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
Ohelemapit

Bigfoot sighting along Neches River?

77 posts in this topic

I have been a member of this site since 2010 and have held my peace due to the ridicule and derogatory remarks that plague these threads. There's a big difference between skepticism and poisonous cynicism.

Hi Totah Dine, I've never seen one but in 77 or 78 saw prints near a swamp in western Washington. Granted there are ocassionally people faking prints but as the years went by and I thought about it, I found these prints far far off the beaten track where no hoaxer would bother planting them. I don't know for a fact that they exist but I do know that 90% of the land in my state is factually uninhabited so I believe it's possible.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Silly People, it was BoBo from BRFO Big Foot Hunters Show!

Yes, science is close-minded and refuses to acknowledge anything weird or new.

Apart from special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, computer science, discovered close to a thousand planets outside our solar system, discovered, studied and classifed thousands upon thousands of species, learned amazing things about the history of life on earth, the history of the solar system and the universe beyond, unraveled the genome of humans and other species and are starting to understand what fundamentally makes us tick etc. within the past century or so.

Considering some of the things scientists have discovered and learned about the universe in recent human history, a new species of large hominid living in remote areas of North America wouldn't be particularly far out there. It sure would be exciting, and I don't see why zoologists wouldn't want to be involved in make such an amazing discovery. Why are zoologists in general so eager to find new species and announces them to the world but for some reason one of the most exciting new species proven potentially in recent times would discourage them? I don't buy it for a second.

You are right that science is suitable for studying certain things (but it's a hell of a range of things) but discovering, studying and documenting new species is one of the things that science (zoology in particular) does.

Anyway, as to the photo in the article. It honestly just looks like variations in the colors of the vegetation to me that vaguely resemble a humanoid form. Pity (as usual) it's such a small photo. Is there a larger version available for looking at?

Was it a reflection? LOL JK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about that. From my office I can see the space needle clear as day, and large, but if I take a picture with my crappy little cell phone you can barely see it.

I also went by the article which stated he was "at a far distance".

We can all see the trees clearly in the photo, but a clear-as-day face? I live not far from there and I think I may check it out and see the distance for myself. It is the only way to judge fairly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife say's I'm really hairy.

I guess I need to stop walking around outside after consuming a few brews.

I do use conditioner and occasional coloring. :passifier:

Edited by pallidin
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you need the hubble telescope to see these pictures, someone use your noggin, make the pics bigger please

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds exactly as credible as any other Bigfoot story from any other human recounting a frightening experience that resulted in an emotional memory clouded by belief and pareidolia. Supported by a blurry blobsquatch photo taken with a cell phone no less.

I'm sure the guy telling the story is a good guy, probably honest too. But he got scared and saw something else that his frightened mind interpreted as Bigfeet, a belief that has solidified as time has gone on. Human senses are fallible and prone to error. Eyewitness accounts are not evidence, not until someone actually proves these things exist with a flesh and blood specimen. Sorry folks, these stories are a dime a dozen.

You don't say!!

So, now you're an expert on what he saw when he was there and you weren't. What an ego LOL!

The man said what he saw was eight feet high. you say he saw something else. what...?, a giraffe? LOL

I may be mistaken but I don't believe there are any bear where he is. sorry.

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disbelief? Bah! These people are probably local celebrities now. Around here your Bigfoot sighting will get you a good crowd around you in any bar.

Celebrities..? are you kidding?

they get treated just like you people in here treat them. Everyone that sees one is a dillusional liar.right?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been a member of this site since 2010 and have held my peace due to the ridicule and derogatory remarks that plague these threads.......

I just would like to clarify that I am not here to ridicule anyone. Nowhere did I say anything other than that I think the majority of BF sightings are misidentifications for the reasons I gave. The minority of reports are hoaxes or people trying to make money or gain notoriety.

I've never ridiculed anyone on this forum or anywhere else. Just because I think people reporting BF sightings actually saw something else, doesn't equal ridicule. What it does mean is that logically, based on the actual evidence that exists to date, there is no animal. In my mind this dearth of evidence is bolstered by the fact that bigfoot (as reported) is a huge bundle of contradictions. Its reported everywhere, yet never been captured. Its so stealthy that nobody can find it, yet apparently stupid enough that it allows itself to be poorly photographed with relatively great frequency. Its an animal that fails to leave evidence of itself in any meaningful, quantifiable way.....it doesn't observably participate in the food chain, it doesn't leave signs of habitation that are conclusive, it doesn't breed in a way that leaves any trace, and most importantly it does not leave ANY remains AT ALL.

When I look at all that, it seems vastly more likely (to me) that no creature exists than for a creature to exist that manages all those contradictions all at once.

All of that is compounded by the fact that eyewitness evidence reported by humans is inherently unreliable because of our very fallible senses.

I will never say BF is impossible. But I will say (until the day it is proven otherwise) that it is highly improbable that the thing is real.

If you feel ridiculed by that, then that is your problem, not mine. I state my points respectfully and logically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow that's so cool!!!:)where was this at?like what state and city if its within the united states?or what country and state?I bet there's a lot of these creatures that science aleast mainstream science refuses to acknowledge because its too "out there"or just a myth.it all goes back to what I said before science is just a baby and limited and only designed to study certain things and matter.maybe there relatives these Bigfoot creatures and most likely there are.they are researching Bigfoot DNA and they discovered its not human or animal but a hybrid of some kind.and they are reported in many state as well.there's too much people talking about them,people researching them,people seeing them and etc to dismiss or even say all pictures and etc are a hoax.I noticed something for a long time people are quick to say "fake" and its a "hoax" without researching or even. taking the time to look right and properly and etc!!!poor ignorant and small minded people and skeptics lol:) lol

exactly.

People will say "it was a bear" or, "the guy is dillusional" - without backing up one word of their contention, like I am supposed to take *their* word for it.

what do they say when a BigFoot viewer passes a lie detector test, as has happened?

Then you'll see the total bull**** fly - in an 'expert' fashion, of course! they do want to be thought of as intelligent, knowledgable people.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't say!!

So, now you're an ecpert on what he saw when he was there and you weren't. What an ego LOL!

The man said what he saw was eight feet high. you say he saw something else. what...?, a giraffe? LOL

I may be mistaken but I don't believe there are any bear where he is. sorry.

I don't claim o be an expert at anything EOT. The line you highlighted is my opinion. Which is all any of us can give regarding Bigfoot since there is no evidence to support its existence as a real creature. The line you emphasized (to me) seems like the most plausible explanation.

If you believe differently then please, carry on. I'm not telling you what to believe, I'm telling you what I believe.

Love the quote at the bottom of all your posts BTW. Beer indeed. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also went by the article which stated he was "at a far distance".

We can all see the trees clearly in the photo, but a clear-as-day face? I live not far from there and I think I may check it out and see the distance for myself. It is the only way to judge fairly.

You live in the area...?

I already stuck my neck out and said I thought there were no bear in that area.

Am I right?

thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't claim o be an expert at anything EOT. The line you highlighted is my opinion. Which is all any of us can give regarding Bigfoot since there is no evidence to support its existence as a real creature. The line you emphasized (to me) seems like the most plausible explanation.

If you believe differently then please, carry on. I'm not telling you what to believe, I'm telling you what I believe.

Love the quote at the bottom of all your posts BTW. Beer indeed. :tu:

I go by the evidences. And although people say that eyewitnesses cannot be relied on, you have to know that in North America, indigenous peoples have known about BigFoot for 50,000 years. but why take their word, right? How long have euro-african peoples been here, 400?

I told another poster in here, that the legend of the Vampire and Witches have made a long lasting mark on Western societies but there was just a very small window in time when both were thought to be real. The rest of that time, they were known by society to just be romantic legends.

that is not even close to what BigFoot has been throughout time.

I'm not saying that *all* reports are reliable, but all it takes is for one to be true and guess what.... BF exists.

I have seen witnesses tell very compelling stories and pass a lie detector test. what do you say to these people?

The treatment these people get - as do UFO witnesses, is what keeps a lot of them from ever saying anything about their encounters.

I think BF is real until someone can prove it otherwise to me.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what do they say when a BigFoot viewer passes a lie detector test, as has happened?

I'll say that the individual really believes they saw that they are reporting to have seen, but that they made a mistake. I don't say that to degrade them, their character, or their knowledge. I say it because most bigfoot sightings occur in areas where making a positive ID would be very difficult (because of foliage, amount of ambient light, ect) a fact that is compounded by the fact that thinkng you are viewing a Sasquatch would be rather unnerving (at least I would think so, which is supported by most eyewitnesses saying they were frightened at the time).

I don't think most BF eyewitnesses are liars OR delusional. I just think they made an understandable mistake given the circumstances. Could I be wrong? Sure. And just as soon as someone proves BF exists, I will be the first in line to enthusiastically admit I was the one who was wrong. I'd love to be able to do that someday. These things are fascinating to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think BF is real until someone can prove it otherwise to me.

I respect that. Its a safe position to take as well - as it is impossible to prove a negative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You live in the area...?

I already stuck my neck out and said I thought there were no bear in that area.

Am I right?

thanks

I don't live too near, but enough to possibly check it out one weekend, while still a "winter" landscape.

The OP sighting was near the Louisana border:

"The Louisiana Black Bear (subspeciesU. a. luteolus) is on the federal threatened species list. It is not known to be found in Texas, although potential habitat exists in the eastern part of the state."

http://www.tpwd.stat...cies/blackbear/

Edited by QuiteContrary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be honest, all I see in the photo is two trees that, from afar, look like two Bigfoots. There's nothing compelling or convincing about this sighting, it sounds like every other sighting to me. :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They could have seen a bigfoot.how come when people say they saw a bigfoot people say they are full of it ..

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just would like to clarify that I am not here to ridicule anyone. Nowhere did I say anything other than that I think the majority of BF sightings are misidentifications for the reasons I gave. The minority of reports are hoaxes or people trying to make money or gain notoriety.

I've never ridiculed anyone on this forum or anywhere else. Just because I think people reporting BF sightings actually saw something else, doesn't equal ridicule. What it does mean is that logically, based on the actual evidence that exists to date, there is no animal. In my mind this dearth of evidence is bolstered by the fact that bigfoot (as reported) is a huge bundle of contradictions. Its reported everywhere, yet never been captured. Its so stealthy that nobody can find it, yet apparently stupid enough that it allows itself to be poorly photographed with relatively great frequency. Its an animal that fails to leave evidence of itself in any meaningful, quantifiable way.....it doesn't observably participate in the food chain, it doesn't leave signs of habitation that are conclusive, it doesn't breed in a way that leaves any trace, and most importantly it does not leave ANY remains AT ALL.

When I look at all that, it seems vastly more likely (to me) that no creature exists than for a creature to exist that manages all those contradictions all at once.

All of that is compounded by the fact that eyewitness evidence reported by humans is inherently unreliable because of our very fallible senses.

I will never say BF is impossible. But I will say (until the day it is proven otherwise) that it is highly improbable that the thing is real.

If you feel ridiculed by that, then that is your problem, not mine. I state my points respectfully and logically.

I don't feel ridiculed by your post. But I do feel that you are a perfect candidate of someone who is somewhat ignorant of the history of such creatures as Bigfoot or Yeti or Yowies or etc., and coming to a premature conclusion about the subject before actually doing any research on them. Which is exactly the problem with most people. Most people hear about a few reported incidents or sightings and think it's all either the misidentification of another animal or someone pulling off a hoax. Or the witness is dellusional and it was all in their head. That's as far as most people look into these types of things. They think it's all a bunch of made up crap because they don't actually know anything about them other than what they saw on the local news. They have the attitude that since they themselves haven't seen one then they obviously must not exist. People are that way about any type of unexplained phenomenon. And i'm sorry, but that is how you are coming off as.

You completely disregard the fact that Native Americans had been encountering these creatures for hundreds of years before anyone else arrived here on this continent. And if anyone is going to know the local wildlife it would be someone who you know, actually lives in the wild. I don't think they would have been in the habit of misidentifying bears or buffalo as Bigfoot. You sound as if you believe sightings of the creature have only been happening in the last 50 years or so which is completely untrue. That goes for every continent that they've been reported on.

As for "allows itself to be poorly photographed with relatively great frequency". You need to expect this to happen more and more with the advancement of technology and pretty much every person carrying around a camera in their pocket in the form of a cell phone. That is why you are seeing an influx of pictures and videos of pretty much everything now,including bigfoot, where as just 20 years ago and beyond there wasn't as much. And i'm sad to admit that there ARE more people making fake ones now as well as a result. My own cell phone is just standard middle of the road model. The upclose pictures I take with it are decent. But the far away ones not so much.

And here's another quote,"does not leave ANY remains AT ALL". Yeah, this again. Someone always has to bring this up as an argument for their not existing. You know what other type of remains have never been found in the forests of North America? Any guesses? If you said a BEAR you would be correct. There have been no known bear remains found from a natural death. It is believed that the remains are disposed of rather quickly by a combination of predators,insects and nature. We know bears exist. But have never found a naturally occuring dead one. So if thats true then what are our chances of finding Bigfoot remains? It's even theorized that they might possibly bury their dead.

And this quote "Its reported everywhere, yet never been captured. Its so stealthy that nobody can find it". Well lets see here. Yes, they are reported everywhere. But it's also been noted that they seem to be rather intelligent. Which is not how you make them sound by refering to them as an "animal". You seem to be under the impression that they're about as smart as a groundhog. They would probably be able to easily elude humans who can't really survive in a forest for more than a few days at a time without supplies which is of course Bigfoots natural habitiat. That is where they live and always have. Of course they're going to be stealthy. Thats their natural enviroment. What else would you expect? Do you even realize how many millions of acres of forests there are that are uninhabited by humans? I can't remember the exact numbers so feel free to correct me but between Southern California and Washington there have been about 93(?)plane crashes in the last 60 years or so that have never been found. Not a trace of wreckage. All because they went down in uninhabitated forested areas. And you're arguing that a Bigfoot type creature can't possibly exist in that enviroment without humans finding it?

You're entitled to make you're own opinion about things just like everyone. I respect that. But I believe you are not making an informed or fair opinion. You seem to be jumping to the conclusion that you want while either disputing or flat out ignoring other evidence to the contrary. Every reason you have argued supports this. Especially by stating this and I quote,"the fact that eyewitness evidence reported by humans is inherently unreliable because of our very fallible senses." end quote. That right there has got to be one of the most assinine statements that I have ever read. I think you just cracked the internet. :tu:

Edited by mace13
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You completely disregard the fact that Native Americans had been encountering these creatures for hundreds of years before anyone else arrived here on this continent. And if anyone is going to know the local wildlife it would be someone who you know, actually lives in the wild. I don't think they would have been in the habit of misidentifying bears or buffalo as Bigfoot. You sound as if you believe sightings of the creature have only been happening in the last 50 years or so which is completely untrue. That goes for every continent that they've been reported on.

Because Native Americans have not been encountering them for hundreds of years. There is no evidence of that. Native Americans have all kinds of Wild Man legends that are very divergent and there is nothing that points to the directions that they are about an actual biological creature as opposed to a spirit or a bogeyman from mythology. Bigfoot stories in the United States started in the late 19th century. We recently had a thread about this It was interesting to see that all the reports came from small-town newspapers that reported events from the other side of the country. This was also the era when journalists were just making stuff up to fill the pages. There aren't really any bigfoot reports from before that time. Then, as the bigfoot craze go, all kinds of vaguely human-like mythological beings started to be branded as bigfoot and we arrive to today's cryptozoology media empire, where a lot of money make a living out of perpetuating myths.

As for "allows itself to be poorly photographed with relatively great frequency". You need to expect this to happen more and more with the advancement of technology and pretty much every person carrying around a camera in their pocket in the form of a cell phone. That is why you are seeing an influx of pictures and videos of pretty much everything now,including bigfoot, where as just 20 years ago and beyond there wasn't as much. And i'm sad to admit that there ARE more people making fake ones now as well as a result. My own cell phone is just standard middle of the road model. The upclose pictures I take with it are decent. But the far away ones not so much.

Why are we not seeing any images of bigfoot? People have been actively searching for them for over fifty years. The BBC Natural History Unit can find any obscure animal, no matter how few of them are left in the wild in about two years of searching and provide high definition video footage of it. How come thousands of people could not take a single clear photograph of a large animal in the United States?

And here's another quote,"does not leave ANY remains AT ALL". Yeah, this again. Someone always has to bring this up as an argument for their not existing. You know what other type of remains have never been found in the forests of North America? Any guesses? If you said a BEAR you would be correct. There have been no known bear remains found from a natural death. It is believed that the remains are disposed of rather quickly by a combination of predators,insects and nature. We know bears exist. But have never found a naturally occuring dead one. So if thats true then what are our chances of finding Bigfoot remains? It's even theorized that they might possibly bury their dead.

This is actually not true. Just google "bear carcass" and you'll be treated to plenty of photographs of bears that died from natural causes.

Also, how do you explain that bigfoot is the only animal (including humans) in North America that never gets hit by cars? That never has been hit by a car since cars exist?

And this quote "Its reported everywhere, yet never been captured. Its so stealthy that nobody can find it". Well lets see here. Yes, they are reported everywhere. But it's also been noted that they seem to be rather intelligent. Which is not how you make them sound by refering to them as an "animal". You seem to be under the impression that they're about as smart as a groundhog. They would probably be able to easily elude humans who can't really survive in a forest for more than a few days at a time without supplies which is of course Bigfoots natural habitiat. That is where they live and always have. Of course they're going to be stealthy. Thats their natural enviroment. What else would you expect? Do you even realize how many millions of acres of forests there are that are uninhabited by humans? I can't remember the exact numbers so feel free to correct me but between Southern California and Washington there have been about 93(?)plane crashes in the last 60 years or so that have never been found. Not a trace of wreckage. All because they went down in uninhabitated forested areas. And you're arguing that a Bigfoot type creature can't possibly exist in that enviroment without humans finding it?

Umm, we can capture humans with ease. Even if they are hiding in a forest. Is bigfoot smarter than humans? Is bigfoot, a primate (a group of animals not really famous for stealthiness, quite the opposite) stealthier than a leopard? Because people are still capturing and killing Amur leopards even though less then thirty of them live in the forests around the Russian-Chinese-North Korean border. Talk about remote area.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't feel ridiculed by your post. But I do feel that you are a perfect candidate of someone who is somewhat ignorant of the history of such creatures as Bigfoot or Yeti or Yowies or etc., and coming to a premature conclusion about the subject before actually doing any research on them. Which is exactly the problem with most people. Most people hear about a few reported incidents or sightings and think it's all either the misidentification of another animal or someone pulling off a hoax. Or the witness is dellusional and it was all in their head. That's as far as most people look into these types of things. They think it's all a bunch of made up crap because they don't actually know anything about them other than what they saw on the local news. They have the attitude that since they themselves haven't seen one then they obviously must not exist. People are that way about any type of unexplained phenomenon. And i'm sorry, but that is how you are coming off as.

You completely disregard the fact that Native Americans had been encountering these creatures for hundreds of years before anyone else arrived here on this continent. And if anyone is going to know the local wildlife it would be someone who you know, actually lives in the wild. I don't think they would have been in the habit of misidentifying bears or buffalo as Bigfoot. You sound as if you believe sightings of the creature have only been happening in the last 50 years or so which is completely untrue. That goes for every continent that they've been reported on.

As for "allows itself to be poorly photographed with relatively great frequency". You need to expect this to happen more and more with the advancement of technology and pretty much every person carrying around a camera in their pocket in the form of a cell phone. That is why you are seeing an influx of pictures and videos of pretty much everything now,including bigfoot, where as just 20 years ago and beyond there wasn't as much. And i'm sad to admit that there ARE more people making fake ones now as well as a result. My own cell phone is just standard middle of the road model. The upclose pictures I take with it are decent. But the far away ones not so much.

And here's another quote,"does not leave ANY remains AT ALL". Yeah, this again. Someone always has to bring this up as an argument for their not existing. You know what other type of remains have never been found in the forests of North America? Any guesses? If you said a BEAR you would be correct. There have been no known bear remains found from a natural death. It is believed that the remains are disposed of rather quickly by a combination of predators,insects and nature. We know bears exist. But have never found a naturally occuring dead one. So if thats true then what are our chances of finding Bigfoot remains? It's even theorized that they might possibly bury their dead.

And this quote "Its reported everywhere, yet never been captured. Its so stealthy that nobody can find it". Well lets see here. Yes, they are reported everywhere. But it's also been noted that they seem to be rather intelligent. Which is not how you make them sound by refering to them as an "animal". You seem to be under the impression that they're about as smart as a groundhog. They would probably be able to easily elude humans who can't really survive in a forest for more than a few days at a time without supplies which is of course Bigfoots natural habitiat. That is where they live and always have. Of course they're going to be stealthy. Thats their natural enviroment. What else would you expect? Do you even realize how many millions of acres of forests there are that are uninhabited by humans? I can't remember the exact numbers so feel free to correct me but between Southern California and Washington there have been about 93(?)plane crashes in the last 60 years or so that have never been found. Not a trace of wreckage. All because they went down in uninhabitated forested areas. And you're arguing that a Bigfoot type creature can't possibly exist in that enviroment without humans finding it?

You're entitled to make you're own opinion about things just like everyone. I respect that. But I believe you are not making an informed or fair opinion. You seem to be jumping to the conclusion that you want while either disputing or flat out ignoring other evidence to the contrary. Every reason you have argued supports this. Especially by stating this and I quote,"the fact that eyewitness evidence reported by humans is inherently unreliable because of our very fallible senses." end quote. That right there has got to be one of the most assinine statements that I have ever read. I think you just cracked the internet. :tu:

A well written and passionate rebuttal. Thank you for that.

I assume (perhaps incorrectly, and if so please forgive me) that since you are in a position to judge my knowledge of Bigfoot puny and insignificant, you must be some sort of expert in the field of Sasquatchery. I am in fact quite well versed in the history of the legend of bigfoot and its roots in the storytelling traditions of our Native peoples. At an earlier time in my life I read everything I could get my hands on that referenced Bigfoot. I was a stalwart believer. Really quite obsessed for a time with Cryptozoology in general, but with Bigfoot in particular. I've changed my position on Bigfoot's existence however, for the reasons (silly though you might think them) listed in the post you so generously quoted.

I think you are missing my point, though. Bigfoot, if bigfoot exists, is an animal. Just like you and I are (again forgive my assumption). Whether you like it or not, bigfoot - being an animal is going to have to be verified and vetted by biologists and zoologists - by scientists - in order for it to ever come out of the shadows of crypto-land and take its rightful place among the other real creatures of our world. Maybe that will happen some day, if one is ever caught alive, killed, or a bigfoot carcass is happened-upon......and maybe it won't. When that happens, all the stories, all the blurry blobsquatch photos, all the audio recordings of something yelling and howling in the woods, all the footprints, will THEN become evidence that supports the existence of the creature. Until then, these things are just documentation of a something. What that something is, we don't know, because the something has never been proven to exist. All of those things I mentioned - you have to have a verified animal to tie them to before they are anything but just unattached information.

If or when that happens, I will be thrilled because then I can believe in Bigfoot again. I'll be first in line to admit I interpreted the signs wrong. Under what circumstances will YOU admit you are wrong? None, I'll wager. Yet you accuse me of jumping to the conclusion I want and ignoring evidence. There is no evidence - yet. All those things you mentioned - not evidence until a damn bigfoot turns up and gets studied, classified, dissected, etc like ALL OTHER ANIMALS.

You mention bears. Know what the difference between a bear and a bigfoot is? We KNOW bears are REAL. We have studied live and dead ones, we have taken bears apart and put them back together. We proved bears exist. Not so much with Bigfoot.

You mention Native Americans and their history with Bigfoot. Last i checked, Native Americans were humans, no better or worse than the rest of us. Living in the forest doesn't make you immune to mistakes or misidentifications ESPECIALLY if your Native American belief system tells you that Bigfoot is a real critter running around out there somewhere. I don't say this to denigrate or disrespect NA culture. Just sayin that they are people, prone to people-mistakes.

Obviously you and I are going to have irreconcilable differences here. Which is cool - because this is a discussion board. Things would be pretty dull if we all agreed with each other. I'm willing to consider the possibility that I could be wrong. I'll change my tune when a Bigfoot is found and studied. What about your tune? Is it flexible? Maybe Meldrum will find some Bigfoots with his photo-blimpie thing. But what if he doesn't? What will it take to sway you? Be honest with yourself. If the answer is that nothing will sway your opinion...then who are you to call others and their beliefs stubborn and intractible? Most of us skeptics would be thrilled if Bigfoot were proven some day. That'd be big big news. Just because we have our doubts doesn't mean we don't care about it, you know.

Thanks for your post. I look forward to reading more of your thoughts.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just would like to clarify that I am not here to ridicule anyone.

I've never ridiculed anyone on this forum or anywhere else.

If you feel ridiculed by that, then that is your problem, not mine. I state my points respectfully and logically.

And actually I think i'll argue with you on this as well. Just on this article alone you have made either discouraging or smartass remarks to people that legitimately expressed interest in the subject at hand. I also just read through some of your other posts that you have made and found the majority of them to be similiar.

If you want to argue about the possible existance of whatever the topic of the day is then go for it. Thats what the forums are for and why we are here. But what is the point of you coming here if you're just going to make fun of people and talk down to anyone who either believes in this stuff or has experienced it? I don't appreciate the condescending remarks you've been making and i'm sure most of the other people don't either. I don't care for bullies. Internet or otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because Native Americans have not been encountering them for hundreds of years. There is no evidence of that. Native Americans have all kinds of Wild Man legends that are very divergent and there is nothing that points to the directions that they are about an actual biological creature as opposed to a spirit or a bogeyman from mythology. Bigfoot stories in the United States started in the late 19th century. We recently had a thread about this It was interesting to see that all the reports came from small-town newspapers that reported events from the other side of the country. This was also the era when journalists were just making stuff up to fill the pages. There aren't really any bigfoot reports from before that time. Then, as the bigfoot craze go, all kinds of vaguely human-like mythological beings started to be branded as bigfoot and we arrive to today's cryptozoology media empire, where a lot of money make a living out of perpetuating myths.

Well apparently i'm going to have reread a lot of my bigfoot/native american lore then because I have read quite a bit over the years that contradict what you're saying. I'm sure some Native Americans would argue with you as well. I've also read reports of where some exploreres had encounters with Bigfoot type creatures upon arriving here in North America. I can't remember them off hand but i'll try looking them up. I know the term "Bigfoot" came from a newspaper report about tracks being found at a logging site in the 50's. But just because that was one of the first times it had been reported in popular media doesn't mean that is where it started. By that standard I'm assuming you also believe that all the crop circles came from two blokes with a rope and wooden plank that just left a pub.

Why are we not seeing any images of bigfoot? People have been actively searching for them for over fifty years. The BBC Natural History Unit can find any obscure animal, no matter how few of them are left in the wild in about two years of searching and provide high definition video footage of it. How come thousands of people could not take a single clear photograph of a large animal in the United States?

I thought we were seeing a lot more photos or video of bigfoot in recent years. Is that not what I said? Look on youtube. There are all kinds of videos because everyone now has cameras. Are a lot of them fake? Yes, they are. But I wouldn't put them all in that category. The BBC kind of have a heads up on where the animal in question resides. Regardless of how few they are. Most of the times it is just a certain area. With Bigfoot it's a little different. Here you have a creature that supposedly resides in all of North America in uninhabitable forests. The only way in is by walking. That drastically limits the time you can spend there.

This is actually not true. Just google "bear carcass" and you'll be treated to plenty of photographs of bears that died from natural causes.

I just googled "Bear carcass". Every photo I clicked on was a bear killed by a poacher or hunter. I didn't find any that said it was from natural causes.I quite possibly am wrong on the bear carcass point. There probably has been a bear that died naturally found by someone at some point. But it is still rare.

Also, how do you explain that bigfoot is the only animal (including humans) in North America that never gets hit by cars? That never has been hit by a car since cars exist?

You can't say that for sure. I've read or seen more than a few Bigfoot sightings where it ran in front of a car. And it's more than likely that there are ones that haven't been reported. Say if you did hit a bigfoot and it messed up your car but ran off. What are you going to tell your insurance company or the police? Umm, I hit a bigfoot? Or, I hit a deer? Of course I say that light heartedly but it's a possible scenario. And it's funny that you mentioned that because I had my own experience with it not long ago. I posted the story in werewolf section though. You might can find it through my profile or i'll provide a link.

Umm, we can capture humans with ease. Even if they are hiding in a forest. Is bigfoot smarter than humans? Is bigfoot, a primate (a group of animals not really famous for stealthiness, quite the opposite) stealthier than a leopard? Because people are still capturing and killing Amur leopards even though less then thirty of them live in the forests around the Russian-Chinese-North Korean border. Talk about remote area.

Well again, Forests are THEIR natural habitat. Not ours. Even if you have survival training you'll have to come in for supplies eventually. Plus they are supposedly a lot stronger and faster than humans. And they supposedly Shun human contact. I realize that you can say the same for most animals but this is a bit different. Why can't we find those plane crashes I mentioned earlier? You'd think with the tecnology we have those would be easy to find but apparently not. Bigfoots have been reported in that same area. If we can't find around 100 plane crashes what makes you believe we can find one of them?

Edited by mace13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well apparently i'm going to have reread a lot of my bigfoot/native american lore then because I have read quite a bit over the years that contradict what you're saying. I'm sure some Native Americans would argue with you as well. I've also read reports of where some exploreres had encounters with Bigfoot type creatures upon arriving here in North America. I can't remember them off hand but i'll try looking them up. I know the term "Bigfoot" came from a newspaper report about tracks being found at a logging site in the 50's. But just because that was one of the first times it had been reported in popular media doesn't mean that is where it started. By that standard I'm assuming you also believe that all the crop circles came from two blokes with a rope and wooden plank that just left a pub.

Could you please provide any links, and not from Bigfoot websites or books. I am yet to see any independent confirmation that a large, hairy apelike biological creature was believed in by native americans. Different kinds of spirits, yes, but if you look into them closely, you'll see that all they have in common is that they are vaguely human-shaped and live in the wild. That doesn't make a bigfoot.

I thought we were seeing a lot more photos or video of bigfoot in recent years. Is that not what I said? Look on youtube. There are all kinds of videos because everyone now has cameras. Are a lot of them fake? Yes, they are. But I wouldn't put them all in that category. The BBC kind of have a heads up on where the animal in question resides. Regardless of how few they are. Most of the times it is just a certain area. With Bigfoot it's a little different. Here you have a creature that supposedly resides in all of North America in uninhabitable forests. The only way in is by walking. That drastically limits the time you can spend there.

All of the photos videos are blobsquatches. And yes, the BBC heads to where the animals reside. Like the Hindu Kush mountain range in Pakistan, that is immensely more remote than anything in North America. And they always return with crystal-clear footage, usually provided by a single cameraman who camps out in the wilderness alon. While half a century of bigfoot research failed to produce a single clear photograph. This should be somewhat telling. We have numerous examples of researchers going in to a remote area, I always bring up the Bili Ape of the Congo Basin as an example, to find an elusive animal, and they always find it rather quickly. Why? Because if an animal is real, it can be found, unlike bigfoot.

You really don't think that it's weird that half a century of research by thousands of enthusiastic individuals produced exactly nothing?

I just googled "Bear carcass". Every photo I clicked on was a bear killed by a poacher or hunter. I didn't find any that said it was from natural causes.I quite possibly am wrong on the bear carcass point. There probably has been a bear that died naturally found by someone at some point. But it is still rare.

There are plenty of ones that don't indicate any poaching. Like this one:

19.JPG

Or this, found by skiers:

523x700px-LL-f469b0d6_Image.jpeg

You can't say that for sure. I've read or seen more than a few Bigfoot sightings where it ran in front of a car. And it's more than likely that there are ones that haven't been reported. Say if you did hit a bigfoot and it messed up your car but ran off. What are you going to tell your insurance company or the police? Umm, I hit a bigfoot? Or, I hit a deer? Of course I say that light heartedly but it's a possible scenario. And it's funny that you mentioned that because I had my own experience with it not long ago. I posted the story in werewolf section though. You might can find it through my profile or i'll provide a link.

If you hit a bigfoot, you'll get hair. And blood. DNA. You can start out on that. Most probably, the bigfoot would die and would be found. Every known animal in the United States has been hit and killed by cars, even some invasive species or strayed captive animals. Every single one, except bigfoot. This is once again, a fact that should not be overlooked.

Well again, Forests are THEIR natural habitat. Not ours. Even if you have survival training you'll have to come in for supplies eventually. Plus they are supposedly a lot stronger and faster than humans. And they supposedly Shun human contact. I realize that you can say the same for most animals but this is a bit different. Why can't we find those plane crashes I mentioned earlier? You'd think with the tecnology we have those would be easy to find but apparently not. Bigfoots have been reported in that same area. If we can't find around 100 plane crashes what makes you believe we can find one of them?

Plane crashes, as I've said, are not like animals. Animals aren't covered by the undergrowth, they aren't generally composed of little pieces and they can't get buried underground and covered with foliage. Well, they can, but you see my point. Plane crashes are a bad analogue, because we are talking about living-breathing, moving animals and not stationary objects.

But really, ask yourself the question. How come bigfoot is unlike every other animal in the United States? Bears, pronghorn, mountain lions and many other species live in the remotest parts of the country, yet we have crystal-clear moving and still images of them from the remotest segments of North America. Nothing of the sort about bigfoot. Hikers find them dead. All of them, on a rare, but regular basis, except for Bigfoot. All the animals are hit and killed by cars. Except for bigfoot. We have fossil evidence from all of them. Except for bigfoot.

What is more logical? That bigfoot is completely and utterly different from not only all known North American animals, but from all the animals in the world, and that's why there are not traces of it or that it simply isn't there?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A well written and passionate rebuttal. Thank you for that.

I assume (perhaps incorrectly, and if so please forgive me) that since you are in a position to judge my knowledge of Bigfoot puny and insignificant, you must be some sort of expert in the field of Sasquatchery. I am in fact quite well versed in the history of the legend of bigfoot and its roots in the storytelling traditions of our Native peoples. At an earlier time in my life I read everything I could get my hands on that referenced Bigfoot. I was a stalwart believer. Really quite obsessed for a time with Cryptozoology in general, but with Bigfoot in particular. I've changed my position on Bigfoot's existence however, for the reasons (silly though you might think them) listed in the post you so generously quoted.

Alright, your most likely as knowledgeable as I am in Bigfoot lore. I won't argue that. I'm no expert on the matter but I know more than most people. As like you, I have either read or watched quite a bit on the subject myself over the years. And it has convinced me that there is a very good possibility of its existance. There are too many stories that go back many years,too many sightings, too many photos,too many tracks found and too many recordings for me to disregard all of it as nonsense. Are some of these possibly hoaxers? Yes, they are. Are some of them due to the overactive imagination of the witnesses? Yes, I believe that to. But not all of them. And that is where I find most fault with your reasoning. You're saying that all eye witness accounts of basically anything are unreliable because of our fallible senses. You're using that for just Bigfoot at the moment. But if you truly believe that then that applies to everything. Such as witnesses to a crime, The observance to an experiment, Who the winner of a race was or etc.,. That is a pretty broad statement for you to declare.

I think you are missing my point, though. Bigfoot, if bigfoot exists, is an animal. Just like you and I are (again forgive my assumption). Whether you like it or not, bigfoot - being an animal is going to have to be verified and vetted by biologists and zoologists - by scientists - in order for it to ever come out of the shadows of crypto-land and take its rightful place among the other real creatures of our world. Maybe that will happen some day, if one is ever caught alive, killed, or a bigfoot carcass is happened-upon......and maybe it won't. When that happens, all the stories, all the blurry blobsquatch photos, all the audio recordings of something yelling and howling in the woods, all the footprints, will THEN become evidence that supports the existence of the creature. Until then, these things are just documentation of a something. What that something is, we don't know, because the something has never been proven to exist. All of those things I mentioned - you have to have a verified animal to tie them to before they are anything but just unattached information.

I agree to the fact that we(humans) are animals and if he exists,so is Bigfoot. That is just basic information. But we are unlike other animals are we not? And I also believe that Bigfoot would be classified more as a human than a regular animal,say a dog or a bear or even an ape. As I previously said, most reports suggest that they seem intelligent. So why wouldn't it be possible for them to be able to avoid us if we were looking for them? Especially given the areas that they live in and their small population. Since they are unlike any other creature(animal) on earth why would they be assumed to behave like them? And I believe the reverse of what you stated. I believe the photos,footprints,sightings and recordings are evidence that support the existance of the creature currently.

If or when that happens, I will be thrilled because then I can believe in Bigfoot again. I'll be first in line to admit I interpreted the signs wrong. Under what circumstances will YOU admit you are wrong? None, I'll wager. Yet you accuse me of jumping to the conclusion I want and ignoring evidence. There is no evidence - yet. All those things you mentioned - not evidence until a damn bigfoot turns up and gets studied, classified, dissected, etc like ALL OTHER ANIMALS.

I can admit when i'm wrong.I have no problem with that. But I believe you are far from proving myself and many others wrong. Especially with the current line of reasoning that you're arguing with.

You mention bears. Know what the difference between a bear and a bigfoot is? We KNOW bears are REAL. We have studied live and dead ones, we have taken bears apart and put them back together. We proved bears exist. Not so much with Bigfoot.

My point on that was, yes, we know bears are real but rarely find dead ones from natural causes if at all. So finding a bigfoot carcass would be even more remote since we can't find a live one. But that doesn't mean they don't exist. We have been looking for the Giant Squid for how many years now and we just finally got the first footage of it in it's natural habitiat. I suppose you didn't believe in it despite previous evidence either huh? It was just an old drunk fishermans tale by your logic.

You mention Native Americans and their history with Bigfoot. Last i checked, Native Americans were humans, no better or worse than the rest of us. Living in the forest doesn't make you immune to mistakes or misidentifications ESPECIALLY if your Native American belief system tells you that Bigfoot is a real critter running around out there somewhere. I don't say this to denigrate or disrespect NA culture. Just sayin that they are people, prone to people-mistakes.

Yeah, they were humans but they were in a completely different enviroment than us to. They weren't living in houses in cities where you hardly see a wild animal except maybe a racoon or a feral cat. They were actually out there living with nature. You know, where Bigfoot is supposed to live. I'm sure they encountered every animal imaginable. If they say they saw hairy,10 ft tall wild men running around i'm more inclined to believe what they had to say versus someone on a message board that like me is an armchair detective.

Obviously you and I are going to have irreconcilable differences here. Which is cool - because this is a discussion board. Things would be pretty dull if we all agreed with each other. I'm willing to consider the possibility that I could be wrong. I'll change my tune when a Bigfoot is found and studied. What about your tune? Is it flexible? Maybe Meldrum will find some Bigfoots with his photo-blimpie thing. But what if he doesn't? What will it take to sway you? Be honest with yourself. If the answer is that nothing will sway your opinion...then who are you to call others and their beliefs stubborn and intractible? Most of us skeptics would be thrilled if Bigfoot were proven some day. That'd be big big news. Just because we have our doubts doesn't mean we don't care about it, you know.

Regardless of what I am saying on here I am a very skepticle person myself. I don't believe everything I read or hear at face value.I take everything with a grain of salt. Like you, I know that people are prone to over exaggerate stories and have overactive imaginations. But I look at all of the evidence and make my decision based on that. If it somehow proven that Bigfoot doesn't exist then okay. Present the evidence to me so I can weigh it all in. But at this moment to me the evidence is leaning more in Bigfoots favor. One thing that differentiates myself from you is that I had my own encounter. I mentioned it in a response earlier. I posted the encounter on here in a werewolf section. If you can't find it i'll post a link later. So after having my own experience and not just reading about it you're going to have problems swaying my opinion.

And I apologize to everyone for tempoarily hijacking the forum. That was unintentional. And also to Fstop. After reading some of your posts earlier I was getting a little hot headed. But i'm calmed down now. I still stand by what I said though. You shouldn't be making snarky or underhanded comments to people. Play nice.

Thanks for your post. I look forward to reading more of your thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, your most likely as knowledgeable as I am in Bigfoot lore........

Not going to repost your entire post...that makes the thread tediously long. I'd like to apologize to Mace13 and anyone else I've offended with my snarky comments. Unfortunately that is my sense of humor - dark and sometimes a little caustic. I'll try and tone it down for the sake of discussion.

Mace13 - as unlikely as this may sound to you, I am not actually seeking to prove you or any other believers wrong. I know that is technically impossible - proving a negative, I mean. No one will ever prove conclusively that Bigfoot does not exist. All I've been doing, or trying to do is explain what I believe and why. I believe that at this point the lack of evidence supports a conclusion that Bigfoot is highly unlikely to be real. You and I can debate what is evidence and what is not til we fall over from boredom most likely. Many times, that is what the BF discussion finally boils down to, the question of "what is actually evidence?"

The only thing that will change my mind is the careful and scientific study of an actual creature under controlled settings, just like other animals have endured to be classified. I'm an empirically driven person - to a fault probably. To me, until we can get our hands on one of these things, all the other stuff you feel is evidence has other more probable (in my opinion) explanations.

I do respect your position and that of those who feel they have had encounters. If my snarky choice of words makes it seem otherwise then I am quite apologetic.

1 person likes 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 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.