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 8
AlterScape

Bigfoot Best Evidence

372 posts in this topic

I would have also put in there the red giant footage from Timber Giant Bigfoot..

Good list tho'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can confirm that all of these videos contain the requisite amount of ambiguity and blur to count as Bigfoot sightings.

9 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is the best evidence for Bigfoot, I don't understand how people can be so certain of his existence.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ask yourself if the following is true: -

Bigfoot exists and its habitat is spread all over the north American continent. At the very minimum, in order to sustain a viable population over such an extent of territory for so long,  there must be hundreds of thousands of them. Yet the first sightings did not occur until a little over a century ago.

If it was a dying species sightings of it would be declining as would any physical traces. Despite there being no credible evidence of its actual existence at all the number of sightings is increasing, and so is the rate at which sightings are being made!

There is no such thing as Bigfoot. The name alone is testiment to the fact that it is a figment of man's imagination.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some stuff I've noticed about Bigfoot:

1. They bury their dead or they are immortal - no corpses ever found.

2. The don't poop - no poop ever found.

3. They live a nomadic existence - no homes, no dens, no caves and no 'nests' ever found

4. They don't hunt - no evidence of predation ever found.

So we are looking for a 7 foot+, immortal, homeless, berry-eating, poop-less ape.  Best of luck! 

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, I'mConvinced said:

Some stuff I've noticed about Bigfoot:

1. They bury their dead or they are immortal - no corpses ever found.

2. The don't poop - no poop ever found.

3. They live a nomadic existence - no homes, no dens, no caves and no 'nests' ever found

4. They don't hunt - no evidence of predation ever found.

So we are looking for a 7 foot+, immortal, homeless, berry-eating, poop-less ape.  Best of luck! 

All of this has been explained. They're interdimensional beings who eat, poop, and bury outside of our plane of existence.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Narcisse said:

All of this has been explained. They're interdimensional beings who eat, poop, and bury outside of our plane of existence.

As sarcastic as this post is, it's sadly true :(

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Narcisse said:

All of this has been explained. They're interdimensional beings who eat, poop, and bury outside of our plane of existence.

Has anyone ever checked a black hole for Sasquatch hairs? I think not.  You could be on to something here.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My favorite pics are the ones where people take photos out in the woods and then discover they got photos of BF when they didn't notice BF when they were there.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

Ask yourself if the following is true: -

Bigfoot exists and its habitat is spread all over the north American continent. At the very minimum, in order to sustain a viable population over such an extent of territory for so long,  there must be hundreds of thousands of them. Yet the first sightings did not occur until a little over a century ago.

If it was a dying species sightings of it would be declining as would any physical traces. Despite there being no credible evidence of its actual existence at all the number of sightings is increasing, and so is the rate at which sightings are being made!

There is no such thing as Bigfoot. The name alone is testiment to the fact that it is a figment of man's imagination.

Sightings of 'Bigfoot'  what the Indians called Sasquatch go back to Native American Indian days before the 20th century into the 19th century and perhaps even the 18 th century..So it  is not a recent modern phenomena. Having said that it doesn't mean it exists as a real biological creature. The Indian stories could be just myths told around the native American campfires.

btw...I'm not championing the Bigfoot reality nor do I have any idea if it is a legitimate phenomenon, but it is global and does predate modern times.in other countries as well.

This wiki piece  shows how widespread the belief is in other countries where other names are used like Yeti, Yeren, Yowie, etc. Again not evidence it is real but certainly interesting (at least on a sociological and psychological level) that it's a global belief and phenomenon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot

http://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/index.html  Alleged evidence based on dna...

...and two rebuttals from science  groups

https://www.csicop.org/sb/show/the_ketchum_project_what_to_believe_about_bigfoot_dna_science  

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34395/title/Bigfoot-DNA-is-Bunk/

 

Edited by doctor wu
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, doctor wu said:

Sightings of 'Bigfoot'  what the Indians called Sasquatch go back to Native American Indian days before the 20th century into the 19th century and perhaps even the 18 th century..So it  is not a recent modern phenomena. Having said that it doesn't mean it exists as a real biological creature. The Indian stories could be just myths told around the native American campfires.

btw...I'm not championing the Bigfoot reality nor do I have any idea if it is a legitimate phenomenon, but it is global and does predate modern times.in other countries as well.

This wiki piece  shows how widespread the belief is in other countries where other names are used like Yeti, Yeren, Yowie, etc. Again not evidence it is real but certainly interesting (at least on a sociological and psychological level) that it's a global belief and phenomenon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot

http://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/index.html  Alleged evidence based on dna...

...and two rebuttals from science  groups

https://www.csicop.org/sb/show/the_ketchum_project_what_to_believe_about_bigfoot_dna_science  

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34395/title/Bigfoot-DNA-is-Bunk/

 

The DNA research is rubbish and the pre-20th century stories about Bigfoot are just that - stories. There are stories about little people in Ireland but, although the stories exist, the little people they talk about don't. It's all classified as folklore. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So where was the best evidence then,I wonder what Bigfoot would do without you tube he'd be gutted 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you can't get WI-FI out that far? He probably doesn't know what youtube is.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

19 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

The DNA research is rubbish and the pre-20th century stories about Bigfoot are just that - stories. There are stories about little people in Ireland but, although the stories exist, the little people they talk about don't. It's all classified as folklore. 

So what do you think people are seeing (talking about the honest ones here who truly believe they saw something odd) that they call 'Bigfoot', Sasquatch, Yowie, Yeti, whatever name is used?

Are they seeing bears on two legs walking., hoaxers in gorilla suits, or just hallucinations from stress or drugs and drink...? Or all of the above..?

 

Edited by doctor wu
clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say some or all of the above. If Bigfoot actually exists we would have actual irrefutable physical evidence of some sort by now. I said 'irrefutable', i.e. real actual physical evidence. We have absolutely no actual physical traces of Bigfoot whatsoever.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Saw this on another forum and found it.... interesting.....and thought it was worth posting here on the 'Bigfoot' thread.. Everyone will of course have to draw their own conclusions.

It seems unlikely to me that a real animal like a bigfoot,, if it exists, would befriend a human child. Could they have been a true wild human family that lived off the grid and in a wild manner..?

http://cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/maine-womans-childhood-life-with-bigfoot/

Edited by doctor wu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

I have to say some or all of the above. If Bigfoot actually exists we would have actual irrefutable physical evidence of some sort by now. I said 'irrefutable', i.e. real actual physical evidence. We have absolutely no actual physical traces of Bigfoot whatsoever.

 

You are from Ireland.......do they have a bigfoot type phenomenon there or something similar. 

Also what are your thoughts on the footprints that some have presented. Obviously many are hoaxes but a few anthropologists interviewed on various programs  ,etc have said a handful seem genuine.?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2017 at 4:45 PM, stereologist said:

My favorite pics are the ones where people take photos out in the woods and then discover they got photos of BF when they didn't notice BF when they were there.

Nah, the best ones are the ones where they take a video of their friend in a suit, sorry, meant an alleged bigfoot, they have about a minute of footage, they do not follow it or film where it goes or go and try and find that all elusive proof it exists, like its home or even its poo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, doctor wu said:

 

You are from Ireland.......do they have a bigfoot type phenomenon there or something similar. 

Also what are your thoughts on the footprints that some have presented. Obviously many are hoaxes but a few anthropologists interviewed on various programs  ,etc have said a handful seem genuine.?

 

We have myths about Ireland being inhabited by a race of giants called Fomorians. Some recent DNA studies lend credence to the existance of a form of giganticism in some ancient Irishmen.

We also have an extensive range of folklore about leprechauns, little people and fairies. But these are all stories - no hard evidence and certainly no real physical evidence. Sure, there are small tiny shoes supposed to have come off their feet but they are crude forgeries.

As regards Bigfoot footprints, these are easily forged. How can any anthropologist verify a footprint as belonging to Bigfoot. The only way they could do that is if they had a physical specimen of Bigfoot's foot!! I mean how does anyone know and identify any animal's tracks? By being able to compare the print to the actual animal's foot. We don't have a physical specimen of a Bigfoot to be able to say what its footprint would look like, do we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alterscape, given that you haven't offered any opinion or discussion on why you picked those, that's not so much a best evidence list, it's a Gish Gallop.

 

Just post ONE convincing one.  The best, and give your reasoning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

We have myths about Ireland being inhabited by a race of giants called Fomorians. Some recent DNA studies lend credence to the existance of a form of giganticism in some ancient Irishmen.

We also have an extensive range of folklore about leprechauns, little people and fairies. But these are all stories - no hard evidence and certainly no real physical evidence. Sure, there are small tiny shoes supposed to have come off their feet but they are crude forgeries.

As regards Bigfoot footprints, these are easily forged. How can any anthropologist verify a footprint as belonging to Bigfoot. The only way they could do that is if they had a physical specimen of Bigfoot's foot!! I mean how does anyone know and identify any animal's tracks? By being able to compare the print to the actual animal's foot. We don't have a physical specimen of a Bigfoot to be able to say what its footprint would look like, do we?

Regarding the footprints I believe the comments were that it resembled that of an unknown  large hominid, but they can of course  be easily faked.

Thanks for the info about Fomorians....I was not aware of that myth. There apparently has been giganticism found in other parts of the world also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 10/8/2017 at 11:15 PM, AlterScape said:

I think your Alberta Footage link also goes to the Grey Harbor Footage.

I am not a fan of the thermal imaging since it is so easy to spoof in many ways, if you want to. Scale can be off if what you think you are seeing is actually closer then you think. And if it is done deliberately, still looks authentic on camera.

I myself, don't like the Patterson Footage, because it has so much controversy around Patterson and some of the people he hung around with. I"m not saying he didn't film what he said he did, but it is remarkable that he got exactly what he wanted when only a couple miles out of camp, and a just the distance to get some hint of detail, but not really able to ascertain much of anything.

Audio recordings also I feel are weak, because with modern technology, they could be easily faked. A kid with a 10 year old computer, and 5 year old software could probably make a noise that sounds similar.

The skunk ape, I think is either an escaped chimp, or an orangutan, or more likely, there are both types of ape loose in the Everglades. 

The other videos, I will agree are good evidence of a mysterious creature, or at least evidence that there was something there. 

EDIT: I'd also agree that footprints, even ones that are an unusual distance apart, are not terribly hard to fake. Even ones that put in a deep imprint can be fakes. 

Edited by DieChecker
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I think your Alberta Footage link also goes to the Grey Harbor Footage.

I am not a fan of the thermal imaging since it is so easy to spoof in many ways, if you want to. Scale can be off if what you think you are seeing is actually closer then you think. And if it is done deliberately, still looks authentic on camera.

I myself, don't like the Patterson Footage, because it has so much controversy around Patterson and some of the people he hung around with. I"m not saying he didn't film what he said he did, but it is remarkable that he got exactly what he wanted when only a couple miles out of camp, and a just the distance to get some hint of detail, but not really able to ascertain much of anything.

Audio recordings also I feel are weak, because with modern technology, they could be easily faked. A kid with a 10 year old computer, and 5 year old software could probably make a noise that sounds similar.

The skunk ape, I think is either an escaped chimp, or an orangutan, or more likely, there are both types of ape loose in the Everglades. 

The other videos, I will agree are good evidence of a mysterious creature, or at least evidence that there was something there. 

EDIT: I'd also agree that footprints, even ones that are an unusual distance apart, are not terribly hard to fake. Even ones that put in a deep imprint can be fakes. 

I appreciate that you're offering the thread a reasoned response/opinion - as opposed to all the scoffer's out there who enjoy bashing the topic.  

I do disagree with some of your points.....I was unaware that thermal imaging was easy to fake - my own instincts told me the opposite.  I guess a third party - expert type person with thermal image experience could clear it up.

On the footprints, no they are not easy to fake.  At least, convincing ones are not.  Sure, some could be faked....no question.  But, there are plenty documented footprints found in locations far enough away from any routine traffic as to warrant serious consideration.  A guy with a PhD in primate anthropology is convinced by them.....therefore, they should not be summarily dismissed.

My take on it is that inspite of all the fakery.....it's still an interesting subject and MOST CERTAINLY possible....so it's worth considering.  The other people who mock the OP are just rude, and should just go read youtube video comments for kicks.

IMHO.  

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Alterscape, given that you haven't offered any opinion or discussion on why you picked those, that's not so much a best evidence list, it's a Gish Gallop.

 

That's really not a Gish.  He's consistent on what he's offering.  He's not trying to conflate.  I'm just curious as to why those are the best pieces he chose.  I'm no expert on this topic, but I have studied it fairly extensively in the past.   It's my understand that "Sasquatch Legend Meets Science" presented some legitimate evidence.  And certainly, Meldrum's paper on the foot anatomy qualifies as evidence.....as does every CREDIBLE eyewitness report.  

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 8

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.