were real

[Sakari]

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 21 February 2013 - 10:47 PM, said:

North America, indigenous peoples have known about BigFoot for 50,000 years.

Nonsense.....

The only verification of this you will find is on Crypto or Bigfoot sites.

To many people think they are " educated " because of this rubbish.

Verify what you are saying, I guarantee you can not. ( except Bigfoot sites, or Crypto )

edit : Not sure why I replied, this has been said over and over again....Repeating cycle, different players, different year....

Back to Nature topics

Have fun.





FStop   .... Welcome to UM...Take over where I left off, I enjoyed your posts, and I have been posting similar for years. You will find ( if you stay long enough ) that this fantasy of Bigfoot will go on forever. The lies, ignorance, and false facts will be the same, and the real facts ignored or forgotten. It will wear you out, and interest will drop........Anyway, welcome, and good luck

Edited by Sakari, 23 February 2013 - 01:44 AM.

[Hawkin]

QuiteContrary, on 23 February 2013 - 12:42 AM, said:

Aw, scowl...I was hopin' they were real

They are. I got a quarter when I was a kid by putting a tooth under the pillow.

[QuiteContrary]

Sakari, on 23 February 2013 - 01:32 AM, said:

Back to Nature topics

Shucks, Sakari. I was hoping a bunch of us skeptics on UM could get together and go on a $500 a pop Dyer bigfoot expedition!
"No?" Really, are you sure?

[QuiteContrary]

A Boq or Bookwus, (their name for sasquatch) from Bella Coola Indian (native PNW Indians) legend: This is not our NA bigfoot, imo. But I can see how modern white people and some Indian could transform it into such.

The attitude of mingled hope and fear with which the Bella Coola regard their supernatural anthropomorphic beings is typical of their thoughts and actions concerning zoomorphic creatures as well. In the supernatural world the dividing line between human and animal beings is not clearly defined; fabulous monsters have the mentality of supermen, and can be appeased, besought, or cajoled precisely as are anthropomorphic beings. Like those in human form, supernatural animals can bestow good or evil on human beings with whom they come into contact......(The boqs) somewhat resembles a man, its hands especially, and the region around the eyes being distinctly human. It walks on its hind legs, in a stooping posture, its long arms swinging below the knees; in height it is rather less than the average man. The entire body, except the face, is covered with long hair, the growth being most profuse on the chest which is large, corresponding to the great strength of the animal. The most peculiar feature of the animal is its penis, which is so long that it must be rolled up and carried in the arms when the creature is walking; it terrifies its enemies by striking tree-trunks and breaking branches with its uncoiled organ. It is said that a woman was once drawing water at the edge of a stream when a boqs, concealed on the other shore, extended its penis under the water to the further bank and held intercourse with her. The contact rendered her powerless, as if turned to stone; she could neither flee nor remove the organ. Her companions tried unsuccessfully to cut the organ until one of them brought a salalberry leaf, whereupon the monster, dreading its razor-like edge, withdrew. http://www.ufobc.ca/...ends/bella1.htm

Edited by QuiteContrary, 23 February 2013 - 03:07 AM.