i was just thinking about how much land their is for real ape like creatures to remain hidden in. i mean look at the gigantophiticus. their must have been 1000's of them, and they walked when humans existed. but even though its large, weve only found a jaw bone. plus the gorilla was thought to be a myth along with the komodo dragon, okapi, and the bear were thought to be myths, and turned up real. these apes are intelligent and have been documented over 1000's of years. so i say we shouldnt have found a carcass yet. henner fahrenbach has found 2 hair samples of a unknown ape like animal

Not this again.

In the past centuries when people thought these animals were myths, they had no reason to besides the fact that they thought it was unlikely. Today we live in the 21st century, an age of information, the two situations are completely incomparable.

but it tells u that mythological animals can be real. we never look today for creatures. theirs so much land. and it would be very hard to find a secretive group of animals. plus their is a gaussian curve, the pgf film, and dermal ridges, and hair samples that came from an animal of unknown origin, and over 16000 sightings. i doubt that hoaxers are doing this. bc if they were ,people wouldve seen them doing it.

And just how is this supposed to lead to any discussion?

Have you ever started a sensible discussion, makaya?

well ignorance has lead us nowhere. it seems now likely that their is a large, upright north american primate. their is so much land for these creatures to hide. anyone shouldnt be surprised why we havent found one. have you ever heard of rarity?

Have you ever heard of MYTH?

i dont think that scientists like jeff meldrum, esteban sarmiento, and jane goddall, would look for something that "doesnt exist". i think its more insane to consider all the evidence a bunch of hoaxes than to accept the possibility that a large upright primate exists in the remote parts of the vast pacific northwest.

gigantopthicus was over 10 feet tall, and didnt die out long ago. their were 1000's of them, and we know they exist. we have only found a JAW of one. bigfoot sightings predate history. if giganto evolved till today, it would be upright and identical to bigfoot. plus people dont look enough for it, and the animal hides and is on the verge of extinction right now

Yeah, theres a lot of land, and yeah there could be a lot of new species. In fact they probably discover some everyday in the rainforest and whenever they go on a deep sea dive, but that doesn't mean that sasquatch is real.

And you can't use all those other animals as an example, because back then the world was still opening up and face it, the world today is a lot smaller than it was back then.

yea ok, but theirs more evidence supporting the existence of bigfoot. hoaxers arent doing this. if they were, people would have reported them already. the patterson film has stood under scrutiny for over 40 yrs. scientists say it couldnt be done over 40 yrs ago.

If there is so much evidence we'd have identified them already; either as a new species or as a deviation of some formerly known species. The Patterson movie is very doubtful still, the "animal" in the clip walks oddly like an average human after all. And some have been saying since it was done, even 40 years ago, that it was a hoax. In actuality, there isn't much to go from. When "hair samples" have been collected, they seem to end up being nothing but hair from foxes or bears... People are still looking for unknown animals, people keep their eyes open. Sooner or later someone would come across them. Maybe not yet... maybe never. Maybe they never even were there. People want there to be unexplained myths... spicing up their environs.

Please show me a single piece of physical evidence.

Every time a new strand of hair is discovered, it's only a matter of time before it's announced it's from another animal, or the only reason they believed it was from something unknown was due to the fact that it was too damaged to correctly identify initially.

It's nothing to do with people going out in bigfoot suits to trick the eyewitnesses, who's to say that the eyewitnesses ever saw anything at all?

^That above and something called "euphoric pareidolia". That's how I call this type of the-so-called-legit-evidence by eyewitness(es). Now, you've been talking about the PAcific Northwest and how vast the land was that there might've been Gigantopitechus hiding? Ever heard about hunting activity? natural exploration? Cross country? With such forest and land devastation and exploitation these days, the creature should've been a common animal by now, considering their chance to meet up with humans...

Or mass hysteria!

oh come on, that does not happen that often

Maybe Sasquatch lives underground in caverns. Maybe they bury their dead or something too.

So, with all of this great and wonderous evidence we have that there is a Gigantipithicus species that has been sighted all over the continental United States, we should have a live specimen to study and then release back into it's natural environment any day now.................right?

Loch Ness is a prime example.

I thought I saw Nessie in my swimming pool once.....turned out to be my wife.
This caused mass hysteria as neighbors dialed 911 to report the monster.

yes, some hair samples have dna. henner fahrenbach has 2 hair samples that have dna, but their a little fragmented. the hairs dont match anyknown animal, but are similar to humans and apes. i find it very hard to believe that hoaxers are doing this, bc if they were, we wouldve jailed them already. people subject themselves to ridicule and have nothing to gain. i doubt 16000 sightings are the result of misidentifications or hoaxes, bc theirs really nothing u can misidentify a large ape for. these animals are on the brink of extinction. i can use a couple animals that used to be myths

mountain gorilla
okapi
megamouth
giant panda

Someone's sleeping on the couch tonight.

I'll give a quick history lesson...before they were invaded by the Persian, the Greek people misidentified the skeleton of an elephant as a...cyclops' skeleton!

I mean, yes, there is certainly weird going on out there, but I don't feel like them to be discovered real soon...

What does "absience" mean?
EDIT: Nevermind, a mod edited the title.
Although it still makes no sense.

i dont think that a large ape would come near us, bc they want to avoid getting killed. something as intelligent as an ape would hide somewhere before it dies, and after erosion occurs, its hard to find a bone. and trust me, the northwest has alot of land, and its the most likely place for a group of elusive apes to hide. it took 100 years to find the giant panda. so it would take longer to find a more intelligent creature similar to us.

^Fine, how long does it take to discover a mountain gorilla?

As long as it take.................

no its not, its not like 100 people saw nessie all at once

My friend, to have a paredolia and mass hysteria, you DON'T NEED to be all at once...

i dont think that u can confuse an ape with many things. the lochness monster doesnt exist bc their are many things u can confuse it with. with bigfoot, their have been sightings recorded before history.

people look for something that might exist. their not looking fot something that doesnt exist. im one of the few who consider it unlikely to find a carcass, even if it exists. these creatures are afraid of us, and they are on the brink of extinction. tell me , how many gigantophiticus fossils do scientists have? only a jaw bone!!

In the spur of the moment, there are just as many things to confuse an ape with as with the Loch Ness monster(s). Theorise that a person observes something with brown hair moving between trees quite a distance away. For the sake of the argument, let's pretend that this thing is actually a bear, but the observer doesn't know this. He walks a bit closer, but by now the thing is gone.

Fast forward to a few hours later. The person has now contemplated again and again what it might have been that he or she observed. By now the memory is most likely somewhat distorted, particulary if the person has a vivid imagination, and as time passes, the memory can change quite a great deal, eventually altering the story altogether. A few weeks later when the witness is questioned by a cryptozoologist or a some kind of researcher, the story might end up being something like, "I saw a human shape walking amongst the trees, a bit to the east of where I was. It had a weird gait the likes of which I have never seen. In general outline the being was like a grotesquely misshaped human, covered with excressive darkish brown hair with a faint stain of a somewhat red hue."

The memory can easily play tricks on the most intelligent and observative people.

Cha?

Try a man in a fur hat.

*Takes-off his fur hat* Abosolutely..

People don't get that....

i think that 16000 sightings occured from a real unidiscovered primate. i think that experienced hunters can tell the difference between a bear and a prehistoric ape. in a history channel special, richard greenwell sent hair to a lab for testing. by measuring the iron to zinc ratio, the hair comes from an animal unknown to science. that doesnt neccessarly mean its a bigfoot. heck, it could be a undiscovered fish hair. even hair is inconclusive, due to absence of a carcass. so their has been hair samples that come from a species that is yet to be discovered, but saying its sasquatch is a different story

How do you know it's prehistoric in orgin again? If it's a "prehistoric ape" it's not a present ape. If a prehistoric ape is present it is no longer a prehistoric ape. -.-
Any links to more info on those "hair-samples"? Measuring iron/zinc ratio might have quite inconclusive results.

Unless they've DNA tested the hair it's difficult to tell exactly what it is from. Even if it's unknown, it'd be fairly easy to see at least what group of animals it'd belong to (primates for example). There have been some 10,000 sightnings of the "Loch Ness monster" as well. Does that prove there is a huge vicious beast hidden in the cold life-less depths of the lake? Not really.

The majority of those "16,000" sightings are probably hoaxes and misconceptions, even if there'd actually be something real behind the whole thing.

Yes, but when it does it's not a bundle of laughs. The Salem Witch Trials are a great example of that

Btw, Gigantopithecus lived in Asia, at a time after it had disconnected from America. Unless it was a great swimmer, Bigfoot is not Gigantopithecus. The Yeti is more likely to be, but it's even more likely that most Yeti sightings are mirages and red bears, blue bears and brown bears, which sometimes climb to ridiculous altitudes.

That's a great analogy, the only difference is that 'Ol Footy is supposed to be an entity and species in and of itself(unless you plan on burning grizzly bears at the steak) and the people killed in the mass-hysteria of The Salem Witch Trials we're easy enough to find and execute. That's one of the idea's that I find so ludicrous about the 'Ol Footy debate...we don't even HAVE a specimen to reference with in order to truly have a mass-hysteria(but it dosen't seems to be deterring the "masses" does it?), we have "hairs" of an unknown origin....so why don't we call it Big "I really don't know what the heck it is beacuse nobody else does either" Foot?

Giganto died out 100,000 years ago and were natives of SE Asia not North America so they wouldn't be in the PAC Northwest no matter what. Also, the common allusion to animals like the mountain gorilla only being discovered recently are misleading. The native populations always knew they were there, we only call things "discovered" when white westerners find them. Once they were sought mountain gorillas were very easy to find, as they are today. You can hike right up them on NG and WWF tours. Its impossible for a breeding population (minimum 300-500 based on current gorilla studies) of huge apes to exist in the PAC northwest without definitive evidence of them being there. There's also no precedence for an ape to consistently hide from humans as 500+ pound animals generally don't care much about people being around them. If you venture that some ape exists out there that is intelligent enough to conciously remain hidden then you're talking about a hominid as intelligent as homo sapiens which by all precedent would imply we should be finding bigfoot art and bigfoot villages and bigfoot burial sites and such (not to mention there is no known hominid in the archeological record that could fit this creature in the US or anywhere really).

again, its with eyewitness testimony. if its unreliable, then we should free all the criminals from jail

the pacific northwest is large enough for a small group of apes to live and not be found. that hair has dna in it, and has been tested. it didnt come back just unknown. it came back with dna in it and was not contaminated. if hair wont please skeptics, i think we need to look harder. the chances of finding a secretive animal is extremely rare. just bc their is no fossil record of this doesnt lower the chances of it existing. alot of things are never found in the rugged northwest. sasquatch might actually make their homes in trees. as of now, the pgf, the 2001 hair sample, and over 16000 witnesses,and plus their has even been reports 1000's of years ago when this animal was first seen, is more likely to be from an unknown ape rather than hoaxers, bc if it were hoaxers, we wouldve found the hoaxers already! most of the sightings can be explained as unknown primates, and very few of them hoaxes

You cannot compare such a thing with court proof for criminal convictions for a number of reasons. 1) In court during process against someone suspected of crime, there is usually more evidence than merely eye-witness testimony. It's the whole spectrum of where the person suspected was, what he did, who he met, and those various different witness-testimonies are woven together into a complete picture that displays the truth. There might also be cameras verifying that a person was at a certain place at a certain time and traces where crime was commited. 2) The situation is entirely different and not all of the witnesses speak of the same things. Some animals might be yellow, others red, others brown, others black, the sounds they emit might be different and inconsistencies are too many to list.

To cut a long story short, you cannot compare the two. One is about something very prosaic and something most people would not pay much attention, the other is a complete sensation. What did the tests of the DNA bring back, if such a test was done? Links or book references would be most generous of you to provide. I'm idle eye. There's no fossil record of apes of any faintly similar kind living in the area in the past - unless of course something very weird took place and a new species just suddenly spawned out of nowhere (ALIENS?) or some ape swam across the Bering Strait to Alaska and embarked upon a long tedious walk down the west-coast of the North American continent to populate the place. Sort of like a colonisation.

Why would we find the hoaxers? Are we looking for them? Are we stalking their homes looking for that big old furry suit old Mr. Bailey used to fake Bigfot in a photograph forty years ago? Do we roam the local pubs and restaurants looking for those hoaxers? No. A lot of people don't want to find hoaxers either. They don't want to have some bored middle-class guy being responsible. Prosaic explanations are as foolish to them as their visions of Bigfot as a prehistoric ape are to most sceptics. Do they live in trees, like the ape-men of Arthur Conan Doyle's The Lost World?

I'd like to see more on this hair sample. You still haven't provided any links or references, credible or not.

Previously you said "the lochness monster doesnt exist bc their are many things u can confuse it with. with bigfoot, their have been sightings recorded before history". Sightings have been recorded before history? Do you mean tales from Indians? Because if that's something to go by, we'd have a lot of weird animals everywhere. Huge sea serpents in every lake, breathing fire like dragons and... you get the point, hopefully. There are as many things to confuse a forest-dwelling animal with as it's with a lake/sea creature. Few of the observations were done under very clear circumstances. Might have been trees blocking clear view and such. Thousands report to have seen the Loch Ness monster. If somehow the "16,000" (Any links on that number?) witnesses of Bigfot automatically means that we're dealing with an ape, the 10,000 sightings of the Loch Ness monsters must mean it's obviously a Plesiosaur.

heres the hair link

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/yetidna.htm

some real animals today were thought to be fairy tales long ago. that lends credence to the high likely hood of an unknown primate living among us. their are many species remained to be discovered. it took long to find the giant panda, okapi. same thing fpr a north american ape. show henner fahrenbach how you could fake a gaussian curve. i encourage u to do so. if hoaxers were doing this, we shouldve already known the hoaxer by now. but we dont bc their is no hoaxer.

Nice linking, but this article is about Yeti, not "apes" in the North American Northwest? If anything I believe there's a higher possibility of the Yeti being a real unknown animal than the Sasquatch/Bigfoot due to it being a more isolated area that in prehistoric times has been home to large apes.

Again, you are mistaken. The giant panda has been known to the Chinese for thousands of years. The okapi was always known to the pygmies in the Congo and that's who led Sir Harry Johnston to the animal. There is no precedent for a native population to not be aware of any large animal that they have co-inhabited an area with for thousands of years. In every case of these animals that you say were legend, the native populations led the explorers right to them. On the other hand, the mythological or spiritual creatures in these given cultures such as Sasquatch is to Native Americans, or the Yeti to the Sherpa or any other archetypal "wildman", have never been found. Mainly because they're myth.

Please address how you believe an animal can be so secretive.

Maybe we can't find any Bigfoots (or should that be Bigfeet?) because people have been hunting them down and executing them?

pygmies have known the mokele mbembe for 1000's of years. i hate it when people say that we knew it existed all along, just admit you were wrong about some animal discoverys. its like you change your minds.

the yeti in my opinion is nothing but a brown bear. the pacific northwest is a way larger place than the habitat where the yeren and yeti live. so if pygmies have been right about every single animal, what if they report a bigfoot like creature. youll just say their lying or hoaxing something. forget the ocean, i dont think we will discover any other large animal down their, maybe just plankton at the most. their are remote parts of the world that havent been touched. we need to look for a creature unknown to science.

the hair sample did come from an animal, unknown to science. but it being a ape is different. this hair has baffled even skeptics.

Dinosaurs died out a while ago...just to let you know

I don't know what to say... how come you discredit some accounts which are just as hard to verify but so dedicatedly clings to the idea of Sasquatch? Whatever Mokéle mbêmbe is, it's not a dinosaur. All civilisations have had their own set of legends, may it be about trolls and changelings, Kraken or alien abductions, whether they were pygmies or 'modern civilisation'. This proves absolutely nothing. Indians had their legends. Sometimes legends can spread to nearby cultures as well. Why forget about the ocean? The ocean is far more likely to house unknown animals than is the Northwest US and Southwest Canada. Technically it's a larger area, but you forget that infrastructure and communication is way more advanced than in the Himalayas, the place is much more urbanised and exploited, explored. Further up north in Canada is much more unexplored than mountain-zones in British Coloumbia, Oregon and Washington...

Yet you think the Yeti is a mere brown bear? How does that go well with your acceptance of Sasquatch/Bigfoot?

ok yes i believe that mokele mbembe is a actual animal, but its no dinosaur. i believe its a rhino or s large snake.

about the yeti. their is zero to no proof. the yeren is more likely to exist. most bf sightings occur in large remote areas that are unexplored

The debate over Farenbach's "presumed sasquatch hair" is all but over at cryptozoology.com. Recently, the methodology used to classify these hairs has come under intense review. DNA analysis confirms that the hair is genetically and morphologically human, although unusual in that it lacks a medula. There is almost no credibility left at all to Farenbach and the associated "carter farm" scenario. It seems that the more one scrutinizes the alleged "evidence", the less of it there is to examine.

no one has ever proved the bhuden hair sample is from a known anima. its from an unknown animal. people are seeing something real. a flesh and blood being.