Full Version: BIG foooot
What do you forum members think of big foot? was he made up, just to make money off of shows and news, or is there really somthing that people have seen, and are taking public ridicule? I think, that it might be a yeti of some sort, that has migrated to the wooded areas, and adapted for it, and live there. And also, avoid people. But I still have this side of me, that doesn't belive in the whole thing. anybody? Anybody?
there is truth behind it. wether it be a man in a costume running around in the forest...there is still truth behind something being in the wild.
yes i believe there is truth and defiantly a history tied to it even if some turds dilute it
if this was a sighting by one or few then its quite possible to be fake. but since there have been thousands of it in USA, more if you take in account the yeti,yowie. there has to be reason or too many ppl running around in ape suit 
I do not know
QUOTE(xstortionist @ Oct 27 2005, 03:12 PM) [snapback]905810[/snapback]
there is truth behind it. wether it be a man in a costume running around in the forest...there is still truth behind something being in the wild.
if it is a man in a costume he must have a very exciting life
damn now i dont know what to wear for halloween... 
lol...
lol...
If it's a person in a costume, that guy gets around.. I mean Bigfoot or whatever you call him as been sighted all over the world. So that guy must have some really good frequent flyer miles.
What if it was an orginization of people around the world first it was a regligious belief a kind of homage to what we used to be then it grew into just keeping the myth going. this is alot mor logical then a bigfoot in our very backyard that we don't have any hard proof of. I mean there are thousands of unknown organizations and beliefs for example Anti-ist which I happen to be are behind a great big scheme. Lost cultures and beliefs are much more likely behind this elaborate hoax then any ape running around where hard evidence could be found.
QUOTE(xstortionist @ Oct 28 2005, 06:12 AM) [snapback]905810[/snapback]
there is truth behind it. wether it be a man in a costume running around in the forest...there is still truth behind something being in the wild.
ExactlyIf your talking about the American version of bigfoot im about 70% sure there is a hominid that science is yet to catalogue out their
Other parts of the world that would rise to 100% sure.
"Big Foot" is an alleged species of ape/man- like creatures, that have been seen by credible witnesses in the wilds of the North American continent, and all over the world, often leaving huge footprints, hair samples behind.
Big Foot has been spotted in every state of the Union, except Delaware and Hawaii. There are organizations all over the country that keep track of various information gathered on the Big foot sightings and personal experiences with this creature. There have been so many sightings of this elusive creature, including castings of its actual footprints that the evidence of its existence is very strong.
Also known as "Sasquatch" by the Indians of British Columbia, "Oh-mah-ah" by the northern California Huppa tribe, "Skunk Apes or Napes" in the southern United States, as "Seehtiks" in the Cascades, "Memegwico" by other American Indians, Yetis in Alaska/ Asia, and Almas in Russia, these creatures have been described as being between 6 and 9 feet in height, that walked gracefully, in an upright position, in smooth strides with knees bent. Weight of the creatures seen has been estimated to be between 300 to 600 lbs. They have muscular bodies, massive shoulders, and are covered with short to long hair. Their facial features are human, and the skin on their faces, hands and feet, which are distinct and human-like, are dark and leathery. Their heads, which are peaked at the back, sit right on their shoulders. In some sightings Big Foot has a jutted chin, heavy brow ridges, a receding forehead, and large, square white teeth. The female of the species has large breasts.
Family groups of these creatures and individuals as well have been sighted and described so often in the Oregon - Washington area that there are Big Foot Informational Centers in both Oregon and Washington, that keep track of all the sightings and evidence of this undiscovered species, thought by some to be a homonid that avoids human contact, keeping to themselves in their wilderness habitat, areas that have enough wildlife and vegetation to support them.
There are several theories as to what species Big Foot should be cataloged under, when its existence is proven without a shadow of a doubt to the scientific community. Some think that Big foot is a hominid. George Karras -"One thing we know for sure is that all known apes (Pongids) have a divergent large toe while Bigfoot does not. Bigfoot's tracks indicate that its foot more closely resemble the feet of Hominids such as Homo erectus or Homo sapiens (modern man) and hair samples that can not be positively identified more closely resemble Human hair than the hair of Apes or any other known animal. It is my opinion that Bigfoot is not Human but it is closer to Human than any animal alive today."
As mentioned above, Big Foot like creatures have been sighted throughout the world in wilderness areas. Dr. Myra Shackley, a professor of archaeology at Leiscester University is convinced that Big foot is a pre-hominid Neanderthal man, a predecessor of modern man, who supposedly was exterminated by Cro -Magnon man.
In the Altai Mountains of Mongolia, wild men known as Almas have been seen and known about by the area people for years. When people first settled this region, it is told how they drove the "WILD MEN" out of the immediate area. Dr. Myra Shackley actually went to the Altai Mountains and gathered evidence of the existence of these wild men known as Almas.
A Professor Porshnev investigated the case of a female Alma, described as having ape-like features and covered in hair, who was captured by the Altai Mountain people in the mid-nineteenth century. Called Zana, she eventually was domesticated and could do simple tasks such as grind corn. She loved grapes and wine, and after drinking heavily, would crash out for hours, which explains how she became pregnant several times. Her children, being half modern man, could talk and were rational human beings. The last of her children died in 1954. Professor Porshnev however interviewed her grandson, who had dark skin and Negroid features. His jaw was so strong that he could pick up a chair with a man sitting on it with his mouth.
Other theories about these strange creatures have been proposed as well.
One theory is that apes have escaped from captivity. Perhaps, chimpanzees and gorillas, pets of Slave traders escaped and survived in the bottomlands of the United States.
Another theory, believed by Loren Coleman is that these creatures are Apes from the "supposedly prehistoric family of the pongids, the Dryopithecinae," a species that was highly successful in living in both "temperate and subtropical areas." They could have come from Asia during the Pleistocene era. (Mysterious America book by Loren Coleman.)
> Interesting to say the least, a surviving Hominid... The only problem is:
In Analysis of Feces and Hair Suspected to be of Sasquatch Origin, anthropologist Vaughn M. Bryant Jr. and ecologist Burleigh Trevor-Deutch report the analysis of six alleged Bigfoot hairs recovered near Riggins, Idaho. Roy Pinker, a police science instructor at California State University, Los Angeles, determined that "the hairs did not match specimens from any known animal species and that they had some characteristics common to both humans and nonhumans" (Halpin and Ames, 296).
Absence of fossil evidence:
Critics think it significant that the fossil record provides no support for Sasquatch. There is ample fossil evidence in North America of prehistoric species of bear, cougar, moose and mammoth. Yet, aside from clearly human remains, there is no evidence of a prehistoric hominid or any other North American primate. No one has found coproliths (fossilized dung) from a Bigfoot, nor are they likely to due to its perishable nature.
Bigfoot researchers argue that the absence of fossilized evidence is not evidence of fossil absence. Sasquatch is not represented in the fossil record, but neither are gorillas and chimpanzees. Coleman and Patrick Huyghe note that "no one will look for such fossils, if the creatures involved are not thought to exist in the first place. But even with recognized primates, fossil finds are usually meager at best" (Coleman and Huyhge, 162). However, gorillas, chimpanzees and most other primates, live in tropical rainforests where conditions are unsuitable to create fossils, and in areas where few or no archeological studies were undertaken. In contrast, there are thousands of known remains of native American mammals and humans.
As to the lack of Bigfoot remains, Krantz suggested that this alone is not a valid argument against the creature's actuality. Noting that most animals hide before they die and are then quickly lost to scavengers, he writes, "I have yet to meet anyone who has found the remains of a bear that was not killed by human activity." (Krantz, 10) Fossilization also requires "ideal" conditions, such as being covered by a landslide, mudslide, or other deposit soon after death so that mineralization can take place on an undisturbed carcass.
Inconclusive analysis:
Most scientists find that the physical evidence, cited as supporting the existence of Bigfoot, has been ambiguous at best, or hoaxes at worst. There have been no dead bodies, bones or artifacts. There have been reported samples of fur and feces, but aside from the hair analysis by Dr. Rosen, none have been ruled conclusively (or by multiple authorities) as originating from any unknown animal. All reputed Bigfoot samples, studied using DNA testing, were judged to have come from common animals.
Personally, I want to believe, but I still "doubt" they exist...
Big Foot has been spotted in every state of the Union, except Delaware and Hawaii. There are organizations all over the country that keep track of various information gathered on the Big foot sightings and personal experiences with this creature. There have been so many sightings of this elusive creature, including castings of its actual footprints that the evidence of its existence is very strong.
Also known as "Sasquatch" by the Indians of British Columbia, "Oh-mah-ah" by the northern California Huppa tribe, "Skunk Apes or Napes" in the southern United States, as "Seehtiks" in the Cascades, "Memegwico" by other American Indians, Yetis in Alaska/ Asia, and Almas in Russia, these creatures have been described as being between 6 and 9 feet in height, that walked gracefully, in an upright position, in smooth strides with knees bent. Weight of the creatures seen has been estimated to be between 300 to 600 lbs. They have muscular bodies, massive shoulders, and are covered with short to long hair. Their facial features are human, and the skin on their faces, hands and feet, which are distinct and human-like, are dark and leathery. Their heads, which are peaked at the back, sit right on their shoulders. In some sightings Big Foot has a jutted chin, heavy brow ridges, a receding forehead, and large, square white teeth. The female of the species has large breasts.
Family groups of these creatures and individuals as well have been sighted and described so often in the Oregon - Washington area that there are Big Foot Informational Centers in both Oregon and Washington, that keep track of all the sightings and evidence of this undiscovered species, thought by some to be a homonid that avoids human contact, keeping to themselves in their wilderness habitat, areas that have enough wildlife and vegetation to support them.
There are several theories as to what species Big Foot should be cataloged under, when its existence is proven without a shadow of a doubt to the scientific community. Some think that Big foot is a hominid. George Karras -"One thing we know for sure is that all known apes (Pongids) have a divergent large toe while Bigfoot does not. Bigfoot's tracks indicate that its foot more closely resemble the feet of Hominids such as Homo erectus or Homo sapiens (modern man) and hair samples that can not be positively identified more closely resemble Human hair than the hair of Apes or any other known animal. It is my opinion that Bigfoot is not Human but it is closer to Human than any animal alive today."
As mentioned above, Big Foot like creatures have been sighted throughout the world in wilderness areas. Dr. Myra Shackley, a professor of archaeology at Leiscester University is convinced that Big foot is a pre-hominid Neanderthal man, a predecessor of modern man, who supposedly was exterminated by Cro -Magnon man.
In the Altai Mountains of Mongolia, wild men known as Almas have been seen and known about by the area people for years. When people first settled this region, it is told how they drove the "WILD MEN" out of the immediate area. Dr. Myra Shackley actually went to the Altai Mountains and gathered evidence of the existence of these wild men known as Almas.
A Professor Porshnev investigated the case of a female Alma, described as having ape-like features and covered in hair, who was captured by the Altai Mountain people in the mid-nineteenth century. Called Zana, she eventually was domesticated and could do simple tasks such as grind corn. She loved grapes and wine, and after drinking heavily, would crash out for hours, which explains how she became pregnant several times. Her children, being half modern man, could talk and were rational human beings. The last of her children died in 1954. Professor Porshnev however interviewed her grandson, who had dark skin and Negroid features. His jaw was so strong that he could pick up a chair with a man sitting on it with his mouth.
Other theories about these strange creatures have been proposed as well.
One theory is that apes have escaped from captivity. Perhaps, chimpanzees and gorillas, pets of Slave traders escaped and survived in the bottomlands of the United States.
Another theory, believed by Loren Coleman is that these creatures are Apes from the "supposedly prehistoric family of the pongids, the Dryopithecinae," a species that was highly successful in living in both "temperate and subtropical areas." They could have come from Asia during the Pleistocene era. (Mysterious America book by Loren Coleman.)
> Interesting to say the least, a surviving Hominid... The only problem is:
In Analysis of Feces and Hair Suspected to be of Sasquatch Origin, anthropologist Vaughn M. Bryant Jr. and ecologist Burleigh Trevor-Deutch report the analysis of six alleged Bigfoot hairs recovered near Riggins, Idaho. Roy Pinker, a police science instructor at California State University, Los Angeles, determined that "the hairs did not match specimens from any known animal species and that they had some characteristics common to both humans and nonhumans" (Halpin and Ames, 296).
Absence of fossil evidence:
Critics think it significant that the fossil record provides no support for Sasquatch. There is ample fossil evidence in North America of prehistoric species of bear, cougar, moose and mammoth. Yet, aside from clearly human remains, there is no evidence of a prehistoric hominid or any other North American primate. No one has found coproliths (fossilized dung) from a Bigfoot, nor are they likely to due to its perishable nature.
Bigfoot researchers argue that the absence of fossilized evidence is not evidence of fossil absence. Sasquatch is not represented in the fossil record, but neither are gorillas and chimpanzees. Coleman and Patrick Huyghe note that "no one will look for such fossils, if the creatures involved are not thought to exist in the first place. But even with recognized primates, fossil finds are usually meager at best" (Coleman and Huyhge, 162). However, gorillas, chimpanzees and most other primates, live in tropical rainforests where conditions are unsuitable to create fossils, and in areas where few or no archeological studies were undertaken. In contrast, there are thousands of known remains of native American mammals and humans.
As to the lack of Bigfoot remains, Krantz suggested that this alone is not a valid argument against the creature's actuality. Noting that most animals hide before they die and are then quickly lost to scavengers, he writes, "I have yet to meet anyone who has found the remains of a bear that was not killed by human activity." (Krantz, 10) Fossilization also requires "ideal" conditions, such as being covered by a landslide, mudslide, or other deposit soon after death so that mineralization can take place on an undisturbed carcass.
Inconclusive analysis:
Most scientists find that the physical evidence, cited as supporting the existence of Bigfoot, has been ambiguous at best, or hoaxes at worst. There have been no dead bodies, bones or artifacts. There have been reported samples of fur and feces, but aside from the hair analysis by Dr. Rosen, none have been ruled conclusively (or by multiple authorities) as originating from any unknown animal. All reputed Bigfoot samples, studied using DNA testing, were judged to have come from common animals.
Personally, I want to believe, but I still "doubt" they exist...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.