10 reasons Bigfoot probably doesn't exist.

[danbell06]

10 reasons bigfoot is a myth.

10. The Photographic and Video Evidence is Poor

Perhaps the most damning fact to disprove the existence of Bigfoot is the atrocious quality of evidence that has been presented. The scientific community has only been given hazy eyewitness accounts, extremely vague photographs and films, and a few blatantly hoaxed footprints.

In such pieces of video or photographic “evidence”, the subject is almost always either obscured by tree branches or extremely far away. It raises the question why the person filming the event (and there have been many) doesn’t simply chase the creature, or at least try and get a clearer shot. The famed Patterson-Gimlin video (shown above) is often cited as the clearest image of a potential Bigfoot yet released – and even this is shot from an extreme distance. Sounds convenient, doesn’t it?

Continue reading : http://listverse.com...y-doesnt-exist/

[Neognosis]

I wrote something like this in a post on this site years ago.

Wow... YEARS ago... geez.

[danbell06]

Can you not remember where? Wouldn't mind reading it

Edited January 20, 2014 by danbell06

[supervike]

Couple of things....

I do believe there are reported sightings before 1958...I think the 'bigfoot' name was coined in 58.

Although I don't disagree with most of the rest of the list, the one thing that just keeps me thinking that is 'maybe possible' is the credible accounts from people who have absolutely nothing to gain from it.

[Neognosis]

Can you not remember where? Wouldn't mind reading it

Sure! Here it is:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=144803&hl=%2Bbigfoot

[keninsc]

Yeah, the no sightings before 1958 is bogus, However like Neognostic, I wrote something very similar as well.

[Ryinrea]

Couple of things....

I do believe there are reported sightings before 1958...I think the 'bigfoot' name was coined in 58.

Although I don't disagree with most of the rest of the list, the one thing that just keeps me thinking that is 'maybe possible' is the credible accounts from people who have absolutely nothing to gain from it.

I agree that there are some reports from people that have nothing to gain from them. For exmaple, Momo the bigfoot creature that was seen in the late 70's first reported in 1976. And mostly reports from people like the president of America that heard sounds in the woods during one of his many hunting trips that he couldn't explain away. Not saying, I think it real or not I am keeping my mind open to the idea of a undiscovered ceature still living in the woods. There are legends in Native american lore about a bigfoot type creature beening seen by people in their tribes.

[Ryinrea]

10 reasons bigfoot is a myth.

10. The Photographic and Video Evidence is Poor

Perhaps the most damning fact to disprove the existence of Bigfoot is the atrocious quality of evidence that has been presented. The scientific community has only been given hazy eyewitness accounts, extremely vague photographs and films, and a few blatantly hoaxed footprints.

In such pieces of video or photographic “evidence”, the subject is almost always either obscured by tree branches or extremely far away. It raises the question why the person filming the event (and there have been many) doesn’t simply chase the creature, or at least try and get a clearer shot. The famed Patterson-Gimlin video (shown above) is often cited as the clearest image of a potential Bigfoot yet released – and even this is shot from an extreme distance. Sounds convenient, doesn’t it?

Continue reading : http://listverse.com...y-doesnt-exist/

There are reports of Bigfoot being seen before 1958 just saying if your saying something is false get your facts straight.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Ryinrea

[Ryinrea]

I believe the president that herd those sounds was Teddy Roosevelt if I am not mistaken someone can correct me if i am wrong. Because unlike the link in op I'm able to check my facts.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Ryinrea

[Rafterman]

There are reports of Bigfoot being seen before 1958 just saying if your saying something is false get your facts straight.

But are they really reports of Bigfoot sightings or are they simply giant man tales or some other such folklore that have been bastardized by the Bigfoot community to fit their narrative? And if they really are Bigfoot sighting reports, is there evidence that they are really historical reports or just modern creations that have been repeated and assumed to be true?

I don't know myself, so I'm simply asking.

[Ryinrea]

But are they really reports of Bigfoot sightings or are they simply giant man tales or some other such folklore that have been bastardized by the Bigfoot community to fit their narrative? And if they really are Bigfoot sighting reports, is there evidence that they are really historical reports or just modern creations that have been repeated and assumed to be true?

I don't know myself, so I'm simply asking.

I am just saying there were reports of this type of creature in Native American lore not saying I don't think it might have been a bastardized version being brought to us by someone whom related it too bigfoot. Just saying there were reports before 1958 of a creature that matched the Bigfoot creature description.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Ryinrea

[Sakari]

Couple of things....

I do believe there are reported sightings before 1958...I think the 'bigfoot' name was coined in 58.

Although I don't disagree with most of the rest of the list, the one thing that just keeps me thinking that is 'maybe possible' is the credible accounts from people who have absolutely nothing to gain from it.

Can you clarify " credible " ?

I am just saying there were reports of this type of creature in Native American lore not saying I don't think it might have been a bastardized version being brought to us by someone whom related it too bigfoot. Just saying there were reports before 1958 of a creature that matched the Bigfoot creature description.

Please share some credible reports showing this to be fact. ( Native American reports )....Not from Bigfoot sites, or from white men saying " I heard ".....Good luck

As for the rest of the comments, it is all the same questions and answers that are plastered all over this site, and other sites, for the last 15 years. Same things over and over and over and over and over......

In the end....No proof, but plenty of evidence and facts that they did not, do not, have not, will not exist. Seems all of the " debunking " gets buried and forgotten, and people just start it all over again hoping it disapeared, or that people forgot about it.

Nothing new here folks, and doubt there ever will be.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Sakari

[MrBene]

I remember a "truly believer" saying that the reason of why we don't have strong evidence or physical evidence is that Bigfoot lives in a different dimension. He convinced me right away. Lol.

[keninsc]

I've heard that one for years myself. Heard they weren't completely in our dimension so shooting one won't kill it. They also have psychic abilities that prevents them from being seen because they can simply make you not see them even when they're standing in front of you. One wonders how someone would know this, I mean if they can't be seen.......how'd you know they were in front of you?

My personal favorite is that they can move through time as well, I think this was linked to them being inter-dimensional.

[Q-C]

How can we say someone's/cultures/tribes story didn't gain them anything?

What about gaining attention, teaching a lesson, protecting a tribe or child? And dozens of other reasons to "tell tales"? Unrelated to modern gains of fame or money.

What are ancient religions and belief systems composed of?

Edited January 20, 2014 by QuiteContrary

[Rafterman]

I remember a "truly believer" saying that the reason of why we don't have strong evidence or physical evidence is that Bigfoot lives in a different dimension. He convinced me right away. Lol.

When a believer is backed into a corner to the point that they have to explain woo with woo, then they've lost the argument.

It's like debating a young earth creationist. You will eventually get to a point where they say "well God just did it".

[danbell06]

Couple of things....

I do believe there are reported sightings before 1958...I think the 'bigfoot' name was coined in 58.

Although I don't disagree with most of the rest of the list, the one thing that just keeps me thinking that is 'maybe possible' is the credible accounts from people who have absolutely nothing to gain from it.

That's always been the interesting point for me too. I don't really believe there are 7"+ apes roaming around anymore, but it is more than likely at sometime there was.

Misidentification, is what I put most sightings down to, then there are the liars who make money from it, which leads me to believe that around 80% of "Bigfoot researchers" are just in it for the monetary gain. The other 20%, and i don't want to upset anybody, are probably just delusional.

[Stardrive]

When I went out to have a look for myself I found out one the biggest things to overcome was denial. Because if said creature does exists it will leave signs of it's presence and impact on the environment. I found alot of evidence of something, but what that something is I don't know. I'll make an effort this year to get back out there and see if anything else turns up.

As soon as I build a scaled down replica of what was found in 2012 I'll tell all, free of charge. It's interesting but not proof, so don't get your panties in a wad if I'm not quick enough in the reveal. It is free, after all, and I've found nothing else like it on the net.

[supervike]

Can you clarify " credible " ?

Yeah, those folks that tell their story, not looking for any publicity or monetary gain, only interested in sharing their experience.

I've seen too many interviews with too many people to think that they are all convincing liars. Possibly most are hoaxers, or have had misindentifications, or are the subject of an elaborate prank...but I just can't dismiss all of them that way.

Again, I know there is not any real proof. Logically, I know it makes no sense. I know the 'culture' of Bigfoot is a money making venture...but there is just that small part of me that cannot understand why people with nothing to gain (except maybe ridicule) would still even bother trying to tell their stories.

It's just a small part of me, but it's compelling none-the-less.

[Rafterman]

Yeah, those folks that tell their story, not looking for any publicity or monetary gain, only interested in sharing their experience.

I've seen too many interviews with too many people to think that they are all convincing liars. Possibly most are hoaxers, or have had misindentifications, or are the subject of an elaborate prank...but I just can't dismiss all of them that way.

Again, I know there is not any real proof. Logically, I know it makes no sense. I know the 'culture' of Bigfoot is a money making venture...but there is just that small part of me that cannot understand why people with nothing to gain (except maybe ridicule) would still even bother trying to tell their stories.

It's just a small part of me, but it's compelling none-the-less.

But in this day and age, everyone has something to gain. Just having someone pay attention to you and your story is enough for some. For others, a cameo on shows like Finding Bigfoot, mention in an article or You Tube video, or just simply being known as the local who saw bigfoot is huge.

[Ryinrea]

Native American reports of bigfoot

http://www.native-languages.org/legends-bigfoot.htm

It's www. Native-languages.org

Edited January 20, 2014 by Ryinrea

[evancj]

But are they really reports of Bigfoot sightings or are they simply giant man tales or some other such folklore that have been bastardized by the Bigfoot community to fit their narrative? And if they really are Bigfoot sighting reports, is there evidence that they are really historical reports or just modern creations that have been repeated and assumed to be true?

I don't know myself, so I'm simply asking.

That is what I believe to be the case. Many of the so called native American Bigfoot stories/descriptions, are not very post 1950's bigoot like at all.

[evancj]

Yeah, those folks that tell their story, not looking for any publicity or monetary gain, only interested in sharing their experience.

I've seen too many interviews with too many people to think that they are all convincing liars. Possibly most are hoaxers, or have had misindentifications, or are the subject of an elaborate prank...but I just can't dismiss all of them that way.

Again, I know there is not any real proof. Logically, I know it makes no sense. I know the 'culture' of Bigfoot is a money making venture...but there is just that small part of me that cannot understand why people with nothing to gain (except maybe ridicule) would still even bother trying to tell their stories.

It's just a small part of me, but it's compelling none-the-less.

They don't seem convincing at all to me.

Some people just want attention or want to get on TV, and lots of them are willing to do it for free.

[Stardrive]

and lots of them are willing to do it for free.

As usual, you're right again. Looks like I won't be sharing after all. It isn't worth it. And anyone else that's out there that see's this and is contemplating sharing, my advice, don't. Ok, with that said, the church of the flying spaghetti monster may reconvene.

[keninsc]

Yeah, those folks that tell their story, not looking for any publicity or monetary gain, only interested in sharing their experience.

I've seen too many interviews with too many people to think that they are all convincing liars. Possibly most are hoaxers, or have had misindentifications, or are the subject of an elaborate prank...but I just can't dismiss all of them that way.

Again, I know there is not any real proof. Logically, I know it makes no sense. I know the 'culture' of Bigfoot is a money making venture...but there is just that small part of me that cannot understand why people with nothing to gain (except maybe ridicule) would still even bother trying to tell their stories.

It's just a small part of me, but it's compelling none-the-less.

It's true, an entire cottage industry has sprung up around the myth of Bigfoot. You find one and you put a lot of people out of work......I don't know if I'd call it work.....but they suddenly will have to get a hair cut and get a real job. That's why they don't actually seek to find him, they go out scream in the woods and listen, knock on trees, hang compact discs from trees.......I have to admit that one totally escapes me why they do that, but I've seen them do it. Hell, those guys on "Finding Bigfoot" shoot fireworks, play an amplified electric guitar and set off rave lights like you'd find in a club. Have they actually found a Bigfoot? Nope. But according to them they established that Bigfoots are in the area.......what?

Now, think about it, there's no money except for maybe one guy, the guy who brings in a Bigfoot body or skeleton or some proof positive of their existence. Everybody else is sucking hind tit and off the barber shop for that haircut. Sort of like finding a cure for cancer, ain't no money in a cure. There's plenty of money in treatment, therapy, drugs and such, but if you can cure it then all that goes away. Hence, no cure.