Bigfoot. Bigfoot is one of the few cryptids that demands serious consideration. Both sides and the in-betweeners can and should all be able to agree on this. I believe in the possibilitiy of bigfoot. For the purpose of this discussion I would love to see members avoid being believers or non-believers. Both extremes are equally flawed. All that does it create tension, arguments (not debates) and eventually leading to insults and the thread closing. Also lets try to leave out the Patterson film because there are plenty of threads for that specifically. There are other images we can examine.

To start off this discussion, I would like to draw the comparison of bigfoot to mountain lions. Specifically referring to mountain lions here in Kansas City. I remember a while back a mountain lion was struck by a car and killed on a major highway near downtown. Big deal right? Well kind of. Mountain lions are not supposed to be roaming this part of the country anymore. This begs the question-Are there resident breeding populations or are they wanderers? This is not really known as of yet. Either way they are here, and by here I mean in a big city and in the surrounding areas. So what does that have to do with bigfoot? Plenty!

We always here that we should find bodies or evidence or see bigfoot much more often than what occurs. But in the entire state of Missouri there are only eight CONFIRMED mountain lions in the past 15 years. And only three of those involved an actual body. The rest were images that could be confirmed as mountain lions. And in Kansas City there has been just the one confirmed case. What is important is differentiating between confirmed sightings and reported sightings. There have, however, been hundreds of reports. Ah, we get closer to the correlation with bigfoot.

Bigfoot has hundreds of sightings, but because we don't KNOW if they exist, none can be confirmed. Its possible that if we knew bigfoot existed, that some of the images would be enough to confirm a bigfoot is in the image. So one has to wonder, in a big city and the surrounding suburbs where mountain lions are roaming, you would think they would be filmed more often. But they aren't. Now imagine the vast wilderness purported to be prime bigfoot habitat. How can we expect to see and film bigfoot in such huge territories when we can't even confirm more mountain lions in a big city area? A side note-the bodies confirmed showed no signs of being raised or held in captivity.

Also of interest, "Missing from Missouri is the physical evidence that is left by a viable, breeding population of mountain lions." Now this could be because there just aren't enough to leave the obvious evidence everywhere. Sounds kind of like bigfoot again. Might just not be very many of them. And bigfoot habitat is much harder and harsher to search for evidence in, than anything Missouri has to offer. Obviously, there are not huge amounts of mountain lions in Kansas City, but no one says there has to be huge amounts of bigfeet either.

So what this shows is that it is POSSIBLE that a bigfoot population could go un-CONFIRMED. But no so scarce as to go un-REPORTED. Because we know there are plenty of those. I am not trying to limit this thread to just the mountain lion comparison. I am just using them to support the possible existance. Anything you can offer as to could they or couldn't they exist, would be great. That is too much of a philosophical argument for another thread. Which ever way you lean, let us just try to keep this partial. Maybe someone will change their views. Just don't be too over zealous in our approaches. Leave the door open because that is how you came to it, and as of now, that is the only honest way to leave it.

My source for some of the mountain lion info is right below.
Missouri Conservationist Online

I agree with you completely bball. Another compelling and useful example would be the Blue Whale. It is the largest animal living on our planet, though we arn't able to track it and haven't even been able to find where they mate and where they give birth, their entire lives are basically a mystery. How many blue whales corpses have washed ashore that you're aware of?

I live in Northern Alberta, Canada and I can say for a definitive fact that there are hundreds of square kilometers of forest that they could be lurking in.

So that theory is pretty much solid.

I back onto National Park for 100s of klms, anything could be in there. Who's to sat that sassys don't have the intelligence to bury their dead, we don't really know anything about them.

One huge problem or difference between BF and mountain lions is that dogs can track mountain lions. Apparently they can not track BF, as I understand BF has a very strong oder so one would think that dogs would have no problems following a BF's trail. Also mountain lions leave evidence of their existence in the form of scat, marking posts, and kills, and there is endless amounts of clear photos and films of these elusive animals.

I saw on the news earlier this week that a mountain lion was shot and killed in Chicago. I have heard many accounts of BF being shot and killed or ran over and killed but there is never any BF bodies to accompany these reports.

I grew up in Missouri and it was widely known that mountain lions roamed the area. Not too hard to believe when people have seen them and animals that they have partially devoured and... oh yeah - they are a real animal.

bball, you say:

That's an average of about two confirmed mountain lions per year.

In over 50 years, there has not been one confirmed BF sighting--anywhere.

We know mountain lions exist--regardless of their range.

We don't know BF exists.


Range: according to Wiki, the mountain lion While its normal range is not normally east of the Rockies, it shouldn't be unknown there.

Size: Again, from the Wiki article:


One thing we can conclude is that if there are that many confirmed sightings of a cat this small (relative to a BF, which should be more than 3x taller at the shoulders, and weigh some 6x more), it stands to reason there should be even more sightings of BF, which presumably has a greater range, and since it's larger, should be less able to hide (it's easier to hide a mouse than an elephant).

Yet we don't have those confirmations.

I agree with this and would add that dogs seem to be terrified of the creature. People also experiencing paralyzing fear has been reported. I experienced a small degree of that as I described in my encounter. http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/column.php?id=91144 Check the end if you don't want to read the whole thing.

I would add a theory of mine. Are you familiar with the sound that gators make? They emit low frequency sound waves as an intimidation to competing males. Some of these sounds are below human's capacity to hear. I think it may be possible that the sasquatch is capable of a similar type of communicaiton. If it could emit very low frequency sound waves, below our ability to perceive, then that would account for the "strange feeling" that some people who have been close to the creatures report. Just my thoughts......

Hmmmm, very interesting. I believe that bigfoot could go easily undetected, but as you stated before not enough so that we would completely not have any photos or videos of him. Bigfoot certainly does have the most evidence for him. I won't mention a certain footage beginning with P and ending with N, but they have found unknown DNA on supposed Bigfoot hairs. So we have some pretty solid evidence (nothing like a body, but we can't disprove the evidence to be fake, and its not like we can say that the bigfoot caught in videos was an exceptionally hairy hiker) and a very possible habitat.

So either we have bigfoot, or a lot of people who are imaginging things and creating ridiculously good hoaxes, including messing around with DNA. But then again, people could have just spotted my brother running around on his trip across the U.S.

The Bigfoot could have a instinct to bury their dead, I suppose. Or...eat them. Its not like the tales and stories of Bigfoot go all the way down to what they eat.

Supposedly Bigfoot are really intelligent, and can pretty much do the basic things that mankind can do, they can even communicate in their own way. So I think that it is very possible that they bury their dead, and that's why we havn't found corpses or bones.

Yes, even if bigfoots...bigfeet...bigfoots...hmmm. Anyway, even if bigfoots (or bigfeet) are not intelligent, mice bury their dead, and mice arn't really the geniuses of the animal kingdom. I wonder what would come up if you started to dig a little around places where a bigfoot was sighted. It would make an interesting study. Then again, unless there was a ton of buried bodies, you would have to be pretty lucky to stumble across one.

Humans have been burying their dead for hundreds of thousands of years, yet still we manage to find them. Why haven't we found any BF's that have been buried? Also your statement depends entirely on the assumption that all BF's must some how be aware of all the BF's that die and are able to locate them and bury them before they are found. If they ate their dead there would still be bones left behind.

The reason we have found our dead is because we have been looking for it, or it was uncovered accidentally by a burial site or some other sort of place that has been marked. We may occasionally often stumble upon dead bodies, but this is a rare case and normally has very special circumstances. Nobody has been digging around in the forests for bigfoot bodies, and since they would probably be such an "endangered" species, then there would be very few around. We would have to choose exactly the right spots to dig in, and unless you have a bigfoot body metal detector, then I suggest go finding one.

So it would be very hard to find a buried bigfoot body. And of course another BF would be aware if they found another dead BF. For all we know, they live in twos. Which means it is quite possible that if one of them died, the other one would bury him/her.

For all we know, there are bones out there that we just havn't discovered yet. Truthfully, if some teenagers or a child discovered a pile of large bones, most of them would ignore them. Especially the teenagers. Even adults would often be ignorant, and since the places BF's are suspected of hiding in are so large, it would be like finding a needle in a hay stack.

Much of North America was once covered with dense forests. Surly the majority of our towns, cities, and roads have been built over prime BF habitat. As we construct our buildings and roads we inadvertently unearth not only human remains but fossils of long extinct animals. I would respectfully disagree in characterizing these events as rare, it seems to me these kind of finds happen on a fairly regular basis. Just remember that most of North America was wilderness until the early 1900's.

Yes, but most of the thicker woods that bigfoot...bigfeet...are supposedly hiding in is mostly untouched near the deeper parts. Maybe someday soon we will find a bigfoot body. That would certainly be proof.

I wish they would find one as well. I would happily renounce my skepticism of this cryptid. I just find it hard to believe with all the sitings of this animal that we have never found one.

Give consideration to the fact that Bigfoot is relatively Humanoid. Without the fur and such, as with decomposition, wouldnt a bigfoot skeleton closely resemble a humans with slight differences? it could be that bigfoot remains HAVE been found but were discounted as just slightly deformed human remains that while living suffered from one genetic defect or another.

I love you now! Your absolutley right let alone sceptics I meet always say Wheres the bones at when they die? Blah Blah Blah.

I think This clears things up alot for them.

~Cheers Smeagol~

See, i figure too many people think when you find a bigfoot skeleton we can look at and automatically go "that's a bigfoot". i dont believe that would be the case at all.

Yet it's not common to discover seven foot tall "human" skeletons, with fairly (if the typical image of BF is correct) major differences.

Arm length, extremely short neck, skull with possible saggital crest, etc.

Good try, but I don't think you've quite yet solved the entire mystery.

lol yer just jealous because i solved bigfoot's biggest mystery! you are right though. I mean, its just a thought to consider. it could be that the skeleton is scattered out too, i mean we rarely find full skeletons out in the wild, the beasts and such usually take off with bones and meat. so it could still be that bigfoot remains are found and not easily classified because of lack of full skeletonness?

Even when a single bone that appears human is discovered, the authorities conduct an investigation.

true. it just goes to show the inadequecy of our local law enforcement! hehehe kidding.

I was attempting to draw that IF we knew bigfoot existed, some of the video evidence would indeed be confirmed sightings. Because five of the eight in Missouri were of the image kind.


Of course they shouldn't be unknown in this region but the comparison lies in the relationship between the huge numbers of sightings but very few confirmed sightings. And only three involving bodily evidence.

But there ARE many sightings of bigfoot. And with a greater range and what we could only assume is a much smaller population, it stands to reason and is no stretch that though no confirmed accounts exist, they could well be out there.

I believe Wiki is sadly misguided to state the mountain lion's present range doesn't extend substantially east of the Rockies.

But what are they giving these dogs to start the scent off with? Who is to say what they are beginning with, is even the right scent. No one really knows. Anything a dog has ever been given to track bigfoot is mix of human and ape scents or supposed bigfoot scents. But without knowing if the dogs are being given actual bigfoot scents, it is really hard to use that to suggest there are none.

As far as evidence for mountain lions. From the link provided-

And actually there are not endless amounts of clear photos and films of mountain lions. At least when speaking of the state of Missouri. There are actually only 5 that are deemed good enough to confirm the image contains a mountain lion.


Well obviously such exotic stories of bigfoots that lack hard evidence (which should be easy to obtain from a dead bigfoot) should be taken with a grain of salt.

I was not aware of how the obscurity surrounding blue whales. It is interesting in it's own right, however the ocean is just so infinitely vast. One thing though is that blue whales live a long time (40 years?) and that would be something limiting the amount that wash up on shore. Also with bigfoot, as an ape (I would assume) also would have a lengthy lifespan, limiting the amount of chances of bodies being discovered.

Yes, after all, it would be very unlikely that we would find a complete skeleton, considering the amount of wild animals living around in supposed bigfoot areas. If we were lucky, we would probably only find one or two bones, in which they would most likely look very much like a human bone.

evan, please, you must be ace ventura if u know all of this stuff! if you cant accept the scarcity of prehistoric giganto bones and apply them today to the possibility of a secretive ape, i dont know what else to tell you. how do u explain people who followed tracks for over 10 MILES!. please dont dismiss it, bc u know very well someone would notice a prankster doing that. basically, your calling all the people who KNOW their is such an ape, liars, idiots, and unreliable. what counts as reliable? plenty of sightings have been by credible and high ranking people. their are lots of explanations for ufos, lake monsters, but with a human-shaped 8 ft hairy ape, their is no OTHER MEGA FAUNA THAT FITS THAT DESCRIPTION, UNLESS YOU LOOK IN THE fossil record. maybe their is a good chance it isnt giganto, but what about a relict species of some kind of early human? humans are pretty damn clever, and if a species of human lived in the nw, their is a small chance u would find them. their are probably a 1000 sasquatch's on na and canada combined, so figure out how many of them inhabit a certain region.

no food? what about salmon, deer, elk, and bear?

if my sources are correct, most sightings occur with trappers who are a 3 day journey into the bush.

now an example of how a search can be inaduquite. that guy in the news recently spent 9 days hiding 10miles from the crime scene. 10 miles! he was only found cause of one stubbern redneck and his dogs of course.

yea, their have been people that tracked footprints for up to 18 miles, and footprints arent perfect, bc if something steps on lets say woodchucks, u already lost ur trackway!