137 replies to this topic

[Bionic Bigfoot]

Hello Bavarian Raven,

First off, a special 'hello' to a fellow Canuck! Secondly, ravens, crows and corvids are one of my favourite bird species!

I personally don't know where sasquatch fit into things on an evolutionary context, but whatever the case is, I feel that they are more closely related to humans than what we think and are less 'animal like' than many want to assume.

[Hasina]

Bionic Bigfoot, on 07 October 2012 - 06:42 PM, said:

I think I'm going to be slammed by you and many others here, but I genuinely believe that the Patterson's footage of 'Patty' from 1967 is totally real.  When I first saw that film decades ago, I was convinced then as I am now that it was a real sasquatch.  I KNOW that others claimed to have debunked it but I'll never be convinced it wasn't the real deal.

There are just too many very credible witnesses claiming to see this creature and going back hundreds of years.  I can't discount those facts and for whatever reason, sasqautch has continued to elude us.  And like you mentioned, some of the forests in the USA and Canada are so vast that anything could be living in them.  I'm not sure either that the government doesn't have conclusive proof of their existence and hiding it.  Yes, a conspiracy theory! LOL

I've never taken a side on the Patty footage, the debunking side of the argument makes a few good points, but not many. Even compared to a lot of footage nowadays, the Patty footage just seems too good, if it was hoaxed, that costume is very very good, even by today's standards.

[Bionic Bigfoot]

Hasina, on 07 October 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

I've never taken a side on the Patty footage, the debunking side of the argument makes a few good points, but not many. Even compared to a lot of footage nowadays, the Patty footage just seems too good, if it was hoaxed, that costume is very very good, even by today's standards.

This is what I believe too, Hasina.  That costume and if it was a 'costume' was just too good and realistic for that time.  I've seen attempts to duplicate it and even today, they fall way short of creating such a realistic looking creature.  The musculature seen, the breasts that were visible, the walk and fluidity of motion...all just way too good for the 1960's and to be hoaxed.

[QuiteContrary]

Just my 2 cents, not a gibe. I've heard at least one other story and seen an interview on TV of other Native American women seeing "sasquatch" "bigfoot" while berry picking. But bears like berries too. And if it is considered an honor/good luck/etc to see "bigfoot" in your culture what would you rather believe? It was a bear or bigfoot creature?

But of course I can't say what they saw.

[The Alchemist]

Greetings All,

In reading the posts, and having heard about the sighting a few days ago, I just wanted to add a few things. First, this part of Canada is pretty remote Hasina, not really a large population at all. I question why a Sasquatch would be there in the first lace given the likely lack of food sources. Second, most if not all indigenous cultures, from my experience, considers the sighting of a Sasquatch type creature as good luck. Quite the contrary, it is bad luck which may even lead to physical harm or death for the person or their family seeing one.

I agree the photo of the alleged footprint could be anything really.

[The Mule]

Bionic Bigfoot, on 07 October 2012 - 06:42 PM, said:

I think I'm going to be slammed by you and many others here, but I genuinely believe that the Patterson's footage of 'Patty' from 1967 is totally real.  When I first saw that film decades ago, I was convinced then as I am now that it was a real sasquatch.  I KNOW that others claimed to have debunked it but I'll never be convinced it wasn't the real deal.

There are just too many very credible witnesses claiming to see this creature and going back hundreds of years.  I can't discount those facts and for whatever reason, sasqautch has continued to elude us.  And like you mentioned, some of the forests in the USA and Canada are so vast that anything could be living in them.  I'm not sure either that the government doesn't have conclusive proof of their existence and hiding it.  Yes, a conspiracy theory! LOL

I'm not going to be one of the ones who slam you, but I'm on the opppsite side of the fence. My cousin does animation/special effects. Movies you've seen. Lots of them. Its going to take more than photographic or video evidence to convince me. Having said that....I do like to think they're out there. Better at eluding us than we are at hunting them.

[Bionic Bigfoot]

The Alchemist, on 07 October 2012 - 09:46 PM, said:

I question why a Sasquatch would be there in the first lace given the likely lack of food sources.

Hello Alchemist and thank you for the response.  Although I'm a new member here I don't feel I'm not qualified to answer your question.  From what BF researchers have discovered and found out is, that these creatures are omnivorous  There is very good reason to believe that they, like any other omnivore eats various animal and vegetable matter.  Like bears who inhabit HUGE and successful regions all across North America, they probably eat whatever they can and depending on the season and other conditions.  In the past, food resources of sasquatch were a hot topic of debate.  Many people either wanted or chose to believe they were herbivores exclusively.  Therefore that theory would put a big nail in any dietary reason for bigfoot to exist.  It would be much more likely that they are omnivores and likely feed on other animal sources quite often and since deer and other prey would be easily available to them, nearly anywhere in a heavily forested environment.

Edited by Bionic Bigfoot, 07 October 2012 - 10:01 PM.

[orangepeaceful79]

Hi there Bionic Bigfoot.  Welcome to the site - since you are admittedly a newbie.  I hope you don't take what I have to say as ridicule or disrespect.  I would however like to offer my perspectives.

For me personally there are too many inconsistent, unlikely, and just downright unproven aspects of the Bigfoot/Sasquatch phenomenon.

Firstly the lack of physical evidence is a huge bone of contention in my book.  I understand the belief that they bury their dead - but so do humans and every so often even buried human remains make their way to the light of day for someone to find.  To use this logic, one has to also assume that there are a whole lot more dead bigfoots buried out there, than there are live ones out roving around.  How come not even one of these dead guys has turned up?  A lot of the contemporary thought and eyewitness accounts paint a picture of Bigfoot as a solitary animal most of the time.  How do the other squatches know when one dies so they can go find the body and bury it?  What tools do they use?  where is the evidence of that?

If Sasquatches are elusive and avoid human contact and have for that reason managed to avoid having someone pop a cap in one of their hairy asses and haul them in, then why are there so many sightings?  An animal cannot simultaneously be so incredibly smart that nobody can reliably find it and also so fantastically stupid that so many people manage to allegedly capture substandard photos and/or video of them. You can't have the argument both ways.

Why do sasquatches make no impact on their environment?  There is no irrefutable evidence of their feeding, breeding, dying, habitaton, or migration.  All other living creatures leave behind evidence that they are doing these things.

In my mind all of these issues are more succinctly and simply explained by saying that none of these are occuring because Bigfoot just doesn't exist.  In order for Bigfoot to exist one must construct many elaborate side theories to explain away these few questions.  Is it impossible for Bigfoot to exist?  I will never go that far.  Its just HIGHLY unlikely that a creature of Bigfoot's stature would exist seemingly without leaving any physical evidence that can be studied to corroborate its existence.

Am I sad about that - yes.  I'd love for Bigfoot to be real.  I think it'd be really cool.  I just can't believe something for which there is no real evidence.  Eyewitness accounts aren't real evidence.  Our senses are fallible.  Whether you are a city dweller who witnesses a crime or a native Alaskan out picking berries.  Our senses and brains are not objective measurement devices.  Not yours, not mine.

Edited by orangepeaceful79, 08 October 2012 - 12:25 AM.

[Bionic Bigfoot]

Hello Orangepeaceful79 and thank you for the welcome!

Well, no problem in asserting your perspective and beliefs, thank you for at least responding to my comments!

I can't possibly answer all your questions because a) I just don't know for certain and there is just too much none of us know about the behaviours of the creature and its habits.

I don't personally believe that sasquatch are all that solitary creatures, I believe, like many, that they live and work in small groups and families.  I also believe, like many others that they are well aware of others of their kind and in various ways.  That they are cognitive of their species and knowledge and experiences is passed down from generation to generation and can span great distances.

'Most sasquatch researchers believe that their population is quite small and in terms of the size of their environment.  Let's say there might even be 10,000  bigfoot spread out all over North America....well, that would be a very rare species in general and for the land mass size.  Most towns and cities in North America have way more people than this and those communities are very tiny on the North American map.

Another point of fact to note is that IF any sasquatch were buried, the remains could either be predated upon if dug up and/or their bones would have decayed in vast forests where they might not be found.by chance.

As I'm sure you're aware, there are TONS of hoaxes and dishonest sighting reports.  We can't be certain how many reports are genuine and just how many of the creatures are actually in the environment.

I tend to give more credit than most might and in terms of human intelligence to know the difference between a bear and a bigfoot.  In many of these sightings cases, these are people who are well aware of what a bear looks like and can tell the difference between a 'normal' animal and a sasquatch.  I refuse to believe that the majority of peoples' sightings are mis-identifications or confusion.  To me, if you believe that the majority of sightings are simply confused or uncertain people, just makes it seem like humans are even more stupid than we think.

Edited by Bionic Bigfoot, 08 October 2012 - 01:08 AM.

[orangepeaceful79]

Bionic Bigfoot, on 08 October 2012 - 01:03 AM, said:

  To me, if you believe that the majority of sightings are simply confused or uncertain people, just makes it seem like humans are even more stupid than we think.

Its not stupidity that is at play here, at least as I see it.  Its the power of the human mind to respond to suggestive situations and interpret sensory information based on our hopes, fear, biases - etc...

The simple fact of the matter is that all theories that surround the bigfoot phenomenon are just guesswork as there is no real data to build on.  We can believe literally anything about bigfoot and it will all be jsut as valid.  I could believe that Bigfoot prefers peanut butter and jelly sandwiches to tree bark and thats why we don't see tree bark missing in areas supposedly inhabited by bigfoot.  There is no evidence to support or deny my assertion, so it might as well be true.

ITs the inherent pitfall in "studying" the behavior of an animal that can only be presumed to exist.  People can say whatever they want.

I respect your beliefs.  I can say that without a doubt.  What I'll respectfully dispute are your facts.  Because there aren't any regarding bigfoot.

[DieChecker]

Bionic Bigfoot, on 07 October 2012 - 05:32 PM, said:

I'm not sure if anyone has posted about this yet or not.  I always find it more credible when these sightings take place in remote areas by the local native people.  I highly doubt the size of the bigfoot as estimated by the women, but I tend to believe their story.  This sighting just happened recently.

Good Post Bionic Bigfoot. And welcome to these forums!

I saw this article the other day and was going to post it, but never go around to it and then was out all weekend. Thanks!

Bionic Bigfoot, on 07 October 2012 - 06:22 PM, said:

This is what I TOTALLY believe Hasina.  Sasquatch are extremely intelligent hominids! Personally, I believe they are the missing link (more or less).  I do believe they bury their dead and from all I've read, seen and learned about them over the many, many years is that they are more 'human' than animal.

They would have to be very intellegent, if they are real. I can't say that I would believe they are the missing link. I would agree with Hasina that they are more probably another species of the Homo genus. I also believe (Given Bigfoot is real) that they could have come over much earlier then the first homo sapiens. As Homo Erectus was in northern China almost a million years ago. And there have been like 4 or 5 glaciations since then, so there was 3 or 4 times before the Native Americans traveled to North America for bigfoot to migrate there first. The only real killer with the migration and other homo species is the lack of fossil bones.

( I do think it is funny you took the name Bionic Bigfoot and use the Six Million Dollar Man version of Bigfoot for your avatar. As that particular bigfoot was an Android, not a cyborg (bionic), and... that you are saying old BF is a missing link.) (You do see the slight irony, right?

Again.... Welcome

[DieChecker]

Bavarian Raven, on 07 October 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

I think they're just humans who long ago were kicked out of their clans/tribes for being different (suffering from Hypertrichosis) and then continued to live (forming their own small clans, etc), and still live their stone-age existence to this very day. It would explain the sightings, the legends, the whole wife snatching/children snatching incidents, etc. It explains why the bones, hair, etc, turns out to be "human". Because they are humans - just humans that have been living primitively and suffering from Hypertrichosis. It explains the whole legend (and both sides of the argument would be right for once). Thats my theory anyways - what do you guys think? Anyways, cheers.

That is an idea that I often suggest in various bigfoot threads here. That bigfoot is actually a genetic condition, a very recessive defect. And it would thus show hair and bones as human. Very cool idea.

[DieChecker]

Bionic Bigfoot, on 07 October 2012 - 07:33 PM, said:

This is what I believe too, Hasina.  That costume and if it was a 'costume' was just too good and realistic for that time.  I've seen attempts to duplicate it and even today, they fall way short of creating such a realistic looking creature.  The musculature seen, the breasts that were visible, the walk and fluidity of motion...all just way too good for the 1960's and to be hoaxed.

I have to disagree. Though I am a proponent of the possibility of bigfoot, I'm very convinced that the Patterson Film was a hoax. Too many data points all fall on the hoax side of the equation for my liking.

Bob Heronomus was known to own and wear a suit to scare people. Patterson had all his money and reputation invested in that adventure. And he happened upon that BF within minutes of starting his trip into the woods. Also there are dozens of scientific and forensic investigations/videos out there showing that the footprints were faked, and showing inconsistancies with the film and what was claimed.

Sorry....

[DieChecker]

The Alchemist, on 07 October 2012 - 09:46 PM, said:

First, this part of Canada is pretty remote Hasina, not really a large population at all.

Actually I believe the article said this is the northern most (Or second northern most?) report of a bigfoot ever. So I agree it was pretty remote.

As to food, did not the article say that the observers were there because the Caribou were coming through there? That is food right there.

[Bionic Bigfoot]

orangepeaceful79, on 08 October 2012 - 02:04 AM, said:

Its not stupidity that is at play here, at least as I see it.  Its the power of the human mind to respond to suggestive situations and interpret sensory information based on our hopes, fear, biases - etc...

Don't forget though that many of the people who've claimed to see a bigfoot have held no preconceptions or expectations.  In fact, many of the people who've had a sasquatch encounter have often been non believers.  The last thing thing many witnesses expected to see what a large, hairy, bi-pedal creature.  There have been quite a few witnesses who've stated that seeing such a creature disturbed them immensly and the encounters have completely rocked the foundation of their belief system.