hey guys, im watching unexplained-mysteries and they did this thing on BigFoot, and they said there is no way it was a man in the suit because of the bone structure, more in depth, they say the ape and gorilla family which bigfoot falls into have such BIG JAW BONES that every time they turn there face they would hit there arm, so when you look at the clip of bigfoot walked on the patterson video it shows the whole body moving... if it was a man in it his head would jsut look over at the camera then walk away, im sure you have all seen it...but the many clips out their show big foot turning his whole body not just his face.. they say they have focused on the bone strcuture under the arms and it is said to be real... sounds like new evidence to me... btw BURNSIDE dont bother replying because i no ull be like MAN IN A SUIT!!! so save your ONE POST you dont need it anyways HAH!.. the REST OF YOU! lemme hear what you gotta say guys!

P.S If you look at the picture on this website, you can see that his body is turned all the way...

(They are doing a documentary know on the lochness monster, ill keep you updated!!!) THANK UM!

that is a good show i just got dun watching it. i always thoght that the patterson film was real and the foot prints bigfoot makes have there own unique ridges in them like finger prints witch are almost impossible to fake and are a good bit of evidence fore its existence and btw bigfoot is not an ape i think it is in the same order we are and that is hominids

Why hasn't anyone ever found any bones from a dead one.....?

Probably they kept their deads in the tunnel or caves.
They are intelligent, if we found out about their existence then we will never stop hunting them.

We can argue all day whether thats a suit or not.However the facts surrounding the pic's that is really suspect.I wish I could remember the specifics but there is some question about the developing of the film and when.That combined with some inconsistencies about the trip he was on just add to the mystery.Does anyone out there know this story.It was on TV also.- usdi Agaluga

The same reason we don't find Bear Bones (the animal) lying around in the wilderness. I have been a nature observer for many years. I spend countless hours in the wilderness every year. And in 15 years, I've only ever seen one partial carcass of a bear. The only way I could tell is because the skull hadn't been carried off yet. The body from the shoulder blades down, was gone...And by the look of the decomposition, he hadn't been there longer than about three days (give or take a day).

1. The expanse of the wild is quite large.
2. Scavengers do their work well and usually pieces of dead carasses are carried off in different directions. This only takes a short while...
3. Large animals die in the wild everyday, yet we don't find their bones very often.

Nature at work!

Firslty, wrong forum. I'm requesting that it's moved.

Secondly, if you're reffering to the Patterson footage, that is a proven fake unfortunatley.

What part of the world are you in, and where did you go to see the bear?

Thats interesting I would like to know more

Those are excellent points. But I'd also like to point out that the forest is not running rampart with these creatures. There are not giant herds of Sasquatch parading across the mountainsides. Even if 200 of these creatures existed on earth, spread out through the himalayas, the cascade mountains, the alps, etc... how much of chance would you have of finding bigfoot's bones? Almost no chance at all... and definitely no chance at all if they bury their dead and/or cover them with a pile of rocks.

Walken-I have been researching this subject for over 20 years. I am curious to see where you find that the Patterson footage is fake. If I had to give a percentage of hoax to real-only 5%of scientists, film experts and biomechanical engineers say it could be a hoax. That leaves 95% who believe the footage to be real. Millions of dollars have been spent as recently as 1998 to try and recreate this footage. Even with the technology advances-it cannot be recreated. That footage is from 1967. A lot less technology. peace

Unsolved Mysteries is a darn good show Ise reckon.

I am afraid this is a think we will never know for sure.

But it would be cool if it was real

I only believe in what i see, so i don't believe it (yet)

I seen that episode.. it was wicked.... the film in the woods and on the mountain were pretty good too..... woulda made my heart beat faster...

I just think it is interesting... i don't no what to believe, i heard patterson came forth and said it was a hoax, that it was him recording his friend in a suit, but then they say the bone structure couldnt of been a costume... you never know!!! what if patterson's friend was a exptert in cryptzology and knew yetis jaw structures were to big, so he was smart enough to move his whole body... why dosent anyone go up to one of them? id be scared to hahaha, but still, it always seems like BIGFOOT is walking away, when he sees someone, being that size should DOMINATE!!!! ima believer though.. im just thinkin of some good points!

I think he exists too.... someone on here had mentioned something about possible pheromones that the sasquatch could discreet to confuse a human or something following it... if I can find it I'll post a link....

I don't know i think theres a 30/70 chance for reallity. I mean there are no known ape that evolved in northamerica. All the native armerican came in throuhg alaska but because the yeti in the himalayans is also around the same area that the firts ancestors of the people who came across the bering land bridge. But also I find it hard to believe that these creatures would be that hy as to not be sighted by areliable witness. I mean people can call me a sceptical ass all they want but i won't fully exept until i can have a dancining bigfoot avatar as well.

Just a quick reason why I don't disbelieve. When westerners ventured to China and saw the Great Panda, it took 67 years to find one in the wild. 67 years to find something that we knew existed. 67 years.peace

Bigfoot Field Research Organization

Don't forget to read the reports, sightings maps of US & Canada
Then please read the other stories from pre-Columbian & Native American History.

Lets take a field-trip!

The only trait that distrubs me is why they come so close to the remote country homes and peek inside windows

People always ask this as if animals never dispose of bodies. I have herd of a troop of elephants that take there dead and throw them over cliffs in to what turnds in to a elephant grave yard after a few generations of that troop. BigFoot probly does the same thing maybe even more orginized.

I give it 5% chance of being a real animal. I hope they do find proof. It would shake up alot of things.

That is far from true.

That film has always been questioned, but never proven fake. In fact that video is the video used the most to prove Bigfoot exists. Last news I heard about it, before this, there was a buldge in the right quadricep, from a possible injury, which is clearly visible, that researchers said further proved that the Patterson Bigfoot was not a man in a costume. The movement of of the muscles under the hair, the contraction of the muscles, it is all clearly visible in the Patterson film, and I am unaware of any other supposed Bigfoot videos that shows it.

We still have whole cities where the locations are generally known and stumble around for years actively seeking them before they are discovered. If it takes us years to find lost cities that stretch for miles, it certainly isn't hard to believe it will take us much longer to find a few creatures that are on the move.

In the twentieth century alone, the gorillas were considered a myth/folklore until they were discovered. The pandas had a similar story as someone else has pointed out already. We are always finding new species. And if this bigfoot turns out to be intelligent like almost all the myths related to them say, then we are looking for a creature/species that is actively evading us on purpose.

Actually...I watched a show that had one of the guys there and he said it was a hoax and that they faked the whole thing.

It broke my wittle heart...

BUT...I still believe in good ol' Sasquatch. I've heard him....and seen him...and smelt him!

right....
http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/pgfdebunkings.asp

Did you say that it can't be duplicated? Geez, I guess you didn't see the movie
"Harry and the Hendersons"!?

indeed, if i were to see that guy dressed up like in the movie, i would firmly believe that it was a real bigfoot, well if the movie hadn't been made of course....

although was that kind of costume available in 1967?

just to add a little to the 'why don't we ever see any bones' when was the last time you saw a dead badger?a live badger?an theres thousands of the little buggers snuffling around the uk.i was brought up in the country and i never saw one...

They rarely find Bear bones.. Bears often die during hibernation under the brush or in a dark cave.. Add years of natural weather, decay, and animals and insects picking at it.. It's not hard to see why we dont find any bones. Especially in the case of bigfoot where the population may be small to begin with.. I mean look at that stupid woodpecker they found last week that was supposed to be extinct.. Why did they never find dead "extinct" Woodpeckers proving they were actually alive? Because there are not many around and they die in remote places and erode.

i believe that its real...

I'm pretty sure I believe in him, see I thought awhile ago I heard that the Patterson footage was fake too (I not saying it is or isn't just saying what I heard) but I've heard alot since then saying it isn't.

me and a good friend were dicussing about bigfoot the other night and we both believe it exists, cuz first thing that looks like a real bigfoot in the patterson footage, also theres a new footage from northern manitoba showing a bigfoot, and so many foot prints and body marks on the ground so how come scientists say it doesnt exist? cuz they dont see it. thats the only reason why they classify it like that, if they dont see it it aint real to them... and if a helicopter were to go over the forests what do u think? they wouldnt be able to see something in a dense forest... exspeacially if bigfoot heared the noises it go hiding behind a tree or something, but the main thing is i think bigfoot is actually that giant ape from long ago, cant remember the name but i think it survived and crossed over the land bridge connecting north america and asia and then maybe its slowly evolving, getting smarter and walking on 2 legs..

and i think people saying they 'hoaxed' it are just doing that for publicity and attention.

Nah. I don't believe in bigfoot. All these years and all they can get is footprints, and recordings of "mysteries screams!"

It's fun but, I wouldn't say bigfoot existed

I read an article made by someone who denied the existance of Bigfoot. an argument is that humans cant have that wide a step, but in a Groucho Marx movie, he walks with a bent-hip bent-knee gait at some point or another, and when the interviewee tried it, he matched Bigfoot's stride.

If these bigfoot's do exist, I'd say they are growing scarcer by the day. They don't live forever, you know, and the expansion of humanity isn't helping them. Perhaps, if the bigfoot filmed was real, it has died of old age by now.

If only we could confirm their existence, so we could set up a conservation program for them.

a bigfoot would most likely be a brute if it felt threatened, best to know if they exist and let them be

That information about the bone structure is really interesting. If you look closely you'll see that the body turns with the head mostly on the outward swing, and then the head swings back in really quick. On the other hand I don't know if a man in a suit would do the same thing because the suit would be forcing him to move awkwardly. One thing stands out though - the motion during the swing inward looks pretty darn smooth and quick - not constrained.

Also, I still think the position of the neck and head in relation to the shoulders looks really weird. Just take a photo of a person or a football player in the same kind of position and put it next to some of the stills and you'll see what I mean - the head is thrust way forward from the shoulders, and not just from being bent - the back of the neck is way out - and a suit can't change your skeletal structure like that.

Was that the episode with the snow-walker video?

I would say a wild animal would make a quick getaway. That's what deer and even dangerous animals like mountain lions usually do. i would assume bigfoot to do the same.

go BIG FOOT !!! GO GO GO........ hey did they ever tell us what the size of his foot was?? Im curious...??? !!!

lol i like you name.. themanwithnoname... and yeah i believe in him... why is it so hard to believe in sucha big creature!

lol this was taken from the BFRO website


( The Patterson creature)


( The BBC's 'identical match' of the Patterson 'costume'.)

i thought this was sooo funny. BBC was attempting to debunk the patterson footage by recreating it. so, they got a "skilled" hollywood costume designer to make one, the pic on the bottom is his result

Yeah, they failed miserably. When examining the patterson footage, they said it looked like the cheap fake fur they used in the 70's, but when they used it on their costume, oops....way off.

That doesn't look anything like it. The face is completely wrong, plus the color? What were they thinking. They would have done better with a gorrilla mask and a carpet.

And about Patterson admitting that it was a fake; People lie.

i'm undecided on the bluff creek footage,and the snow walker footage.i have seen plenty of other pictures,and i even saw a video that looked a lot more convincing that either of the videos i mentioned above.and then there are the bigfoot sounds,those loud cries they showed on ancient mysteries made the hair on my neck stand up!

even if it was proven real, it wouldm' tbe a big deal because nobody knew if it was real or not for years, it don't seem great

ray charles could have seen that bottom picture by the bbc recreation team was bogus!

I know that one of the common , universal observations surrounding a sighting is the "pungent" ,distinct odor. So one thing that eludes me is why after a sighting....at a specific spot , like crossing a road , why they don't ( whoever "they " might be) use hounds? Something that has an odor easy enough for a human to smell , surely hounds would be able to detect if you got back to the location within 8 or so hours.
I realize that there are many possible reasons why this never seems to happen m but I also know that it would work and perfectly reasonable to do,or atleast attempt to do , On all the the unsolved mystery type shows I see them hiding camera's in fake rocks , stting mikes , snares to try to snag some hair but they never mention dogs.
Just curious.

Ehhh...

I don't know where I stand on the Patterson video.

The fact it turned and looked at the camera ruins it for me.

Also, it walked much too casually across the path.

I heard of a theory that Bigfoot has/had been discovered and a small group of individuals are keeping it on the down low. As you know, us humans ruin/kill anything we come across. The discovery and evidence has been covered-up to protect them. I mean, can you imagine if there was solide footage/evidence..Tens of thousands of people would flock to the area and next thing you know, we would have driven them to extinction/destruction..
What do you think?

There are several reasons why no one has tried using dogs the diffculty in getting one capable of tracking bigfoot first you would need a dog trained probably by a law enforncement agency since most individuals dogs if trained to track only will track one for example racoons. This very to work since you're unlikely to convince any police department to let you borrow there tracking dog to go hunt bigfoot and also you need to have a sample sent to track with. The second problem is the dog is unlikely track and it would very dangerous if it did. In most case involving bigfoot and dogs the animals become very nervous and wimpering so it probably wouldn't track something they seem afraid of and the dogs that act agressively usually are found dead so if you did find a dog that would track it you would probably end up dead.