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 7
pokingjoker

Bigfoot: real or myth? -- Why? -- Why not?

518 posts in this topic

The inconclusive DNA evidence and the like? What evaluation is there to be made from inconclusive DNA? The hair samples that haven't yielded anything substantial? The depressions in the soil that might be from an actual creature? I'm not even going to bother mentioning the photographic evidence.

Let's not forget the closely guarded evidence that proponents say is definitely conclusive yet those who hold it won't release any of it for independent verification or study. I'm really not seeing anything substantial as far as evidence goes. I do however see people looking to cash in on the myth around every corner. That's not to say that there aren't legitimate researchers out there but one has to wonder how much of the evidence has been flat out fabricated.

Inconclusive is just that, inconclusive, and does not support or deny anything.

Hair analysis does require samples to compare to, and without a sample to compare another to, it is extremely difficult to come to any conclusion based on hairs.

DNA analysis is not much different, while it is possible to analysis samples and determine if the sample is similar to existing known species, determining the species is difficult, if not impossible, without a sample to compare to.

Hair, DNA, and other sample types might be interesting, but are likely never to be sufficient. A specimen, live or dead, perhaps even individual pieces of a skeleton, such as a skull, are needed to prove the existence.

Unfortunately, in recent times, many people have portrayed hoaxes for no other reason to gain either money, some fame, or both.

Among the scientific community, there are likely many individuals who could lend more assistance into the investigation, but even in science there are 'acceptable subjects' and boxes, and steeping outside of those can quickly lead to a lost of position in their field.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I do see where your coming from. many cultures did indeed perceive a dragon type animal alive and out there why...the obvious answer is there were many skeletons and bones found of dino and newer but unexplained to them. a society that has no real notion of time....stories passed from great great great grandfathers versus thousands to millions of years, so bones must come from a creature of now. Science believes dragons are an instinctual fear of giant snakes and birds of prey combined. Stories of bigfoot date back centuries and persist into to todays modern society and cultures.

Links please ( and historical ones, not bigfoot/crypto links as sources )

I believe you have been caught hook, line, and sinker by the BFRO and such sites on this loose translation of " stories dating back "......

i know a cop in PA and he saw one of these things years ago they are very real.

if something dies in the woods it will be eaten with in a week.

i saw this on a tv show they put a dead deer in the woods with a camera and it was goone in 4 days

Strange, I bow hunted for over 20 years, and bird hunted.....I found skeletal remains of all sorts, all the time. As a matter of fact, I live on the Pacific Northwest, and have nothing but forest around me, and Highway 101 about 1/4 mile down our easement. Highway 101 is a death trap for deer.( and other animals )....We had ( one example ) one hit by our easement last year, was a favorite little fawn we had visit. Body was off the road, in the trees....I believe one of the legs are still there.,,,,Over a year ago actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, there is no hard evidence to prove the existence of such a creature. Yeah, I know there are fuzzy videos and blobby pictures which can either be faked very easily or simply misidentified. Footprints? Footprints you say? There have been many cases of people who have admitted they have faked them. We have one guy here who openly boasts about having his own Bigfoot suit that he uses. Whether or not that is true or him just being obtuse I can't answer. Eyewitness'? Look at how many people claim to be eye witness to crimes and when they tell their stories then they're not completely correct. Fear, surprise and some just lying like rugs for their fifteen minutes of fame. Who's lying and who isn't? Beats me, some you can almost see the lie on their face and others you can't. Who's lying and who's mistaken? You can't always tell.

At best, there is only enough to make you wonder if it could all be fakes or mis-identification or if maybe some of it is the real deal, and that's at best.

If you listen to the latest, so called experts, the BFRO, then according to them there are Bigfoot everywhere.......except where they actually point a camera. Keep in mind the only one of these guys who is actually some what qualified to speak on the subject is the female Renae, not sure if I spelled her name right or not, at least she has a biology degree........but her background is in fish.......yes, fish.

Bobo, graduated high school, Cliff did go to college but his degree is in something else, and Old Mat the Moneymaker (sorry but he really should consider using a stage name) was/is an attorney. Which means he doesn't know anything about anything except the law. Most lawyers I know are good people, but they are pretty limited outside the realm of legal practice.

Edited by keninsc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my input on the discussion.

I admit, I do not believe in Bigfoot. Here are the breakdown of the reasons why:

There's just been no conclusive evidence of Bigfoot. Yes, I know that absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. However, I just find it hard to believe in a creature that is not proven and has not been proven for years.

Also, the argument of "it's really good at hiding from us" is a little blurry to me. There are thousands of reports each year, probably even more than that. There are hundreds if not thousands of videos and pictures of Bigfoot. So...does that mean its bad at hiding from us? And yet it can hide conclusive evidence to prove its existence from us. So, does it measure the efficiency of how it hides from us so it can get away with reports, videos, and photos, but not actual absolute data? That makes pretty much no sense to me. We've been combing the forests for decades looking for Bigfoot and nothing.

And the idea that a hairy man-ape walking through the forest doesn't make sense to me. Where would it fit in the ecosystem? Why hasn't it evolved like us? How would it be suited to its environment? How about intelligence? Compared to us? I'm not a biologist or anything so I'm ignorant on these things.

The culture thing doesn't really do much for me. For my creations of drawing or writing, I usually just take something that has inspired me and change it and change it until it becomes something new. I don't see why ancient people/cultures can't do the same thing. A storyteller could see a bird and make a new art piece of an ancient colorful fiery flying spirit from it or tell a story of an giant talking bird with the head of a monkey that takes young girls. It could weave itself over time into a often told story of the people.

However, I respect peoples' belief in Bigfoot. That's why I don't argue with someone who believes in Bigfoot and try to get them to not believe in it. I understand their belief and I have no right to change it.

So that's my opinion.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this were a criminal investigation being discussed, everything you just mentioned would be submittable as evidence, however, it is only after the examination by qualified individuals, who have the proper knowledge, training and experience to examine the type of evidence at hand, can it be determined if the evidence is of sufficient quality to be usable, and if so, what that evidence reveals.

Whilst it may be submittable as evidence, the quality described would be unlikely to be a convincing factor in the end decision. All such evidence has been submitted, examined, and offered no more than additional questions. That is those that do not outright dismiss it based upon their level of expertise.

Incidentally, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, it is responsible for 75% of wrongful convictions that have been overturned by DNA evidence.

Dentists have a high degree of scientific training and education for their line of work, but no one would give them shell casings to examine and then ask for their expert analysis.

They would not be the first port of call, however this is not the case. Professional anthropologists largely deny that the submitted evidence is in support of an unknown hominid. A few fringe elements does not validate the pursuit just as overwhelming disagreement on the validity of the proposal has not hampered investigations.

In the case of this 'anthropology' investigation, the experts who should be examining the evidence are those who have experience and knowledge in certain fields, including but not limited to; anthropology, primatology, ecology, evolutionary biology, and biomechanics. There are people with such experience who have examined, and continue to examine, the evidence; Jeffrey Meldrum, Grover Krantz, Geoffrey Bourne, John Napier and Jimmy Chilcutt to name a few. They tend to agree that there is an undocumented large primate in North America, but of course a specimen is needed to document it.

Whilst they agree, decades of research has not at all produced one irrefutable piece of evidence to support their positions. And some are downright whacky, thinking of Farhenbach.

This is a very small number of professionals in the big picture. For every Meldrum and Napier, there is ten David Daegling and Daniel Schmitt's.

We hear much more from the small contingent chasing the dream than we do form the entire community, simply because an overwhelming number of professionals saying "no way" is not newsworthy.

Individuals who wish to discount their analyses are free to do so, but it does not refute their analyses in anyway. Those interested in refuting them, should review the same evidence, and be someone with at least the same experience and knowledge, and then detail their own analysis. If not, any statement made is really a personal opinion, and does not lend much.

I beg to differ, if the analysis is done properly, and is in depth, it should be easy enough for any person to completely understand it, such is the point of the analysis to begin with. If one understands it, then one can refute it.

But, every single analysis is "inconclusive" so it's a mute point really. Nobody even knows what they are looking at, but some have steered their logic to be supportive of the ambiguous items and have convinced themselves that "inconclusive" = "Bigfoot".

If there was viable information out there, the question would not remain. It is impossible to prove a negative, so Bigfoot remains in the hearts and minds of those who have affiliated themselves with the ideal.

Ironically, this is an example of a large non-human primate, previously undocumented by science, being recently discovered, is it not?

Indeed, pont being that the conditions under which it was found are much harsher than the places Bigfoot is claimed to have been seen. Rather than the principal of the argument, the environment is the deciding factor here.

There are reports of Sasquatch passing in front of vehicles, nearly being hit, and at least two reports of vehicles hitting them.

From the North American Bigfoot Search records.

  • 1996-08-00; FL, Gadsden; road crossing bigfoot hit by state trooper's car and tourists on a bus watch it go into the woods.
  • 1977-08-00; FL, Collier; police car hits a bigfoot, blood, hair found.

While unfortunately no bodies or samples were recovered it seems, these type of accidents have been reported.

Unconfirmed reports that amount to no more than hearsay.

I am not certain what you are trying to say here.

I believe the point there was that there is no evidence that Bigfoot eats anything. The ecosystems is perfectly balanced. There is no gap of missing food to feed a group of unknown primates. No drop on any species numbers, no impact on vegetation Unless Bigfoot survives on pine needles and Ice, there is not evidence that he has ever eaten anything.

While sightings may occur near large population centres, most of them, if any, do not occur within them. Most sightings take place in heavily wooded, or rugged areas, the type of environment most people do not routinely go to. It is not too surprising that many sightings are reported by hunters, campers, or hikers. They are in the right environment.

That is not what the maps say.

google_earth_north_american_bigfoot_sighting_maps_1.jpgbigfoot_sighting_density.jpg

Why would Bigfoot not move closer to cities to take advantage of garbage dumps?

How can the sightings maintain such a high number, if Bigfoot is seen in remote out of the way places? If remote, then people are scarse. So who is seeing and making all these reports?

Facts N’ Fun Stuff

  • There are over 400 reports a year of Bigfoot sightings

LINK

Contrary to what may be widely believed that everyone owns either a digital camera or some type of mobile device with a built in camera, the fact is, not everyone does.

InfoTrends reported that in 2009, 95% of the cameras purchased were purchased by households that already had one.

Experian reported that in 2011, 227 million people owned a cell phone, but doesn't state if these are devices with cameras or not. If you want to assume they are, then given that the population of the USA was around 311 million in the middle of 2011, that gives about 73% of people owning a cell phone with a camera at the time.

In 2003 only 30% of USA households owned a digital camera.

I do agree that a majority of the population does have either a phone or device capable of imaging, but saying everyone has one is not accurate.

Even when someone has a sighting, not everyone walks around with the device already filming or ready to snap a photo that instant. Sightings that do get captured on film or other imagery, the viewers often had their device out for other reasons.

Not everyone needs a camera, people in NYC would be included in that number, but not likely to see Bigfoot. It is hard to imagine people going to these places for the scenery, but not capturing it. I would like to see a figure on how many hikers and camper carry a camera as opposed to the general population. The general population does not see Bigfoot so the statistic does not apply.

Or, monitoring an alleged "hotspot" specifically as opposed to saying "The PNW is vast!" Again, the entire PNW does not hold Bigfoot, so the comparison is invalid.

Have you made a study of these cultural stories and done comparative research, or at least read any comparative research done by other individuals?

Yes, and the large spectre figure features heavily in human history and myth. It's a scary connotation. This seems to be a personified extension of that myth. More evidence leans toward that conclusion than does for Bigfoot being a real creature.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inconclusive is just that, inconclusive, and does not support or deny anything.

Hair analysis does require samples to compare to, and without a sample to compare another to, it is extremely difficult to come to any conclusion based on hairs.

DNA analysis is not much different, while it is possible to analysis samples and determine if the sample is similar to existing known species, determining the species is difficult, if not impossible, without a sample to compare to.

Hair, DNA, and other sample types might be interesting, but are likely never to be sufficient. A specimen, live or dead, perhaps even individual pieces of a skeleton, such as a skull, are needed to prove the existence.

Unfortunately, in recent times, many people have portrayed hoaxes for no other reason to gain either money, some fame, or both.

Among the scientific community, there are likely many individuals who could lend more assistance into the investigation, but even in science there are 'acceptable subjects' and boxes, and steeping outside of those can quickly lead to a lost of position in their field.

I do not see how the samples can keep coming up inconclusive. Hundreds claim to have hairs, one UM member claims Henner Fahrenbach sent him one in the mail. The Bili Ape was evaluated as a 5th sub species of chimp from one scat sample.

And if the hairs keep coming up "inconclusive" how is that in any way toed to Bigfoot? Inconclusive mean "I do not have a clue" doesn't it? Why are the inconclusive hairs brought up in support of Bigfoot, when they do not actually support anything? Half of them could be Coconut husk fibres for all we know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

psyche101,

Maybe you can help me find this...For the life of me I do not remember where I saw it, but someone, or people in plural had made a " progressive " Bigfoot sightings map through the years.

I have numerous times, tried to find this for several bigfoot topis here.

It starts off in California, where / near the famous " tracks " were made ( to scare off people messing with logging equipment, the start of the Bigfoot legend if you ask me ). It then shows a few through the years, and then a plague of them near the " Patterson film " area after that was released.

It was a video map, not a still. It was like watching a plague go up the coast, and then start east. Pretty convincing to show how a rumor can spread. It was well made, and took a lot of investigating and effort.

I wish I could find it......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sakari you asked for for links to support the fact that stories of bigfoot date back centuries all over the world. well here are a few links i found that support that .

http://www.crystalinks.com/bigfoot.html

a very interesting synopsis of different names and locations with a bit of history.

http://www.mysteriousaustralia.com/yowie_stories.html

australian history of their version

http://school.discoveryeducation.com/everest/explore_yetimyth.html

cant get anymore non bfro than discovery lol, with some folklore info on their page.

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/k-strain-b/

yes its a bigfoot site, but the link shows a book written by a bigfooter so her veiw may be a bit biased but she researched and found many stories she put into her book

Giants, Cannibals and Monsters: Bigfoot In Native Culture by Kathy Strain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

psyche101,

Maybe you can help me find this...For the life of me I do not remember where I saw it, but someone, or people in plural had made a " progressive " Bigfoot sightings map through the years.

I have numerous times, tried to find this for several bigfoot topis here.

It starts off in California, where / near the famous " tracks " were made ( to scare off people messing with logging equipment, the start of the Bigfoot legend if you ask me ). It then shows a few through the years, and then a plague of them near the " Patterson film " area after that was released.

It was a video map, not a still. It was like watching a plague go up the coast, and then start east. Pretty convincing to show how a rumor can spread. It was well made, and took a lot of investigating and effort.

I wish I could find it......

Hi Sakari

I cannot say I have seen that one, but it sure sounds very interesting. I will have a search as well and see what I can find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this were a criminal investigation being discussed, everything you just mentioned would be submittable as evidence, however, it is only after the examination by qualified individuals, who have the proper knowledge, training and experience to examine the type of evidence at hand, can it be determined if the evidence is of sufficient quality to be usable, and if so, what that evidence reveals.

Wait, so shaky footage, some footprints, and hair samples are enough to launch a criminal investigation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's compare this with another large ape, the Bili Ape. One researcher went to the Congo in the mid-1990s to investigate native stories about a large ape that's not a chimpanzee or a gorilla. On his first trip, he found a skull and managed to buy perfect quality trail camera photos (This one: http://img180.images...oapenormqi5.jpg compare it with the blobsquatches), take casts of footprints and collect fecal samples. He gathered more evidence in one trip that exists about bigfoot altogether. In 2000, he went back and found ground nests belonging to the animals. After the end of the civil war, yet another trip saw the animals, confirmed them to be an anomalous, isolated population of huge chimpanzees that have been studied ever since. Why was Karl Ammann successful? Because the animals he was looking for were real.

There's an additional finding to the Ammann expeditions that would probably be of interest to Bigfoot researchers. Recall he couldn't find the Bili Apes themselves on the first two expeditions. On the third, successful expedition when they met the apes face to face, they went much deeper into the forest than on the previous attempts. Funny thing is that it turned out those weren't the only Bili Apes, just that the ones furthest from the roads and villages hadn't encountered humans often enough if at all to know they should hide. The population was actually evenly distributed clear back to the roads and villages, but the ones living closest to human populations had become expert at hiding when people would otherwise spot them. In other words, the first two expeditions walked right by Bili Apes without seeing them, but they were actually there all the time. Ammann or one of his expedition did a statistical analysis and came up with an "avoidance index", a numerical measurement of how likely any given Bili was to hide when humans approached, and found it to be a fairly smooth gradient. Bili's that lived nearest human habitation always hid (and well enough to go unseen by the first two expeditions that looked specifically for them), those deepest in the forest didn't hide at all when researchers approached them, and those living in between varied in how likely they were to hide or not hide by the distance they lived from humans. Perhaps the lesson here is, if you haven't gone deep enough into the woods to die if something goes wrong, then you probably haven't gone deep enough to find a higher primate that is deliberately avoiding you. And the Bili Apes prove that higher primates can learn to avoid humans where they are most likely to encounter them.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you walk through mud or wet earth, and it freezes and thaws, freezes and thaws, freezes and thaws, your prints will expand.

This is likely what is the case when there's a set of big, blobby, footprint-like tracks that are not outright hoaxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to reply to a few things that haven't been addressed by psyche 101

If this were a criminal investigation being discussed, everything you just mentioned would be submittable as evidence, however, it is only after the examination by qualified individuals, who have the proper knowledge, training and experience to examine the type of evidence at hand, can it be determined if the evidence is of sufficient quality to be usable, and if so, what that evidence reveals.

But this is not a criminal, but a scientific investigation. That's a big difference. Science needs unambiguous evidence, while law does not necessarily need that. To this day, there has been no unambiguous piece of evidence presented for the existence of bigfoot.

Ironically, this is an example of a large non-human primate, previously undocumented by science, being recently discovered, is it not?

Absolutely, that was my point. A previously undocumented large primate being easily and, compared to the amount of work that's been done on bigfoot, effortlessly in an environment that is more hostile than anything that exists in North America. It wasn't luck. It was because, as opposed to bigfoot, this animal actually exists and if anyone who knows what they are doing gives it a try, they will find it.

There are reports of Sasquatch passing in front of vehicles, nearly being hit, and at least two reports of vehicles hitting them.

From the North American Bigfoot Search records.

  • 1996-08-00; FL, Gadsden; road crossing bigfoot hit by state trooper's car and tourists on a bus watch it go into the woods.
  • 1977-08-00; FL, Collier; police car hits a bigfoot, blood, hair found.

While unfortunately no bodies or samples were recovered it seems, these type of accidents have been reported.

Two reports of near-misses. Two. In Yosemite only, 17 bears have been hit in 2012 alone. We are talking about practically a half-century during which no bigfoot was hit and killed by a motor vehicle, as opposed to everything else that lives in the US. Including a guy who was dressed as bigfoot.

I don't believe that if anyone were to run over bigfoot, they wouldn't drag the carcass back to the nearest town and become instantly famous.

I am not certain what you are trying to say here.

Ecology is a complex network of interactions between species that we understand very well nowadays. If there was a large primate in North America, it would have an effect on its environment (especially since primates eat a lot in general) that would result in a lot of anomalous data without knowing that there is another large animal living in the area in sufficiently high numbers. And primates do eat a lot.

Also, on a slightly related note, primates are not discreet. They are loud, curious and social animals. They are horrible candidates for the role of elusive North American megafauna.

Contrary to what may be widely believed that everyone owns either a digital camera or some type of mobile device with a built in camera, the fact is, not everyone does.

InfoTrends reported that in 2009, 95% of the cameras purchased were purchased by households that already had one.

Experian reported that in 2011, 227 million people owned a cell phone, but doesn't state if these are devices with cameras or not. If you want to assume they are, then given that the population of the USA was around 311 million in the middle of 2011, that gives about 73% of people owning a cell phone with a camera at the time.

73% is pretty damn high and I don't see why getting into semantic arguments about "everyone" is relevant. The vast majority of people have cameras or camera phones at hand. And yet, there isn't a single, unambiguous, clear photograph of bigfoot anywhere. We are talking about at least fifty years, in which no-one has been able to photograph an animal in an urbanised, densely populated and technologically advanced country, even though thousands of people have tried.

Have you made a study of these cultural stories and done comparative research, or at least read any comparative research done by other individuals?

I don't think any such comparative research has been conducted to this day, but based on what the bigfooters themselves are saying, it seems that they are suffering from a case of "liberal interpretation of data" and often committing the mistake of taking folklore as fact, which it isn't.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm open to the possibilty that there is a Bigfoot due to numerous sightings reported by people, but at the same time there is no definite proof yet. Many of the sightings could have been misidentification or lying for publicity. However, there have been some seemingly credible accounts I unfortunately can't recall now.

Edited by Quiet Sky1
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm open to the possibilty that there is a Bigfoot due to numerous sightings reported by people, but at the same time there is no definite proof yet. Many of the sightings could have been misidentification or lying for publicity. However, there have been some seemingly credible accounts I unfortunately can't recall now.

I agree completely. My own openness to the possibility that they might exist is based on the personal sightings of two guy I knew well enough that I couldn't just blow it off as hysteria or misidentification or just plain BS. I did have one minor experience or i should say possible experience where I encountered a nasty smell while i was deer hunting down in Georgia once. However, I didn't see anything or find any foot prints or even hear anything, just caught wind of a putrid smell as I was sitting in the branches of a fallen tree over looking a deer trail. Smelled like a combination of musk, body odor, wet dog........or maybe a dozen Frenchmen.

Since then I've been more open to the possibility and have found that the vast majority of sightings, videos and pictures can either be faked or are so fuzzy or at such a distance that it could be anything really. However, every so often I read or see an interview with someone that makes me go, "Hmmmm, maybe?"

Please understand that as yet, even with my admitted openness, I've yet to see anything that I can point to and and say, "Yeah, that's the proof right there." And when I look at the evidence as a whole over the years I have to ask myself, "Where is a body? Where's a Skeleton? Where's the evidence of a large primate in North America in the fossil record? Why has no hunter ever shot one?" Let's be real, with all the guys and gals out hunting deer, elk and bear someone should have encountered a Biggy and shot one by now. My openness hasn't stopped me from trying to be objective about what I see on the subject, but it's nice to hear someone else is thinking along the same lines as myself.

Personally, I'd love to have the resources to mount up a real, detailed long term field investigation where a group could set up and make a thorough and detailed investigation in an area that was "hot", meaning with a good many sightings from people who's experiences would tend to be more credible. These guys who get called to go out and take a look from various organizations usually have to worry about making a livings and are only there for a relatively short period of time, usually a day or less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bigfoot is alive and well, in my imagination. And I am happy to feed him.

Every once in a while I try to starve him out, but I inexplicably can’t ignore the phenomenon. Bigfootry intrigues me.

But as far as bigfoot stepping out of my imagination and into reality? That probability, for me, considering the “evidence” we have, is about zero.

But I’d love to be proven wrong and have a nice long talk with the Big Guy. :nw:

Edited by QuiteContrary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, me too. One the one hand, I'd like to be able to totally believe they're real, but then on the other hand there is no real evidence and what evidence there is could be faked so easily it's not worth really considering. Then we also have quite a few prankster who've 'fested up they've been doing this sort of thing just for giggles for years.

Who knows, maybe a deer hunter will finally shoot one and provide the world with the hard evidence we all would like to see in order to believe.

Edited by keninsc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who knows, maybe a deer hunter will finally shoot one and provide the world with the hard evidence we all would like to see in order to believe.

If it hasn't happened yet it probably never will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Granted the odds don't favor it, but who knows? The odds of winning the lottery is pretty slim, but people do win it.

I personally think that's going to be what happens, and yes that is making a huge leap of faith that Bigfoots are real, but I figure some good old boy will be sitting out on his deer stand one day not seeing much of anything and all of a sudden a Biggy will pass very close to him and he'll take the shot.

I always talk about the experience of my two friends who claimed to encounter a Bigfoot and both of them were deer hunting at the time...........Soooooooo? There it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Granted the odds don't favor it, but who knows? The odds of winning the lottery is pretty slim, but people do win it.

I personally think that's going to be what happens, and yes that is making a huge leap of faith that Bigfoots are real, but I figure some good old boy will be sitting out on his deer stand one day not seeing much of anything and all of a sudden a Biggy will pass very close to him and he'll take the shot.

I always talk about the experience of my two friends who claimed to encounter a Bigfoot and both of them were deer hunting at the time...........Soooooooo? There it is.

I merely meant that humans have been hunting since they could first walk. If a Bigfoot hasn't been killed by a human in that entire period of time then modern day hunters wouldn't likely fare any better.

Of course the reason for that is open to interpretation however I tend to think it is because the big guy doesn't exist. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sakari you asked for for links to support the fact that stories of bigfoot date back centuries all over the world. well here are a few links i found that support that .

http://www.crystalin...om/bigfoot.html

a very interesting synopsis of different names and locations with a bit of history.

http://www.mysteriou...ie_stories.html

australian history of their version

http://school.discov...e_yetimyth.html

cant get anymore non bfro than discovery lol, with some folklore info on their page.

http://www.cryptomun...ort/k-strain-b/

yes its a bigfoot site, but the link shows a book written by a bigfooter so her veiw may be a bit biased but she researched and found many stories she put into her book

Giants, Cannibals and Monsters: Bigfoot In Native Culture by Kathy Strain

What I said is the only places making these claims are bigfoot or paranormal sites, just as your examples show.

Show me something in history books, or something official in that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I agree with you, however there have been some stories of 17th and 18th century hunters shooting a Bigfoot. Even Daniel Boone is supposed to have shot one, however the stories are often chalked up to being "tall tales".

There have even been claims of people shooting one here and there but no one could find the bodies after they came back to get it. Damn those guys on the Bigfoot Body Recovery Squad!

Edited by keninsc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post-124811-0-76458900-1352857631_thumb.

cheers!

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very true, but I can turn off my rational mind a quickly as anyone else can too!

What?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted a blog entry in regards to this thread as I had a lengthy article.

http://www.unexplain...showentry=26539

2 people like this

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 7

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.