Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
George Ford

My new theory on Bigfoots.

54 posts in this topic

Hi,

Someone might have already thought of this, but I just thought that there might be an unknown species of bear living in the USA. They look almost identical to normal bears and that is why no one suspects anything. The major difference is that they can stand up and walk about on their hind legs for long periods of time. This is why people think they have seen a bigfoot, but in fact they have seen a walking bear.

If not an unknown species of bear then a small group that have learnt to walk. It is possible as small groups of animals sometimes learn a new trait that only the group they are in know about. Like certain apes using sticks to get insects out of holes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This has been often posited and many BF sightings could probably contributed to the misidentification of a bear, especially that 3 legged one that walks on two legs as well as you or I. But one of the defining features of a BF is the way they "lope". Unless this new species of bear has VERY long legs...they can't lope.

Edited by jaguarsky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Some bears go bipedal.

This sow most likely learned this behavior at a very young age. A necessity to be mobile or not survive. The young cub will probably never bother to mimic this behavior. Since, it really isn't advantageous for bears.

To add: Three legged bears still spend the vast majority down on three legs.

Edited by hucksterfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




Ya I can see it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MAD! I never knew about this 3 legged bear! That's awesome, I guess there must be a percentage of bears that have stood on bear traps and lost a limb so find walking on two legs a bit easier some times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problems I have with "bear misidentification" are thusly

1. Bears may be able to stand on two legs, but they cannot run at 30 mph on two legs

nor can they take strides that are 15 feet apart

2. the alleged bigfoot has a nose distinct from it's mouth whereas a bear has

a nose/mouth combo aka, a snout, and it is the largest most prominent feature of the face.

3. bears are notoriously narrow at the shoulder and rotund at the hip/rump region.

the alleged BF has very wide shoulders (42-44 inches) and is barrel chested.

also, in many BF sightings, witnesses say that the 'creature' has hands/fingers. bears - not so much.

and lastly, many many witness to the BF are woodsmen/hunters and they are very impressed with the

stench of the animal. bears of course, do not have such a stench to them.

I cannot see the stretch myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya I can see it

Amazing that the video is so clear and non-shaky.

Funny how bigfoot videos are neither.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Bears may be able to stand on two legs, but they cannot run at 30 mph on two legs

nor can they take strides that are 15 feet apart

No bigfoot has ever been documented running or taking 15 foot strides.

2. the alleged bigfoot has a nose distinct from it's mouth whereas a bear has

a nose/mouth combo aka, a snout, and it is the largest most prominent feature of the face.

The nose and mouth of bigfoot have never been documented as having any kind of morphology at all.

3. bears are notoriously narrow at the shoulder and rotund at the hip/rump region.

the alleged BF has very wide shoulders (42-44 inches) and is barrel chested.

The wide shoulders of bigfoot have never been documented.

also, in many BF sightings, witnesses say that the 'creature' has hands/fingers. bears - not so much.

There has never been any evidence that bigfoot has hands or fingers.

and lastly, many many witness to the BF are woodsmen/hunters and they are very impressed with the

stench of the animal. bears of course, do not have such a stench to them.

Bears so have a well documented and repeatedly observed stench which is well known and accepted as true to wildlife biologists who manage bear populations, or study bears.

The stench of bigfoot has never been documented.

So, to sum up, the hands, fingers, eyes, nose, shoulders, and stench of bigfoot have never, ever, not one single time, been documented, nor has any evidence whatsoever, not one single piece, been collected that supports the existence of those things either.

We know that bears have a stench and a snout-like nose and claws and narrow shoulders for one reason... they are real, and as such, can be documented, repeatedly observed and those observations documented, and evidence for these things has been, continues to be, and will be, collected and further documented.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure like humans, some bears stink and some do not. Possible causes of stink are rubbing in poop like some dogs do, or having a skin disease or possibly covered in some rotting carcass gore.

I can't explain how some people saw a bear/bigfoot/unknown jump/stride 15feet though. Unless its a misinterpretation i.e. Someone said they saw a bigfoot/bear/unknown run really fast as if in one stride (or one fluid movement) 15feet into cover and disappear and it was incorrectly documented as 'it moved 15feet in one stride'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'll concede ...Bears don't take 15 foot strides.

Now I'm off to LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some bears go bipedal.

This sow most likely learned this behavior at a very young age. A necessity to be mobile or not survive. The young cub will probably never bother to mimic this behavior. Since, it really isn't advantageous for bears.

To add: Three legged bears still spend the vast majority down on three legs.

Amazing how animals can adapt :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when the bear first starts walking, it looks like a bigfoot video from behind the trees. So I can understand how someone could mistake that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when the bear first starts walking, it looks like a bigfoot video from behind the trees. So I can understand how someone could mistake that.

Totally agree, if the undergrowth was a few feet high you would only see the huge body and might think the undergrowth was higher and assume what u saw had bigger legs. I bet walking bears account for at least a few bigfoot sightings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing how animals can adapt :)

Yes, and it's amazing that bigfoot has the stride of a T-Rex. :]

I'll refrain from re-posting the demonstration picture. This post might just go poof to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I don't doubt for a minute that some sasquatch sightings are actually bears.

But this new species of bear would have to occupy places where even black bear don't inhabit.

If you look at a map of the limited range of black bear in the U.S. and then a sasquatch sighting map, they don't match up. In so far that there are lots of sasquatch sightings outside black bear range.

So there are obviously reasons black bear don't occupy these areas, yet another bear would? Not arguing, just wondering.

Also we have lots of black bear physical evidence, carcasses- hunters, roadkill/injury, photos. I would think we would have documented proof of this new large carnivore by now too.

Edited by QuiteContrary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I don't doubt for a minute that some sasquatch sightings are actually bears.

But this new species of bear would have to occupy places where even black bear don't inhabit.

If you look at a map of the limited range of black bear in the U.S. and then a sasquatch sighting map, they don't match up. In so far that there are lots of sasquatch sightings outside black bear range.

So there are obviously reasons black bear don't occupy these areas, yet another bear would? Not arguing, just wondering.

Also we have lots of black bear physical evidence, carcasses- hunters, roadkill/injury, photos. I would think we would have documented proof of this new large carnivore by now too.

im sure brown/grizzly bears are capable of walking on their hind legs too. Probably not for long due to their weight, but it wouldnt take long at a distance, through thick forest, for someone to mistake them for bigfoot. you also have to take into consideration on a "bigfoot map" how many people are just plain full of it, so the range may not be as wide as it appears

Edited by trancelikestate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

im sure brown/grizzly bears are capable of walking on their hind legs too. Probably not for long due to their weight, but it wouldnt take long at a distance, through thick forest, for someone to mistake them for bigfoot. you also have to take into consideration on a "bigfoot map" how many people are just plain full of it, so the range may not be as wide as it appears

Yes, but since brown and black bear range overlap in places I took the bear with the biggest range so to show there are alot of sasquatch sightings outside bear range in the US.

My guess is all sasquatch (sightings are bs, but your point it correct, not all new bear species misidentification (in bear territory)would have to be.

I still wonder about no evidence of this new bear species.

They find black bear killed by brown and brown killed by brown why not a new species carcass killed by brown or black. Bear are pretty closely monitored it seems.

Edited by QuiteContrary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im sure brown/grizzly bears are capable of walking on their hind legs too. Probably not for long due to their weight, but it wouldnt take long at a distance, through thick forest, for someone to mistake them for bigfoot. you also have to take into consideration on a "bigfoot map" how many people are just plain full of it, so the range may not be as wide as it appears

Considering that bears will get up on their hind legs to look around and sniff. Add foliage and active imagination.

(To add: Bears have very good eyesight and probably know that a stump isn't a bigfoot)

moose-backside-eyes.jpg

It's a moose backside

They find black bear killed by brown and brown killed by brown why not a new species carcass killed by brown or black. Bear are pretty closely monitored it seems.

It falls into that finding credible evidence; bones, fossils, roadkill; unambiguous video or photos of this yet to be cataloged bipedal bear (that's what you're talking about, right?)

Bipedal bear hangs with bigfoot and mammoths, in that place where nobody has been or seen. :]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seeing that the fact our world is a living being in itself, perhaps they're her creations.

I'm sorry, what? Did I miss something in school? It's a fact that the earth is a singular living being now?

I don't doubt for a minute that some sasquatch sightings are actually bears.

But this new species of bear would have to occupy places where even black bear don't inhabit.

If you look at a map of the limited range of black bear in the U.S. and then a sasquatch sighting map, they don't match up. In so far that there are lots of sasquatch sightings outside black bear range.

How do you know that there aren't any bears there?

Oh, right, because there never have been any documented there, or any evidence of recent bear population in those areas. In contrast to the ton of evidence for bigfoot living there... :wacko::lol:

Also we have lots of black bear physical evidence, carcasses- hunters, roadkill/injury, photos. I would think we would have documented proof of this new large carnivore by now too.

SPOT ON!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hucksterfoot and Neognosis,

Yes, I was referring to lack of evidence of this new species of bear in the OP.

Edited by QuiteContrary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, I got that. Hence "SPOT ON."

You are right, there is absolutely no evidence, just a lot of stories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, I got that. Hence "SPOT ON."

You are right, there is absolutely no evidence, just a lot of stories.

that reminds me of something..........now what is it?............OH YEAH! Its just like Bigfoot! No evidence, just lots of stories. the similarities are uncanny...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Granted, there is little evidence at all that Bigfoots do exist at all, however the evidence for Gigantopithecus could be considered just as dubious. All they have is one jaw bone and about a dozen teeth, most of which were found in an apothecary shop in China in the thirties. Then later they found some more teeth in a cave that the apothecary took the scientist to see. Not exactly what you'd call overwhelming evidence, however it's enough for the science community to accept.

Bigfoot prints are easily faked and many have come forward and admitted they'd made them. Films are never clear with the exception of the Patterson-Gimblin film, which is interesting but I have some questions about.

Personally, until someone comes up with a skeleton or body I don't think it will ever be accepted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but since brown and black bear range overlap in places I took the bear with the biggest range so to show there are alot of sasquatch sightings outside bear range in the US.

I'm sure both species of bear contribute to bigfoot sightings. And where exactly are there sightings that bears arn't? Bears range pretty much all across the us except in the more arid rigions. And correct me if I'm wrong but you don't hear alot about sandsquatch sightings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm sure both species of bear contribute to bigfoot sightings. And where exactly are there sightings that bears arn't? Bears range pretty much all across the us except in the more arid rigions. And correct me if I'm wrong but you don't hear alot about sandsquatch sightings.

The State of OHio for one. Ever hear of Salt Lake State Park in Ohio? A big "Hot Spot" that hosts a bigfoot conference every year.

Edited by QuiteContrary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.