....I have heard for sometime that there was more than 1 Bigfoot in the Patterson Video ?....Is there any truth to this ?....Thank You !....

Welcome to U-M. I've heard the same thing, and seen a couple photos and videos pointing out "shapes" in the surrounding vegetation. I'm highly doubtful. They're not convincing.

Thank You !....I honest believe the Bigfoot exist....So if there is 1 there has to be 2 , plus a viable breeding population....That said , it is odd that very few photos or videos exist showing muliple Bigfoot....IMO that is one of the biggest enigmas about Bigfoot/Saquatch.....

Oh, you're right, there's many enigmas about bigfoot. I'd like to think there's still mystery in this world. It's puzzling more physical evidence hasn't been found.

There is not two bigfoots in that video. There is not 1 bigfoot in tha video. There is however a man dressed up as an ape wih boobs probably as a joke striding along a riverbank.

I can't see how there could be, I rewatched it out of curiosity, and all there really is is closeups of the main 'bigfoot' and alot of shaky camerawork in between. You don't really see distant foliage or anything.

i believe that the bigfoot probably/hopefully does exist, but i don't think there's even 1 in the Patterson Video.
It just looks incredibly fake to me.

the total amount of BF in that film is equal to zero.

Lots of opinions, little in the way of facts.

patterson film more likely real than fake

You are right Incorrigible1, so I will rephrase my earlier statement to say;

In my opinion, the total amount of BF in that film is equal to zero.

Very well. I've posted the past couple months with some reasoning as to why I believe it's possibly an unknown creature. To each their own. Thank you for the rephrasing of your statement. Your opinion is as valid as mine.

Not it is not, it is completely inconclusive.

So inconclusive it's never been satisfactorily replicated.

To who's satisfaction? Its a blurry video. It is merely inconclusive. It however is still not proof or valid scientific evidence (This is why no respected zoologist accepts it as such).

You're absolutely correct. Yet in 40 years, there's not been another film or video put forth that remains as inconclusive as P/G.

Does not make it valid evidence of prove it is in way real. The lack of any real physical evidence is extremely damning for bigfoot.

footprints, hair, scat of something undiscovered isnt telling u anything? do you know hunters rarely find animals dead of natural causes?

the pg film clip on incorriglbe's page shows the legs jiggle. unlikely back then,

But carcasses are found and a lot more is found by scientist studying other animals in those large ranges.

pluseeeee!! what scientists are up in the nw?!! most are in africa looking for species that are common. rare species are found very rarely even when people PUT IN A GOOD EFFORT TO LOOK

Seriously! You really believe that! Are you that clueless to scientific work! Very few zoologist go off an work in Africa and study common animals. Do you think the FWC go off and study in Africa?
Wolves and Caribou study in British Columbia
Wolves and Moose study in Britsish Columbia
Bears in British Columbia
Bears in British Columbia
Orcas and Sea Otters in British Columbia
River otters in British Columbia
Bats in British Columbia
Wildlife management in British Columbia
Book: The Birds of British Columbia
Moose in British Columbia
Beavers in British Columbia
Bats in Oregan and Washington State
Winter studies of Bats in Washington State and Oregon
Beavers in Washington State
Otters and Mink in Washington State and British Columbia
Cougars in Oregon
Cougar poulation dynamics in the PNW
Wolverines in the PNW
Fishers (a type of mustelid) in the PNW
Wolverines in Northwest America

So want to debate this do you? You have no idea about zoological study at all.

these scientists werent looking for sasquatch. a rare animal will know of your presence when you enter the forest. tell me, out of all of these, how many have been conducted at night? umm like zero or one? looking for a nocturnal primate in daylight is like looking for a vegetarian in a steak house

That's a fact, jack!

especially when very few people are looking for this thing, and are covering barely a couple of acres over the time of a week. 1000000's of acres are in the nw and canada, look harder, way harder

Sorry you think bat and wolf studies were all conducted in day light? Even these nocturnal animals are found in daylight as is the wolverine, which is extremely difficult to find. There is also work done with owls in the region. Your must also note that wolf work requires a lot of tracking and still these scientist covering large areas of PNW land find no one single piece of evidence to suggest bigfoot's existance (and they would spot something anomalous like bigfoot remains)
Your are also still suggesting the concept of a bipedal forest dwelling nocturnal primate. Sorry but this is not a good combination for survival. No large primate is nocturnal (the biggest nocturnal primate if 37cm) and these are all primitive primate species and all have a tepetum, something lost in all large primates. Also being bipedal in a forest environment is a huge disadvantage. It is an adaptation for predator avoidance in open plains. It is a hinderance in woodland. And no, all animals would not be aware of your pressence the moment you enter a forest and such an animal could be tracked.
Of course they were not looking for bigfoot, they were looking for the animals they where studying and they found them and got enough infomation to produce a paper. You said no one looked in the PNW and made the true ridiculous comment about all zoologist working in Africa. I proved you wrong (like I proved you have no grasp of geography or climatology).

Dear god, people are there all the time studying animals that live in that region and have been doing so for well over 100 years. If they are looking at other animals there they will still know how to recognise something new. Hence no reputable zoologist takes bigfoot seriously.

no you havent. how do we know giganto isnt nocturnal? animals can move away from people who are invading their habitat.

their have been some zoologists who were studying animals in the nw and some encountered a tall massive hairy ape like animal.

you have ignorance on evolution, and allowing for species to adapt. explain what the dna from snelgrove was, and the odds if it being an unknown species are 4999 of 5000. they have spend like an hour in the night, not months,

A giant bamboo eating ape, why would it be nocturnal? No other ape is nocturnal so it is safe to say G.Blacki was not nocturnal. Yes animals do move away, but they leave evidence of their existance, and most will not move just because humans live next to them.
Which zoologists?
I am ignorant of evolution, but it is a slow process and doesn't just happen so an animal can move from a tropical to a boreal climate via and polar climate. This would be a rather fatal route for it.
The DNA from Snelgrove is debatable and no paper has yet been published on it, it was remember not a scientific report, but a television show.

it was a show investigated by REAL SCIENTISTS.

its impossible to tel what extinct animals were nocturnal. theire are apes that we have no fossil record of. its likely humans had another ape following them from asia.

humans dont live next to sasquatch, they live in areas where a sasquatch would not venture. they call the areas sasquatch are reported REMOTE. why have people seen consistently different sizes of an 8 ft tall bipedal ape?

It is still not a valid scientific report, it is still entertainment first and foremost.
A fossil record would not show an animal to be nocturnal or not, but lifestyle is an indicator of whether an animal is diurnal or nocturnal and a big bamboo eater is never likely to be nocturnal. It is highly unlikely that a giant tropical ape followed humans from Asia to the Americas.
Your last paragraph is pure baseless conjecture.

the show was to investigate sasquatch, scientifically

giganto was omnivorous, like a chimp

tropical tropical tropical. were all the animals today living in the nw tropical? ignoring the great apes ability to adapt to almost anything is stupid. their could have been many carcasses found by early man, and we still wouldnt know about. where would they have put it?



baseless? its ridicolous to suggest every eyewitness is seeing a bear or racoon. its insulting their intelligence. maybe if you read every report, you would be more educated. they describe a diffferent species, not a hoax or bear.

No it investigated it for television. You have already proven with your insulting ridiculous comments that you are completely clueless when it comes to scientific research.
That may have well been the case, however it still specialised on bamboo. No not all the animals in the PNW were tropical. But if you put a gorilla in the Arctic, how do think it would do? I can answer than. It would die and quite quickly. Great apes do not have the ability to adapt to almost anything, why do thing most of them are endangered?
Yes baseless, no matter how many eyewitness reports are you cite, they are scientifically useless. It is not insulting their intelligence it is because we are very prone to error. I am 100% sure when it comes to zoology I am much more educated than you. I am also 100% sure that no worth while scientific institute would accept eyewitness reports as valid method of ever describing a new species.

scientists should LOOK into eyewitness sightings and visit areas where they saw this animal, not accept them as proof,

buddy, i worked at a zoo with chimps and gorillas, and know about primates. i know that people arent seeing hoaxers or bears.

They do look at them, but field work is expensive and they are not going to waste a lot of money on something someone thinks they may have seen.
Well done, I am a zoologist and I know about primates too, most likely more than you. You don't know you believe, there is a difference.

they should spend money, unlike people like u.

i know other scientists who consider sasquatch worthy of merit, like goodall and schaller. maybe, just maybe people do a half ass job searching every inch of the world

Why, because you think so? No reputable scientists consider this a worthwhile use of money. They have real animals to study.
Giving surnames is rather pointless, there are numerous scientists called Goodall and Schaller.
Maybe, just maybe, there is actually nothing there.

nothing? people arent seeing nothing. real animals? some scientists consider it a real animal. take a damn chance with the stupid money. maybe they would find something if they did that

Why? Because a tiny minority believe in it? Not really a good reason. As I said, they have real animals to study.

not a tiny minority, a pretty damn good amount of people think its worthy of investigation.

sasquatch is likely a real animal

Sorry but you are wrong and you have already proven you lack scientific knowledge to debate this and a lack of knowledge about zoology. The general publics opinion is completely irrelevent as it should be. Sasquatch is in fact likely not real at all, sorry. It'll remain your little fantasy.

then explain every damn footprint, hair, paper, scientist, vocalization, eyewitness, dna test, are all wrong? oh bc you say so?

why dont you call park rangers who saw this thing up close delusional?

scientists did consider the gorilla a myth. you cant deny it.

Can't really compare science of 1847, when the gorilla was first discovered, to modern science.
I don't need to explain them, they fail to stand up to scrutiny of science in generally.
Why don't you call up universities and tell them they are wrong in their belief that bigfoot is not real and the evidence is not valid?

First you say people are doing a half a*** job, then you say a lot of people think it is worthy of investigation, why aren't these people making an effort then? Then why aren't credible scientists like Jane Goodall doing it, taking a chance, searching the world like you would like them to, if they really and truly believed there was a lot to go on and there was a chance an animal like bigfoot could be found?

Let's look at the quotation from Goodall:
Well now, you'll be amazed when I tell you that I'm sure that they exist.
Well, I'm a romantic, so I always wanted them to exist. (Chuckles.)
Of course, the big, the big criticism of all this is, "Where is the body?" You know, why isn't there a body? I can't answer that, and maybe they don't exist, but I want them to.

She admits, she wants them to exist and she admits that she cannot answer fundamental questions about the lack of evidence. She may believe in them but do you see her going out and trying to compile evidence to write a paper proving their existence? No. Does she state it is scientific fact that they exist? No. And why is that? She knows how science works and she knows there is not enough to go on and the 'evidence' there is does not stand up to thourough scientific scrutiny. What she says is that there are some unexplained hair samples and eye witness accounts about a large mystic ape that she would like to believe in because she is a romantic.
Do you know what it does for a scientists career to discover a new species, especially a large bodied mammal? If there was something to go on that would stand up to scrutiny, there would be a lot of scientists trying to find it, it would be a glorious oppurtunity, nothing to be scorned and ignored.
People have been looking for a long time and have found nothing that would be considered scientific evidence that would stand up in a peer reviewed journal. A hair sample from an unknown animal in the himalayas that does not match bear DNA does not make it bigfoot, there are a lot different things it could be, as far as i remember, they did not match it, or find it similar to ape DNA either....

As for eyewitness reports, people see what they want to see, if you have been told tales about bigfoot and shortly after you go into the woods and see a big shadowy shape, you will interprete a lot more into it then if you were unaware of the myth. People's minds will play tricks on them, it is not an insult to their intelligence, it is a fact.
This was proven very well during an experiment conducted at Loch Ness, when a long stick was placed in the water and people were asked to draw what they saw, the people who were there when the stick was placed, saw and drew a stick but people who saw the stick coincidentally firmly believed they had seen Nessie until they were told about the experiment and on the second look, they did admit it looked an awful lot like a stick...

people arent seeing what they want to see. they are seeing something unknown to science. their is a lack of misidentifications for sasquatch, since its bipedal.

people havent been looking enough. to find a rare animal, you have to cover every square inch, look in every cave, and if they did that, they would have announced it

lake monsters can be misidentified. sasquatch cant bc your dealing with a bipedal hairy ape, which their is no other misidentification for

No I'm sorry, you are wrong on all accounts there.

sorry, i stand corrected. "eyewitnesses are unreliabe" but what if eyewitnesses are seeing sasquatch? it would have to surprise you if it was the other way around

what about those parasites found in sasquatch feces, conclusion:unknown species

what about those 20 hair samples that are different from human hair and lack a medulla

At the risk of repeating myself: Then WHY aren't credible scientists like Jane Goodall doing just that, taking a chance, searching the world like you would like them to, if they really and truly believed there was a lot to go on and there was a chance an animal like bigfoot could be found? WHY, if so many credible scientists as you claim believe in this, WHY is it not happening?
As I sid before, discovering a new species is a wonderful oppurtunity for any scientists, if there is credible evidence and so many credible scientists that truly believe as you claim, WHY is all this not happening?

None of that would prove sasquatch no matter what you think. Unknown species as has been pointed out recently could mean a mouse or a deer. Or as happens many times, they where misidentified (as Fahrenbachs hairs have been, under secondary review they where found to be human). Parasites could just be a new species of parasite, it does not lend evidence to the existance of bigfoot.
Eyewitness are unreliable yes. The lack of valid evidence makes it even more unreliable

Could you be more specific and list the sources for these claims?

footprints are valid evidence, so is feces from an UNKNOWN ANIMAL, so is the pg film,

explain toe flexation, pressure ridges, and dermal ridges