83 replies to this topic

[The New Richard Nixon]

 mgessel, on 26 December 2011 - 09:01 PM, said:

I live in west virginia currently and I have had an encounter with something that could be described as bigfoot, I was fishing at the boat ramp just down the ball fields where my brother was playing football and I kept hearing what sounded like brush moving and then started to hear things hitting the water like they were being thrown. I kept looking behind me but didnt see anything, after about five mins or so of this happening I heard something running through the brush about ten feet or so behind me and I saw something run out of the brush and cross the road. It was a reddish brown color and it wasnt a deer because I actually had something to base its size from because it ran right behind one of the 3 or 4 foot tall concrete poles and it was a good 4 feet taller than the concrete pole. And I am not the only one who has had a sighting there either, My friend Chris and his friend Mike were out night fishing on the river and they were anchored just outside the mouth of the creek that runs along the boat ramp, they both said to me that they watched a 7 or 8 foot tall bipedal creature that walked down to the rivers edge squatted down and started to use its hand to scoop up water out of the river and drink it

Sounds like a deer, some of the males can grow huge.

[mgessel]

http://www.desertusa...apr/wtdeer.html"]My link[/url]

 Erix, on 26 December 2011 - 09:35 PM, said:

Sounds like a deer, some of the males can grow huge.

I grew up hunting and I have never seen a whitetail get that large anywhere as I said in my previous post it was a good four feet taller than the concrete post that was in front of it and to the best of my knowledge whitetails while they can get quite large wont reach seven or eight feet tall and that is including the antlers on the male.

Edited by mgessel, 26 December 2011 - 11:20 PM.

[DieChecker]

 spud the mackem, on 26 December 2011 - 04:46 PM, said:

re Agent D.Scully,how do you tell the difference between a brown bear and a grizzly bear...??? well if you climb up a tree the brown bear will climb after you,but the grizzly bear will shake you out of it,but if you see one in the dark...leg it quickly before it sees you,as they can run just as fast..Seasons Greetings.

Hopefully no Grizzly Bears are in West Virginia. They are supposed to be extinct in the lower 48 states except around Yellowstone park, Northern Montana, and possibly Northern Idaho, and Northern Washington State.

[greywolf]

From the description, it sounds like my ex-mother in-law. she always liked to camp out.

[Device]

If these women are telling the truth then what we have here is a genuine mystery. The Bigfoot enigma continues. Sure there have been many hoaxes but underneath it all lies a real question that has not been satisfactorily answered. To me.

[27vet]

They probably have a live Bigfoot at Area 51.

[Myles]

 Freshness, on 26 December 2011 - 07:56 PM, said:

I am a believer, screw all the non-believers! Open your mind and see, really see, take a look around you and after a while it will all make sense, it's a scattered puzzle, but it can be put back together!

People have been taking a look around for a long time.   They just cannot come up with anything.   There is nothing there.

[Rafterman]

More "cool story bro" stuff - the rational types among us scoff and the believers wet themselves.

And that's about all it is.

Perhaps these two are the descendants of the Mothman witnesses.

[Neognosis]

Quote

The Bigfoot enigma continues. Sure there have been many hoaxes but underneath it all lies a real question that has not been satisfactorily answered. To me.

What would be a "satisfactory answer" to you?

Because everything we know about our ecology tells us that there is not a species of giant ape in our ecosystem. And there is also no physical evidence.

So what is "unsatisfactory" to you, and what would satisfy you one way or another.

[OverSword]

 Neognosis, on 27 December 2011 - 04:05 PM, said:

What would be a "satisfactory answer" to you?

Because everything we know about our ecology tells us that there is not a species of giant ape in our ecosystem. And there is also no physical evidence.

So what is "unsatisfactory" to you, and what would satisfy you one way or another.

No physical evidence except foot prints, unidentified hair samples, and photo's which may either be or not be the alleged bigfoot, and sound recordings which are claimed to be sasquatch and remain unidentified by supposed sound experts (how you get that title I have no idea).

And of course hundreds of sightings by everyone from rednecks to police officers to now deceased Presidents of the United States are not physical evidence.

Until there is a corpse some people will never be convinced of even the possibility of bigfoot's existence, therefore I say may the non-believers long exist, as I have not such a burning need to see people believe that one of the creatures must die.

[Neognosis]

Quote

No physical evidence except foot prints, unidentified hair samples, and photo's which may either be or not be the alleged bigfoot,and sound recordings which are claimed to be sasquatch and remain unidentified by supposed sound experts

Those things are not evidence though. Neither are "sightings."

It is just not plausible that a giant ape species could live in our ecosystem without a demonstrable impact. I don't think you will ever get the body you hope is never discovered.

I honestly don't understand how an open minded and informed person could carry on with this belief that bigfoot could be real.

I don't need to see a corpse of a wolverine to believe that they exist. But then again, we have live specimens, good film footage, and teams of biologists have seen and well documented them. That will never be the case with bigfoot.

Edited by Neognosis, 27 December 2011 - 07:25 PM.

[OverSword]

 Neognosis, on 27 December 2011 - 07:23 PM, said:

Those things are not evidence though. Neither are "sightings."

It is just not plausible that a giant ape species could live in our ecosystem without a demonstrable impact. I don't think you will ever get the body you hope is never discovered.

I honestly don't understand how an open minded and informed person could carry on with this belief that bigfoot could be real.

I don't need to see a corpse of a wolverine to believe that they exist. But then again, we have live specimens, good film footage, and teams of biologists have seen and well documented them. That will never be the case with bigfoot.

Footprints and/or plaster casts of them are not physical evidence?  Nor is unidentifiable hair samples?  These are not evidence of a "bigfoot", but evidence that there is or may be something out there which we have not yet identified or discovered.  To absolutley deny even the possibility is just stupid.  To do so repeteadly in broken record-like fashion is simply argumentive.  

Not naming any names but those of us here who used to work for the CIA and frequently forget to take thier medication know who I'm talking about.

Edited by OverSword, 27 December 2011 - 08:25 PM.

[Neognosis]

They are only physical evidence of holes and depressions in the ground. NOT of bigfoot.

Unidentified hair samples are also not evidence of bigfoot. They are also usually not "unidentified" when they are tested again by a better lab. But that part gets forgotten often, and thrown on the "evidence pile."

Quote

To absolutley deny even the possibility is just stupid.

To believe that a species of giant ape could occupy our ecosystem without being documented by biologists is silly.

At this point, to believe that bigfoot is a possibility is to be pretty closed minded, IMO.

Edited by Neognosis, 27 December 2011 - 08:43 PM.

[OverSword]

 Neognosis, on 27 December 2011 - 08:39 PM, said:

They are only physical evidence of holes and depressions in the ground. NOT of bigfoot.

Unidentified hair samples are also not evidence of bigfoot. They are also usually not "unidentified" when they are tested again by a better lab. But that part gets forgotten often, and thrown on the "evidence pile."



To believe that a species of giant ape could occupy our ecosystem without being documented by biologists is silly.

At this point, to believe that bigfoot is a possibility is to be pretty closed minded, IMO.

For the first part of your post, I also specified that it was not evidence of bigfoot.  The re-testing of hair samples at a better lab then proven known I have never seen, do you have an example or did you just make that up?  

And most ridiculous is your statement that it is closed minded to believe that bigfoot is even an impossibility.

[Myles]

 OverSword, on 27 December 2011 - 08:25 PM, said:

Footprints and/or plaster casts of them are not physical evidence?  Nor is unidentifiable hair samples?  These are not evidence of a "bigfoot", but evidence that there is or may be something out there which we have not yet identified or discovered.  To absolutley deny even the possibility is just stupid.  To do so repeteadly in broken record-like fashion is simply argumentive.  

No, plaster casts of footprints are not evidence.   No more than a drawing is.
Unidentified hairs is not evidence either.  No more than it is evidence of a one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eater.