Reports of a big hairy creature roaming remote places in North America have been around long before the patterson film ever took place... it is not the only piece of evidence to suggest that 'bigfoot" is a real creature... people simply pick and choose what evidence they want to consider as evidence to justify their claims. So for some anecdotal stories/eyewitness account are enough to suggest that "bigfoot" is indeed a real creature.. for some it is plaster casts of footprints, there are also unknown vocalizations that are attributed to bigfoot. For others it is DNA/hair evidence.. and others still the odd blurry photograph... take your pick but it seems there are lot or reasons/evidence that suggests bigfoot is indeed a real creature. Simply ask yourself what it takes for YOU to believe that bigfoot is real.
Edited by Overdueleaf, 22 December 2012 - 11:00 PM.
I don't want to sound like the 'Grammar Police' but you actually aren't supposed 'believe' in cryptids as it gets in the way of true facts and evidence supporting the non- existence. But I agree with Overdueleaf, sightings started way before the Patterson film was made. Although when it was said it was fake many people thought Bigfoot was fake as well ,hence, the reason why people don't support or 'believe' in Cryptozoology because they 'know' they are all fakes.
We know almost how many stars exist in our milkway but we have no idea of the number of animals living on our planet.
Posted 23 December 2012 - 03:00 AM
Claiming adedotale evidence as proof that the patterson film is a fake is the same a claiming adedotale evidence for the existence of the patterson film, both are not empirical evidence for or against bigfoot. I myself like don't beleive in the existence or against the existence of bigfoot. But to answer your question. All the evidence to the contrae is not preswasive.
"Either the most complex and sophisticated hoax in the history of anthropology has continued for centeries without being exposed, or the most manlike and largest non-human primate on earth has managed to survive in parts of North America and remains undiscovered by modern science." G.W. Gill, President of the American Boared of Foresensic Antropology
We know almost exactly how many stars exist in our milkway but we have no idea of how many species living on our plant.
What centuries? The bigfoot legend started in the 20s, in the heyday of made-up journalism and only really took up in the late fifties. before that, practically all there was were a wide-ranging bunch of Native American myths that, for some strange reason, are thought to be representing real animals. If that logic was applied, we would still be looking for harpies, satyrs and naiads around the Greek Islands, as all the native inhabitants of the region had stories about these creatures for centuries. Bigfooters should realise that folklore is not fact and is not an accurate representation of anything but folklore.
Please show me a 2000 year-old cave painting clearly depicting bigfoot. Also, why do you think that only real, physical animals can be depicted in cave paintings? Myriads of mythological creatures and spirits, such as the Rainbow Serpent, were depicted on cave walls and rock faces all around the world.
The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor
Posted 23 December 2012 - 05:10 PM
It wasn't intended to be an argument, it's intended to get you to push some buttons and read.
Besides, anything I posted up you'd simply reject for the sake of having an argument and that's counter productive in itself. However, if you go and read it for yourself you might actually learn something........assuming you actually do the Google thing.
When I have time, I'll be kind enough to post up the information you've requested. Why you won't save time and Google "historical bigfoot news articles " yourself is a bit confusing, but I'll do it for you if that's what you want.