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 3
LivingUnderGlass

The true origins of Bigfoot

90 posts in this topic

To me the big question and the reason that I am interested in these Bigfoot sightings is to get to know more about the origins of this phenomenon and what it is really about. Is it biological, spiritual or something completely different? Or isn't it real after all?

On the internet there are a lot of descriptions to what its origins are. The ranges of these explanations, as far as I can tell, fall in one of these categories:

A Bigfoot is a biological entity

B Bigfoot is a spiritual entity

C Bigfoot is partly spiritual, partly biological

D Bigfoot doesn't exist

(“Biological” meaning from this world, "spiritually" meaning not from this world.)

Personally, after viewing the overlapping characteristics that people encounter, I am leaning towards C. It seems that this being leaves physical traces (footprints, hairs, etc.), yet at the same time it seems to have a certain spiritual quality (appearing/disappearing, not being affected by shot wounds, etc.). I remember a passage from the book Hunt for the Skinwalker, where two observers are seeing a wolf like creature appear, out of what looks like a portal, and then makes his way into the field. As if a portal opened from another dimension, through which these beings make their way to our dimension. These features, I think, can also be attributed to UFO’s. Could it be that they are from another dimension where they belong to another ecosystem, and are sometimes crossing borders with ours. As if two ecosystems at certain times and places meet by openings in the time-space fabric, resulting in the usual terror it evokes on both sides.

I realize that I am using definitions that are well beyond my comprehension, let alone if I use them correctly. Still, this is for now the best interpretation of the phenomena that I can come up with.

I’d love to hear what your personal thoughts (or even conclusions) are on the origins of this mystery, and why you came to these findings.

If this thread is rolling enough, I will summarize the opinions to see what categories are more favored than others.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that this being leaves physical traces (footprints, hairs, etc.),

No it doesn`t. Same it as it does not build wooden huts, which have also been claimed by some.

I will go with D, the rest is myth.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A guy was sick of people destroying his equipment. He made 2 wooden feet, and made tracks around the work area.

Thus, Bigfoot was born.

Then some dude made a movie of a guy in a suit. Then the myth became reality.

Then cable tv and the internet. The cancer spread across the world.

Now everyone has a Bigfoot in their area. No one feels left out.

That is the true history of how Bigfoot was born, in short.

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bigfoot meets science=unknown species of ????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

D. Big Foot is a myth, mystery solved.

Edited by HMS Dreadnought
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

until Dr Jeff Meldrum shoots a Bigfoot and parades its corpse for all to see, I'll go with D

BEST - Ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Hunt for the Skinwalker", if I remember correctly, is a book concerning the skinwalker ranch in Utah. This ranch was supposedly the end all be all of paranormal activity. Werewolves, bigfoot, ghosts, aliens, etc.... they had it all. Whole teams of people investigated it with every means necessary. Not one single shred of evidence was recovered. Nothing, nada, zero, zilch, but they all still claim it is crazy paranormal. So, don't believe everything you read in a book. Bigfoot is a myth, plain and simple, until evidence is brought forth proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is real. If something has yet to be proven to exist it cannot be anything more.

Mike

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look into the minds of men and you will find the answer you seek.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bigfoot is a multicultural archetype.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A multicultural myth.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is, we probably encounter some of our close humain cousins at the dawn of humanity (Neanderthalensis, Denisova, Floresiensis, etc.), things didn't get too nicely, and we still tell the tale even after we were the only ones left.

So that would be A, then D.

Edited by Gingitsune
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say A. Somebody found claimed Bigfoot DNA that turned out to be similar to that of an ancient long extinct polar bear species. I think Bigfoot is an unknown bear species, one that has developed to walk on two legs more than what known bears do. I saw a video on the net with brown bears who were walking on two legs for quite a period of time. Quite interesting, I didn't know that they do that, I thought that they just stood up on two legs momentarily to watch around but that is not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biological. As mundane as the Okapi that was thought to be a fanciful myth for many years told by natives. Or the platypus. We have film footage [Patterson film and others]. We have cast footprints with dermal ridges impossible to fake, scat and hair samples producing "non human primate DNA of unknown origin".

To get really weird though, my pet theory is that we are hybrids between these creatures and the grays. That explains the sudden big brains in our history along with residual body hair and muscling that varies from person to person. Some people look closer to grays. Others closer to bigfoot. Think about before you chime in with laughter...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me the big question and the reason that I am interested in these Bigfoot sightings is to get to know more about the origins of this phenomenon and what it is really about. Is it biological, spiritual or something completely different? Or isn't it real after all?

On the internet there are a lot of descriptions to what its origins are. The ranges of these explanations, as far as I can tell, fall in one of these categories:

A Bigfoot is a biological entity

B Bigfoot is a spiritual entity

C Bigfoot is partly spiritual, partly biological

D Bigfoot doesn't exist

(“Biological” meaning from this world, "spiritually" meaning not from this world.)

Personally, after viewing the overlapping characteristics that people encounter, I am leaning towards C. It seems that this being leaves physical traces (footprints, hairs, etc.), yet at the same time it seems to have a certain spiritual quality (appearing/disappearing, not being affected by shot wounds, etc.). I remember a passage from the book Hunt for the Skinwalker, where two observers are seeing a wolf like creature appear, out of what looks like a portal, and then makes his way into the field. As if a portal opened from another dimension, through which these beings make their way to our dimension. These features, I think, can also be attributed to UFO’s. Could it be that they are from another dimension where they belong to another ecosystem, and are sometimes crossing borders with ours. As if two ecosystems at certain times and places meet by openings in the time-space fabric, resulting in the usual terror it evokes on both sides.

I realize that I am using definitions that are well beyond my comprehension, let alone if I use them correctly. Still, this is for now the best interpretation of the phenomena that I can come up with.

I’d love to hear what your personal thoughts (or even conclusions) are on the origins of this mystery, and why you came to these findings.

If this thread is rolling enough, I will summarize the opinions to see what categories are more favored than others.

I like the thinking here.

Some American Indian tribes believe that BF can translate through dimensions. To me, *if* BF does exist, one has to consider some way-out-there explanation for how elusive it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A guy was sick of people destroying his equipment. He made 2 wooden feet, and made tracks around the work area.

Thus, Bigfoot was born.

Then some dude made a movie of a guy in a suit. Then the myth became reality.

Then cable tv and the internet. The cancer spread across the world.

Now everyone has a Bigfoot in their area. No one feels left out.

That is the true history of how Bigfoot was born, in short.

you mean, that is how BF was born, according to White settlers.

Some Pacific NW tribes believe BF was here before they were, some 50,000 years ago.

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say A. Somebody found claimed Bigfoot DNA that turned out to be similar to that of an ancient long extinct polar bear species. I think Bigfoot is an unknown bear species, one that has developed to walk on two legs more than what known bears do. I saw a video on the net with brown bears who were walking on two legs for quite a period of time. Quite interesting, I didn't know that they do that, I thought that they just stood up on two legs momentarily to watch around but that is not the case.

yes, you saw them stand on their hind legs, I remember that vid, it was interesting.

But you never saw them - nor did anyone else, RUN on their hind legs, or RUN down hill, period..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you mean, that is how BF was born, according to White settlers.

Some Pacific NW tribes believe BF was here before they were, some 50,000 years ago.

Been over this. No they do not. White man has taken some of their legends and try to call them Bigfoot.

Find proof and post it from a reliable source of your claim.

And not from a paranormal or Bigfoot site.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biological. As mundane as the Okapi that was thought to be a fanciful myth for many years told by natives. Or the platypus. We have film footage [Patterson film and others]. We have cast footprints with dermal ridges impossible to fake, scat and hair samples producing "non human primate DNA of unknown origin".

With a little research, you would find out that the bolded items are not true.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been over this. No they do not. White man has taken some of their legends and try to call them Bigfoot.

Find proof and post it from a reliable source of your claim.

And not from a paranormal or Bigfoot site.

Are you worried about the name - BigFoot??

Different tribes have different names. Just because some White guy coined the term BigFoot, does not at all negate what the American Indians had known for mellenia about the Big Hairy man before they even saw White man.

And yes, we have been here before. I posted the various tribes East of the Mississippi that have a belief in BF and their name for BF, and you poo pooed it. I have had personal talks with Indians over this subject, I have seen documentaries with various tribe elders.

I am completely cool with the idea that AM Indians believe in BF, you are not because it does not suit your agenda.

How nice of you to try to wipe out part of their heritage

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to play the "what if?" game. Let's say you had a tribe of people with hypertrichosis, that affected their entire body. So the individuals would be shunned by normal society and live alone in the wilderness. Giving birth to the legends of the werewolfs. So these individuals could be the possible source of the bigfoot legend. Just food for thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A: Bigfoot is a physical creature.

Bigfoot is the mythic enlargement of stories of regular humans who have gone out and lived in the woods alone too long. The "wild man" mythos grew into a "giant ape" mythos, because it was more mysterious. And like Sakari said, some enlarged this mythos by way of fabricating evidence to show how big their subject creature was.

But at the origin of the story is the sad fact that many people were run off to live in the woods into exile by one culture or another, one nation or another, one village or another.

These filthy, starving, violent, shaggy people are the root of bigfoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always assumed bears w/ mange would work for bigfoot's origins.

some people out hunting, run across this thing that's taller and bigger than them w/ patches of fur and just a generally pi**ed off attitude about how miserable it is.

from there, legend

This is just kind of thinking out loud though, I dont have any documentation to back it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just had a random theory. No proof of it whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're mocking me, that's a good one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No intention, but I will accept the compliment. lol

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 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.