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 5
Bionic Bigfoot

Sasquatch sighting in Nunavik

138 posts in this topic

Fair enough, it's your opinion and I don't agree with your conclusions. ;)

I really do have to wonder though, I've only been a member here for 3 days now and I've run into nothing but negativity and close mindedness. I'm posting in the forums that I have an interest in and about subjects I believe to be true and yet, there is a constant barrage of posters giving their opinions of WHY these things don't exist. There are various forums about religion and those beliefs on this board, but you don't see me jumping into those discussions and topics and trying to convince those members that the bible and god is a fairy tale. Why do the religious fanatics feel it's necessary to post in the forums about UFO's, aliens and bigfoot if they don't believe? I can't even imagine why there are forums for religion and aliens and UFO"s on the same message board. The two subjects are apposed to one another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me be clear. I can get a bit excited when in the throes of a discussion.

I think it's perfectly fine to believe in bigfoot. what harm does it do?

But I will discuss what constitutes evidence, and how bigfoot likely CANNOT exist all day if you want.

I've run into nothing but negativity and close mindedness.

It is not closed minded to understand things and come to a conclusion. "Open minded" doesn't mean disregarding the things we know in exchange for something unsupported. True open mindedness means considering all the possibilities and CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE and what we know about a topic.

There are various forums about religion and those beliefs on this board, but you don't see me jumping into those discussions and topics and trying to convince those members that the bible and god is a fairy tale

I don't either. (partly because I BELIEVE in God)... however, if someone posted "evidence" for the existence of God, I would join in that discussion. I BELIEVE in God because there is no evidence for God's existence. That is why I BELIEVE in God. And why it is ok in my book to BELIEVE in bigfoot. Belief does not need to be supported by evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't fret that. If you go back any amount of years and look at a sasquatch thread you will find neognosis on it doing and saying the exact same things. I think he must twitch whenever he sees the word bigfoot and just can't help but re-state his argument over and over. I personally believe bigfoot does exist due to my own personal experience.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally believe bigfoot does exist due to my own personal experience.

Wonderful and thanks! Is there a topic you posted about your experience? If not, I'd love to hear the FULL story about your encounter!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough, it's your opinion and I don't agree with your conclusions. ;)

I really do have to wonder though, I've only been a member here for 3 days now and I've run into nothing but negativity and close mindedness. I'm posting in the forums that I have an interest in and about subjects I believe to be true and yet, there is a constant barrage of posters giving their opinions of WHY these things don't exist. There are various forums about religion and those beliefs on this board, but you don't see me jumping into those discussions and topics and trying to convince those members that the bible and god is a fairy tale. Why do the religious fanatics feel it's necessary to post in the forums about UFO's, aliens and bigfoot if they don't believe? I can't even imagine why there are forums for religion and aliens and UFO"s on the same message board. The two subjects are apposed to one another.

There are various types here, some are so cynical that if Bigfoot was captured, studied and put on display for the world to see they'd not believe it. Why? Because they are so steeped in their disbelief they can't accept anything but total rejection, and you know who you are. Now, if the nasty guys get to be too much for you then I suggest you use the ignore feature. I have a number on that list and it cuts down on all the attempts to start flaming wars, although a couple do band together to make sure I see his posts by quoting him.......I added them to the list as well. There are plenty here who discuss the subject with you and not resort to flaming, flame baiting and childish antics. Also, if the attacks get personal then contact the mods by using the "Report" button at the lower left.

This is a skeptical board, nothing wrong with having a belief challenged, if you really want to see a board dominated by internet-Nazis then go to the BFRO's forums. Say the wrong thing there and you could be booted by the cult following of the show. No, everyone isn't all touchy-freely here, but if you can support your contentions then you'll do ok. You don't get an automatic rubber stamp of approval for being a believer in Bigfoot here. And that is not a negative thing at all, you should know enough about your subject to know why you believe or don't believe,

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are various types here, some are so cynical that if Bigfoot was captured, studied and put on display for the world to see they'd not believe it. Why? Because they are so steeped in their disbelief they can't accept anything but total rejection, and you know who you are.

that is not true, and there is no basis to claim that. The above statement is meant to do nothing more except make a personal attack in an attempt to claim that it is not the absolute lack of evidence, but a character flaw that makes one deny the existence of bigfoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonderful and thanks! Is there a topic you posted about your experience? If not, I'd love to hear the FULL story about your encounter!

Not much to tell. In 1978 or 79 a friend and I were out hiking in some foot hills in western Washington when we came across around 100 prints in a dried up pond and up the side of a hill. It was pretty far off of the beaten path so a set of hoax prints there wouldn't have made sense since the chances of anyone seeing them would not be likely at all. You could tell they were made by real feet because the toes were in different positions in some of the prints. I would guess fake feet wouldn't be capable of that. The thing that really made them different from human feet was it looked like they bent at the toes and then much farther than behind what would be the ball of human feet.

I was a teenager at the time but I don't think my memory has exagerated the experience too much over the years.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing your story, OverSword. This is what I consider proof and because of your detailed description of the prints. Cardboard cutouts or any hard foot template wouldn't leave those discrepancies in the tracks. Any like many, many others who have found tracks out in the middle of nowhere, it's not logical that it was a human making tracks in a desolate area just hoping they would be discovered. Also, this was back in the 70's when hoaxing wasn't nearly as popular as it is today. Do you remember or can you guess at how large the tracks were?

Edited by Bionic Bigfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't be sure because we had no way to measure at the time but I was 14 or 15 years old and my and my foot would almost fit in it twice. But really neognosis is right. This is not proof. If we had taken casts it would be evidence, and evidence is different than proof. Although I don't think this is the case in the prints I saw, it is a fact that if you make tracks in wet mud they will actually get larger as the dry.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting story and a great catch to notice the toe placement changes, not only that but to realize it was not in a location that one would expect it to be found.

In the case of evidence, it can be subjective. I recall one staement Matt Moneymaker said on his show when Rene was not sure about what he was seeing and he bowed up at her and said words to the effect of: "How can you look at the exact same thing as me and come up with a completely different conclusion?" A lot of stuff can be faked so easily it isn't funny, and even when you show people how easily it can be faked they still don't bother to ask questions before jumping on the Bigfoot bandwasgon.

Edited by keninsc
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's proof to me. I don't need to see flouride in my tap water, but I know it's there! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that is not true, and there is no basis to claim that. The above statement is meant to do nothing more except make a personal attack in an attempt to claim that it is not the absolute lack of evidence, but a character flaw that makes one deny the existence of bigfoot.

We have a saying here in the South, ".....the first chicken to cackle is usually the one who laid the egg....". How is it a personal attack? Is anyone specifically named? Is it directed at anyone in particular? Since none of these are the case then it's your own sense of guilt kicking in when someone holds a mirror up to you and you can see the darkness within you. I actually have you on the ignore feature but made the mistake of coming to thew thread before logging in to block you. Be a good lad and don't start acting like another long term poster that chases me about begging for my attention when I have him on ignore. Don't send me emails, don't get a buddy to reply to your post so's to be sure I see it. I suggest you put me on ignore so we can both ignore each other equally. Now be a good lad and post away, just don't come after me. Your opinions, thoughts, observations, experiences, philosophies, and general sense of empirical direction are of no importance to me and I'd really prefer not to see you at all. Although, I do share some of your beliefs you're too much of an internet ogre for me tolerate.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's proof to me. I don't need to see flouride in my tap water, but I know it's there! ;)

See, that's what I'm talking about, you're too steeped in your own belief to be objective, hence you can be fooled into acceptance of something that isn't real. That's not intended to be a put down, just a statement of observation.

Edited by keninsc
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is what I consider proof and because of your detailed description of the prints.

You have an extremely loose requirement for "proof."

No wonder you are so set in your conviction. A story on the internet told by someone who claims they saw footprints nearly 40 years ago... this is proof to you?

And your conclusion, rather than that the "footprints" were misidentified, or the memory of the storyteller is a bit changed after 40 years, or that they weren't prints at all, or that they were any other plausible and POSSIBLE explanations... instead your conclusion is that they are proof of a giant ape that has never, not one time, been documented by science and leaves no discernible impact on the ecosystem?

But really neognosis is right. This is not proof. If we had taken casts it would be evidence, and evidence is different than proof.

Casts would be evidence of ONE thing and one thing only... that something had made impressions in the dirt and mud, and you took a cast of it.

That's it.

How is it a personal attack? Is anyone specifically named? Is it directed at anyone in particular?

It is a personal attack because you are not arguing evidence or anything relevant to the topic at hand. Instead, you are making a wild and broad statement that those who don't agree with you simply don't agree with you because they don't want to. Nevermind that you have no evidence, and they have science on their side. It's just because they are stubborn, right?

Be a good lad and don't start acting like another long term poster that chases me about begging for my attention when I have him on ignore. Don't send me emails, don't get a buddy to reply to your post so's to be sure I see it.

You don't need to worry about any of that.

I actually have you on the ignore feature but made the mistake of coming to thew thread before logging in to block you. Be a good lad and don't start acting like another long term poster that chases me about begging for my attention when I have him on ignore. Don't send me emails, don't get a buddy to reply to your post so's to be sure I see it. I suggest you put me on ignore so we can both ignore each other equally.

I don't feel the need to ignore people that stand up to me and challenge the things I say and believe on the internet. I enjoy hearing different points of view. That's fine if you don't though, it is your loss.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another sighting.. It doesn't matter how many sightings, we need proof. Which leads me to believe that there are no bigfoot or yetis or any other sort of furry humanoid. If there was, they would've been caught on trail cams by now, come on. Unless they really do come from another dimension.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

((mumbleing to my self)) who realy gives a turkeys ass ...the realy only way to prove some thing is there is to go look and see siting in or at a desk checking out internet fact ((lol yeah we all know the internet doent lie)) but you have to get out of the box and open your eyes to the real world sorry just seems kinda point less to me argueing back and forth is any thing is real or not you got to get out of the box!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I agree. However, when something could be couple different things it's hard not to point it out.

You gotta have a body or some bones.....the ultimate would be a live one, but how do you go about catching such a thing if it really is 600 to 100 Lbs, and between 6 and 9 feet tall and supposedly as strong as a gorilla? While I don't like the idea of shooting one......or more than one if the alleged Bigfoot Body Recovery Team is real. Yeah, there are people who believe such a thing exists.

Fuzzy photos and videos aren't really proof, especially when you consider that there are software packages on the web that will allow you to doctor a video. This has happened with UFO footage that I know of and a Bigfoot video wouldn't be that tough to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another sighting.. It doesn't matter how many sightings, we need proof. Which leads me to believe that there are no bigfoot or yetis or any other sort of furry humanoid. If there was, they would've been caught on trail cams by now, come on. Unless they really do come from another dimension.

I agree, something should have turned up by now that is tangible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Alchemist and thank you for the response. Although I'm a new member here I don't feel I'm not qualified to answer your question. From what BF researchers have discovered and found out is, that these creatures are omnivorous There is very good reason to believe that they, like any other omnivore eats various animal and vegetable matter. Like bears who inhabit HUGE and successful regions all across North America, they probably eat whatever they can and depending on the season and other conditions. In the past, food resources of sasquatch were a hot topic of debate. Many people either wanted or chose to believe they were herbivores exclusively. Therefore that theory would put a big nail in any dietary reason for bigfoot to exist. It would be much more likely that they are omnivores and likely feed on other animal sources quite often and since deer and other prey would be easily available to them, nearly anywhere in a heavily forested environment.

Hi Bionic Bigfoot.

First, I am not stating the people involved in this alleged sighting are hoaxing, misidentifying or anything like that. I do not know the people to ascertain their credibility, or their ability to identify animals although from experience. However, I generally tend to believe Indigenous people living in their traditional territories and hunting, trapping etc., have a good understanding of what animals are within said territories, based on personal experience and from the encounters of others in their community. This leads me to believe they saw something that was beyond their experience, which may have been a Sasquatch.

My concerns is that if it was a 10 to 14 foot creature with a 40 odd centimetre foot, that is one HUGE creature. I would imagine that the caloric intake required to sustain such a creature would likewise be huge. The following calculation is based on basic human formulas for determining caloric intake. If the creature was 14 feet tall, the weight for such a creature extrapolating from a chart found here (http://www.healthchecksystems.com/heightweightchart.htm) would be approximately 660 pounds for a large framed individual.

From the calculations found here (http://www.calculator.net/calorie-calculator.html?ctype=standard&cage=25&csex=m&cheightfeet=14&cheightinch=0&cpound=660&cheightmeter=180&ckg=60&cactivity=1.55&x=58&y=13), the person would require 8588 calories per day to just maintain that weight.

What am I getting at? That is a heck of lot of berries and caribou that they would have to eat to maintain their caloric intake. Not being trained in biology, zoology etc. I am not sure if what I have posted above is correct, but I think it still stands to reason that a creature that tall would require quite a bit of food sources to survive. This is why I question why a creature that tall would be in a habitat that is pretty sparse in relation to food sources.

I put this out there, not as a definitive statement, but for discussion. If there are other threads that discuss this I pologize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if that's been touched on or not, but you're quite right in that the larger a creature is the most food it's going to need to stay alive. There are a lot of calories available in the wild, but only during certain times of the year. Unless this thing hibernates between eating sessions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 to 15 feet tall? i think they were eating scrooms or dropping acid and saw a racoon that looked huge! drugs can do that to you!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 to 15 feet tall? i think they were eating scrooms or dropping acid and saw a racoon that looked huge! drugs can do that to you!

I must've missed that part. That fits perfectly with Coleman's "true giant" category of creatures, though, and supports what I thought looking at the print. I wish the picture of it was better so you could see the measurements of it, since a 10-15 foot creature is going to leave a very large print.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just something to think about, but, if you had photos would you really show them to anyone but close family? No one would believe they were real and you would instantly be demonized as a fraud - as reading many threads has clearly shown us. I think that's a great problem with modern technology - (and yes I know this is a double edged show, but) - it has made photographs/film useless as evidence, considering how easy it is to fake it. :no:

~

As an aside, the lack of "unhuman" evidence is what led me to the conclusion these "sasquatches" are just humans with Hypertrichosis or the like (that, and a personal experience we had, that turned me from a non-believer to a believer). To me this is the most likely solution that satisfies both sides of the argument. But all this being said, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with the thought of pictures being held out of fear of ridicule. There sure are plenty of fuzzy ones. If I was worried about ridicule, I would just pass the photo on to someone else to expose to the world. Post it on the internet under a different name. I think we need to admit that there are not any clear pictures of the real thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think hypertrichosis fits this very well.

First, it would not explain the size at all. the condition in no way makes people grow to 8-12 feet tall. Also if they were just humans, they would exibit the characteristics of humans. Mostly, the children would be very curious and would be seen checking out humans much more often than is reported. The cold would lead them to take shelter where they would be discovered more often. I don't think hiding would be instictive to them. Tool and shelter making would be more important. You would also get some "bad eggs" who think "screw this, I'm going to town".

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 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.