now what do you do. if the history channel or other scientists just found a nest for Bigfoot. what is going to happen if they tell us that they found them.

finding a nest and not knowing what made it dosent proove big foot,,,

now finding a body that would be something,,,,i would imagine if cought alive it would be studied to further understand what it actually is and if it shares and history with mans evolution...if its dead thell do a test and im sure tons of money would be dumpoed into research and finding others......but dont hold your breath on finding anything but shady evidence

A nest won't suffice.. But i hope big foot is caught alive so we all could be able to view it.

Unfortunately I doubt it will be, because I doubt it exists.

the first thing that would happen is every hunter in the area and nearby will go on a hunting trip.

That's just ignorant claptrap. Like any other general class of people, hunters are no more noble or law-abiding, nor ignoble or prone to law-breaking as any other class of humans.

But they do enjoy killing novel things for fun, and I imagine that the notoriety in killing something that doesn't exist would be pretty tempting.

More ignorant claptrap.

so your telling me that at least one hunter wouldn't want one for a trophy.

That's quite a strawman you just stuffed. Your previous statement declared EVERY hunter would be out there gunning for the creature. Now it's ONE. How clever!

So hunters DON'T enjoy killing things for fun?

Because it seems to me that is the whole basis for hunting....going out and killing something. If it was going out and NOT killing something, it would be backpacking or birdwatching or just hiking, right?

Why do hunters have to kill? Must every thing beautiful die to, in their eyes, be truly beautiful?

Do you backpack for "fun?" Or do you feel a deeper appreciation of nature (and yourself) in doing so? Is the venison I'll place on my plate today "fun?" No, it's quite proper and necessary nutrition.

As far as "going out and killing something"--most hunters savor the experience, and the necessity of killing isn't the end-all ultimate goal. That is, most can enjoy their experience of the hunt whether they actually harvest game or not.

That deeper appreciation is part of the fun.

You're going to argue the semantics of "fun" to try to claim that hunters don't like killing things?



Weird. In america, we have supermarkets where we can get meat already killed for us.



So then the killing part is just an unfortunate thing that they have to do? I got it. I thought that they liked killing things. Wait...can't they just sit out there and enjoy nature and watch the deer? it's tragic that they have to do something they don't want to do just to be outside for a few days.

Hunters like killing things. If they didn't want to kill something, they could go to the supermarket after taking a backpacking trip.

Hey, it's ok. I don't kill things if I can avoid it. But someone has to, other wise the deer would die of famine, so better someone who likes killing animals do it than I have to.

Did you know that when you pay for a hunting or fishing license it helps with the preservation of wildlife? Not all hunters and fisherman do it for fun. Some do it for a living. So saying that EVERY HUNTER will go out to kill some Bigfoot is just total nonsense.

Of course, how could I be so blind. To understand nature you have to shoot it. Hm...I dont fully appreciate my roof, should I kill it?

I don't think there are any people who make their living from hunting game anymore.

There are professional hunting guides, though, for sure.


I think we can all agree that "every" was used for exaggerated effect, and that a LOT of hunters would want to shoot bigfoot, no?

I also doubt there is any unknown primate in North America, but, am more open to the possibility of one in the Himalayas. Mostly, this is because of a book that I read about three escapees from a Russian Gulag in Siberia. There was a very brief two paragraphs where they claimed to see these creatures while they were crossing the Himalayas. The entire story was so sensational, like reading a Holocaust survivors account, there was no need to add this sighting unless they really believe it was true. Now, granted there are other explainations. They were very sick from lack of food and water, not to mention they were running mostly on adrenaline and a will to live. They walked across three countries and one of them did not make it. IMO

Are you like Neognosis, and simply pay someone else to kill the animals you consume? If so, it's fine, it really is. But don't condemn hunters who harvest and utilize their kills while you've a mouthful of steak or bacon in your mouth. If you're a true vegan, I can appreciate your point. If not, it seems a little hypocritical, condemning those who kill yet paying others to perform that task for you.

Every purchase of a firearm or even a box of ammunition has an 11% tax (Pitman-Robertson Act) which goes directly to wildlife restoration. Those evil hunters!

I think there will be a lot more NON_HUNTERS that will be wanting to make a profit. Do you agree with that? Probably not. I am sure there might even be a few broke vegetarian gamblers that might even want a piece of the pie.

I am not a hunter myself, but I am a big fisherman. I don't think it is right that you are singling out hunters on this thread. You need to look at all the other crooked people in this world when money may be involved.

I don't condemn hunters. They do like to kill things, though. If they didn't like to kill things, they wouldn't be hunters. don't say they don't like to kill things, because they do.

I'm not a vegetarian. I actually would rather eat something wild caught then raised in a factory farm, although most of my meat is open range chicken and buffalo anyway.



I would like you to find me where someone called hunters "evil."

All I said was that they liked to kill things, which is true. I disagree with it, but someone has to do it, and I'm glad it's not me, because I take no pleasure in ending any life if I don't have to.

now i may be in correct but i recall that most of the non-believers on here. won't believe in bigfoot until they see a body.

and according to monster quest last night a dead body only last around 7 days. true this was in the swamp, but the deer did not get eaten if fact only one scavenger checked it out but didn't take a bite. it was all bugs.


so how are you going to get a fresh body without killing it.

The flesh only lasts a week in hot, humid conditions. The bones last much, much longer.

A body, a fossil, some bones, the documentation of something substantial by an actual scientist.



I don't need a fresh body. I'll settle for even a tooth.

how do you tell a bigfoot tooth from an african ape tooth.

A body, a fossil, some bones, the documentation of something substantial by an actual scientist.


the bones then get scattered and/or covered by leaves and other plant material.

a fossil can only be formed under the right condetions.


with all of the monkeys in south america they have only found a dozen single bones and two skeletons(these were found in the last couple of years.)

How do you tell a Gigantopithicus tooth from an ape tooth or a neanderthal tooth?

Apparently paleontologists can and do.




It seems unlikely that we have fossils, then, of things that stopped reproducing a million years ago, and therefore there would be fewer fossils. But we have NOTHING from an animal that supposedly has been making babies for years and years. There must have been more of them in the fossil record, yet there is nothing. NOTHING.




There are many more monkey skeletons thatn two. Surely, you aren't saying there are only two monkey skeletons in existance? Also, we know monkeys exist. Bigfoot doesn't.

People kill monkeys all the time. They see monkeys all the time. THey interact with monkeys, photograph monkeys, capture monkeys, experiment on monkeys, train monkeys, put them in zoos, etc.

the do none of these things with bigfoot
because he isn't real.


Now, you KNOW I'm going to need a citation to believe something like that.

i cited this on another thread. i don't remember which one.

Even though I think it's going to take some hunter shooting a sasquatch to prove it, i don't think i could do it. I think it sucks to have to kill something to prove it exits (ironic from the name huh) but it's going to have to be done. What if some good footage of sasquatch (like the Patterson) could be had on a modern day camcorder with good optical zoom? Would that be enough to convince any skeptics?

A jawbone, a tooth, anything conclusive is all I require. We don't have to kill one. Maybe we could capture one, track it with hounds (although the hounds from monster quest found nothing, of course) etc. etc.



No. First off, i can't believe some of you think that the patterson footage is "good."

Second, they can do a lot now with costumes and editing software. No image could ever convince me. You will need to capture one or find some remains.
and then I'll get my tattoo.

Of course, those hounds didn't really have any skunkape scent to home in on, in the first place. They were given the scent wafers the scientist had created, which consisted, among other things, of vaginal bacteria cultures from apes and humans. How can the hounds track if they don't have the scent of the intended target?

They did find that camera man taking a break under a tree

Because there isn't such thing as a skunk ape. They will NEVER have a skunkape scent to home in on.

id like to evidence/proof of some sort, to back up that claim.

You can't prove something doesn't exist.

But you will never have any proof of something that exists. The lack of proof is enough for me to decide for myslef that the skunk ape does not exist.

It's ok to believe in something with no proof if you keep your head about you.

Just stop saying there is any proof
because there is not.

see, thats the thing (so annoying too).
skeptic - i dont believe it because i havent seen it. it just seems dumb to me
believer - i believe in it because of the pictures we have, the prints, the videos, the eye witness reports (when people are alone or with others).

you think there isnt any definative proof, just like theres none it doesnt exist. although apparently youre not allowed to do or say that. because you cant prove something doesnt exist. which means, the possibility is always there.
even when it comes to elves, faries or unicorns..........unfortunately *sigh*
the only difference. people who believe in those, have nothing to go by, except their imagination. as opposed to bigfoot.

(although the hounds from monster quest found nothing, of course)


this is not true. they found the crew member hanging cams.


they also found that no other primates had been in that area recently.

there is no evidence for elves or unicorns or lepruchans
And there is no evidence for bigfoot either
besides eyewitnesses

Like that gun nut from last night who fell asleep by the dupster
or the recollections of a man in his late 40s of something he thinks he saw when he was 7


I've never seen a wolverine either, but I believe they exist. Because there is evidence.

It's more like "skeptic - i don't believe because there is no evidence for this thing"

believer - I believe because I think it's cool and so I'll accept anything as evidence even when it is really lame and has another explanation. I'll pile up all the lame "evidence" and eyewitness reports, no matter how doubtful, and call it a "mound of evidence."



yes, one of the laws of logic is that you can't prove a negative. You can't prove something does not exist.

You can't prove unicorns aren't real
you can't prove lepruchauns aren't real

You can't prove that I don't have magic powers
and you can't prove that bigfoot doesn't exist either.

It's a law of logic.

People who believe in bigfoot have nothing to go on except their imagination and a willingness to accept almost anything as evidence.

Broken branch in the forrest? BIGFOOT!
Unidentified fibre in a tree? BIGFOOT!
Unidentified noise? BIGFOOT!
Depressions in the mud? BIGFOOT!
Blurry shakey film? PROOF OF BIGFOOT!
A stain on a board with some nails that could not even be analyzed it was so degraded? BIGFOOT!

Or ever.

There was not ONE single shred of credible evidence on that show. NOT ONE. NOTHING. NOTHING but 48 minutes of eyewitnesses who presented nothing but their stories.

Because there isn't such thing as a skunk ape. They will NEVER have a skunkape scent to home in on.





then the two tribes in Florida who have these things in their myths don't know what they are talking about.

Have these things in their what.....MYTHS, did you say?

You hit the nail on the head.

They also have a myth that the earth sprung from a lump of excrement laid by the trickster on a turtle's back. But we don't send scientists into space looking for the turtle's head and legs. Because it's a myth.

A very common myth that occurs in nearly every culture. Why? Because what differentiates man from animal? HAIR. Man is not hairy. Animals are. Wild things are therefore hairy. When people imagine a story about a wild man-like creature, of course he is hairy. It is nothing more than a story.

whats up with the bashing of believers because they dont share your views? trying to make them sound stupid. its kinda sad, that this is what youve resorted to on here. because you have nothing to back up your claims, except your opinion......sad
and that statement was very, very wrong. 'theres no evidence for bigfoot besides eyewitness accounts'. tisk tisk
id tell you to go do some reading, but im not sure that will do you any good.

"People who believe in bigfoot have nothing to go on except their imagination and a willingness to accept almost anything as evidence."

yeeaaaaaaaaaah, no . thats for things like god, a unicorn, elves, gremlins and eskimos.
now dont get me wrong, i know people can get excited and take things toooo far. and claim its evidence. but you seem to generalize all of them, and the people on here. which isnt very nice, not sure theyd appreciate you saying that about them.
and if the case was brought to court:
skeptics - i dont believe in bigfoot, i havent seen it. the evidence doesnt impress me at all. it seems like a joke.
believer - well we have prints, videos, pictures and eye witness accounts. these people will testify underoath what they saw was real, and take polygraph tests if needed
hmmm, not looking so good for ya

according to the monster quest show last night.


Florida has already tried to pass a protection law for the skunk ape. mainly because a tracker has already taken a shot at one.

I'll say it again...believe in bigfoot if you want. I will not argue with anyone who admits that they believe in bigfoot, but that there is no real evidence for it.


I will argue all day with anyone who breaks the laws of logic or who presents something as evidence that is not.



And the laws of logic, reason, biology, paleontology, etc.



I've done reading. And what I've learned is that some of you are so biased and hopefull you will accept anything as evidence, although you conveniently don't pay attention when your "inconclusive hair" is later revealed by a forensics lab to be plant matter or synthetic.

I bet some of you watched last night's skunk ape show and actually came away believeing MORE than you did when you first turned the tv on. Despite:

No evidence at all
not a fibre (turned out to be a plant)
not a bone
not any blood
NOTHING but unsubstantiated stories from people either lying or too scared to get any physical evidence.

Oh yea, and the dogs found nothing.

That show was an excellend indightment of some people's deep desire for bigfoot to be real. And I can accept that. i want him to be real too. In fact, I'll even say that I might even believe it's possible. But there is NO evidence and it breaks the rules of reason and logic, not to mention the laws of science.

So, do I think bigfoot might be real? It's possible, anything is possible.

But there is no real evidence for bigfoot.
None.





have you ever been on a Jury? I have. I would like to see someone tried for a murder based on nothing but footprints and witness testimony when the alleged victim has no record of their birth or existance whatsoever.
Or try to convict someone based on a video that is blurry and doesn't identify them.
And by the way, the polygraph is not admissible in court. Because it doesn't measure truth or falshoods. It only measures physical reactions that can happen from any number of stimuli, including nervousness.

What pictures? Show a jury a picture of a vague blurry shape in the dark and the judge will likely have you disbarred.

Also, in the United STates, a jury will acquit if there is reasonable doubt.

Things like not having a body or any remains in a murder trial, not to mention any evidence the victim ever existed at all, are reasonable doubt.

in a jury? no, not as of yet. sat in court, yes, but its obviously different.
BUT, there it is people 'logic' and 'reason'. in other words, your opinion. (i really dont think i need to say anything else, but i will)
biology is always finding new things. as well as paleontology (bad idea mentioning those)
and then you REALLY need to look around, and read up. theyre are alot of half-dece pics and videos out there. that can be taken somewhat seriously, and not dismissed as a joke. and again, youre making believer sound stupid, and have all shakey vids and crappy blurred pics of Absolutely nothing on their camera. its a sad argument. really. its getting old.
plus all the eyewitness accounts people have (you know, those ones who can and Have put people in jail for life). im sure you know that, having been part of a jury and all.

It's only a bad idea if you don't have a basic understanding of the principles of biology and paleontology.

biology: A creature naturally expands to the limits of it's environment. Except for bigfoot, who has somehow maybe gotten ahold of birth controll pills or has abortions. For some reason, bigfoot populations have shrunk as they have retreated farther and farther away from man, in order stay hidden. They must use Magnum condoms for sure.

Paleontology: Every creature alive leaves behind a fossil record. We find more every year. The idea that a creature could be alive up until today, yet leave NOTHING in the fossil record, is pretty far fetched. the last bigfoot like creature in the fossil record disappears a million years ago.

There are no bigfoots in the fossil records from a hundred years ago
or a thousand
or ten thousand
or a hundred thousand
or five hundred thousand
Just a at around a million
Because this is when G-man died out.




Well, let's start with ONE. Post a link or the actual picture, we'll go through each one and that should make it pretty clear that you're biased and will accept almost anything.

Also, IF these pictures are real, logic dictates that the chances of finding some remains should be higher and higher. Yet we have NOTHING.




Actually, i sat on an assault with a deadly weapon case for 5 days straight, and in the end, a plea bargain favoring the defendant was reached BECAUSE WITNESSES CONTRACTED ONE ANOTHER. Why? Well, the evidence clearly pointed to a shooting AND a stabbing taking place, they had a knife (no prints. Interesting, the police couldn't get prints off of a plastic handle, but we have "dermal ridges" in mud...) they had spent shell casings, and they had a guy with a bullet in his chest. But witnesses all said different things. One guy, in the house next door, claimed he never even heard any shots until 3 hours after the incident happened.

Some were lying, some were mistaken. Becasue everyone involved in the legal system knows that eyewitness accounts are horribly unrealiable. Especially when that's ALL you have.

yeah, cause it backfired on you here.



oh, i know people lie. alot.
but fortunately, thats not All we have

happy new year. cheers

I'll wait for you to post something other than anecdotal evidence. Maybe these believable photos you have.

Like the one from last night, that the biologist said was probably fake? (I'm sure you can find some crackpot wanting attention that will say it might be real, but come on....)

It seems to me Neognosis puts the "explained" in "Unexplained Mysteries."

...

For the most part, I agree with you, but the idea that we--as a species, as a scientific community--have the fossil record completely cataloged, detailed, and understood is a little bit of stretch, in my opinion. Discoveries will come about in the next year, in the next ten years, in the next twenty, etc., that were not predicted because that is the way science has always been--the cannon of knowledge will be turned, shuffled, and reevaluated because that is the way science works. There are some main fundamentals, sure, but even those will have to stand in a new light and new contexts in the coming years.

I make this statement because after reading your posts I get the impression that your view is everything has been figured out and understood, and everything else explained away by current knowledge. Last I checked, universities and the research contained therein are still ongoing. Perhaps I am reading into your posts wrong (and I say that in all honesty).

Skunk ape? No idea if it exists. At this point, looks like no. But to make a definitive statement regarding its existence seems to fly in the face of what science is--that being the explanation of the world around us. And if we have already decided that it doesn't exist, where does that slippery slope end? What other unbelievable avenues will we not even consider and research? Because if there is one thing I can guarantee it is that in a hundred years from now there will be things considered as utter fact and truths of our existence that seem far-fetched to us today.

I say this all in respect because you seem a very rational individual, and that is certainly needed.

I agree.



I don't necessarily believe that. But I do believe that people have a need to feel like there's something mysterious out there, and they often are willing to bend logic and science to "prove" it. They accept a fantastical idea, rather than a simple explanation because they want to believe the fantastical explanation.



Ok, I can accept that. Would you accept that it is highly unlikely that a creature could live on our continent and there would be no remains ever found and nobody would ever shoot or capture one?
I'm willing to come down to "extremely unlikely."

But I'm still going to attack silliness being posed as 'evidence.'

I think that's what bothers me at the heart of the bigfoot debate.