Why is Bigfoot so popular still?

[DefenceMinisterMishkin]

Not as popular as Megalodon..

(Probably can't even swim)

[J. K.]

Not as popular as Megalodon..

(Probably can't even swim)

Oh, man, watch out. Here comes the next SyFy original movie: Bigfoot vs. Megalodon.

Here's an interesting Bigfoot site I just ran across: Ron Morehead

[Merc14]

Some long time ago I had posted in here the beliefs of Indian tribes east of the Mississippi - inre, BF.

Of course the tribes' languages differ and the translated names differ, too, but many many tribes do have the belief of some big hairy man, and they do believe it to be a man, not an animal.

I'll see if I can drag up that info again

Yeah, about this, there are a lot of scholars that disagree with you in regards to what these peoples were referring to.

[J. K.]

I think we have a built-in desire to believe in possibilities beyond what we can see. It's no different from all of the early explorers who set out on the ocean, having faith that they would reach land somewhere. We like mysteries, and the curious attraction of the unknown.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

@SpiritWalker7 http://www.sunstar-s...igfootnames.htm

SpiritWalker, the first half of this link with the meanings of the names for BF/Sasquatch does not post well. You'll have to visit the site.

Native American legends are rich in Bigfoot content . Why wouldn't they be ? There can't be any creature walking this Earth that the Native Americans hadn't encountered at least once in a while . Think about it , these people lived as one with the Earth 24/7 365 days a year . Even the most "outdoorsy" of we "civilized" people can only claim a few weeks (or days or hours in most cases) a year of really being in the bush . Below are some of the names that Native Americans had for Bigfoot .

Bukwas - Kwakwaka'wakw Indian

Tsonaqua - Kwakwaka'wakw Indian

Tornit - Inuit Indian

Nun Yunu Wi - Cherokee Indian

Kecleh-kudleh - Cherokee Indian

Gougou - Micmac Indian

Kokotshe - Tete-de-Boule Indian

Witiko - Tete-de-Boule Indian

Atshen - Tete-de-Boule Indian

Misinghalikun - Lenni Lenape Indian

Wsinkhoalican - Lenni Lenape Indian

Nu'numic - Owens Valley Paiute Indian

Tse'nahaha - Mono Lake Paiute Indian

Slalakums - Upper Stalo Indian

Iktomi - Plains Indian

Kashehotapalo - Choctaw Indian

Nalusa Falaya - Choctaw Indian

Windago - Athabascan Indian

Wetiko - Cree Indian

Sasquatch - Salish Indian

Choanito - Wenatchee Indian

Tsiatko - Puyallup / Nisqually Indian

Steta'l - Puyallup / Nisqually Indian

Atahsaia - Zuni Indian

Madukarahat - Karok Indian

Chiye tanka - Lakota Sioux Indian <--- Right here, SpiritWalker :--)

Chiha tanka - Dakota Sioux Indian

Kushtaka - Tlingit Indian

A hoo la hul - Yup'ik Indian

Esti Capcaki - Seminole Indian

Gogit - Haida Indian

Hecaitomixw - Quinault Indian

Skukum - Quinault Indian

Tsadjatko - Quinault Indian

Mesingw - Leni Lenape Indian

Na'in - Gwich'in Indian

Ye'iitsoh - Navajo Indian

Nantiinaq - Kenai Peninsula Indian

Urayuli - SW Alaskan Eskimo

Gilyuk - Nelchina Plateau Indian

So'yoko - Hopi Indian

Miitiipi - Kawaiisu Indian

Tso apittse - Shoshone Indian

Boqs - Bella Coola Indian

Loo poo oi'yes - Miwuk Indian

Yi'dy'tay - Nehalem / Tillamook Indian

Sasahevas - Halkomelem Indian

Sc'wen'ey'ti - Spokane Indian

Seatco - Yakama / Klickitat / Puyallup Indian

Ste ye mah - Yakama Indian

Seat ka - Yakama Indian

Skookum - Chinook Indian

See'atco - Salish Indian

Xi'lgo -Nehalem / Tillamook Indian

Rugaru - Ojibway Indian

Skanicum - Colville Indian

Seeahtkch - Clallam Indian

Omah - Yurok Indian

El-lsh-kas - Makah Indian

Saskets - Salishan / Sahaptin Indian

Manabai'wok - Menomini Indian

Yayaya-ash - Klamath Indian

Matlose - Nootka Indian

Iariyin - Hare Indian

Goo tee khi - Chilkat Indian

Kala'litabiqw - Skagit Indian

Yahyahaas - Modoc Indian

Toylona - Taos Indian

Get'qun - Lake Lliamna Indian

Nant'ina - Dema'ina Indian

Neginla eh - Alutiiq / Yukon Indian

Oh Mah - Hoopa Indian

Sne nah - Okanogan Indian

Qah lin me - Yakama / Klickitat Indian

Ge no'sgwa - Seneca Indian

Ge no sqwa - Iroquois / Seneca Indian

Ot ne yar heh - Iroquois Indian

Tah tah kle' ah - Yakama / Shasta Indian

At'at'ahila - Chinookan Indian

Qui yihahs - Yakama / Klickitat Indian

Edited December 4, 2014 by Earl.Of.Trumps

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Yeah, about this, there are a lot of scholars that disagree with you in regards to what these peoples were referring to.

Merc, there are 'intellects' in here and about that fight *everything*. Sakari and I debated over this issue at one time, as an example.

If you visit the above website, you can see how the various Indians' names translate to English. Where can there be controversy? - except where the intellects don't enjoy this knowledge seeping out, I guess. I'd prefer to take the Indians' word for it rather than some outside, hi-brow obvserver.

I am trying to show existence, whereas detractors have to prove a negative.

I showed various Indian names to BF/Sasquatch, their task is to demonstrate that there are no Indian names for BF/Sasquatch

Good luck with that!

[Tira]

So you are saying that human bones found in the woods are bigfoot bones? You do know what happens to human bones found in the woods don't you? Honestly, this is perhaps the most absurd bigfoot thing ever posted.

You sound like you are spoiling for a fight on this subject. How much time have you spent researching the evidence for such a creature before posting on this topic?

[Tira]

If there were such a thing as a bigfoot it would be provably nonhuman and very easily so. Your statement is absurd because when human remains are found they are processed as a crime scene and thoroughly studied in a lab. Any pathologist would be able to determine if a bone was human or not, for chrissakes, hell they can tell gender, age, race, diseases, diet, etc. To think that bigfoot remains are being misdiagnosed as human remains is beyond ridiculous and laughably so. Frankly, you should be embarrassed for having posted it as not even the most rabid bigfoot believer would agree with you

You need a population of a certain size, a breeding population, to survive as a species, especially over the time span and range you are asserting. I have read that 10k would be a minimum and I personally think that is too small to support the number of encounters CTs claim.

Invariably the naive comment on this subject, it's so glaringly obvious to me that the bulk majority of those who don't believe there is a possibility of existence, have not examined the evidence closely. Many of you are just naive to the amount of evidence there is for a relic hominid species. I don't like the name Bigfoot. They are wild humans, and they most definitely exist. For those who have seen one, the paradigm has shifted to knowledge of, not theory of.

[Merc14]

Merc, there are 'intellects' in here and about that fight *everything*. Sakari and I debated over this issue at one time, as an example.

If you visit the above website, you can see how the various Indians' names translate to English. Where can there be controversy? - except where the intellects don't enjoy this knowledge seeping out, I guess. I'd prefer to take the Indians' word for it rather than some outside, hi-brow obvserver.

I am trying to show existence, whereas detractors have to prove a negative.

I showed various Indian names to BF/Sasquatch, their task is to demonstrate that there are no Indian names for BF/Sasquatch

Good luck with that!

I'd post some links but then of course it has all been done before and mattered zero as you and some others here are simply FTBs that don't care if the facts fit the narrative. You have no physical evidence of any kind to show that these things exist amongst us, in relatively large numbers and that is simply unthinkable, especially considering the vast numbers of people actively seeking them out.

Personally I'd be amazed and happy to find out that a new species of bipedal mammal had been discovered wandering North America.. To date I haven't seen a lick of evidence that it is so. Excuse matrix follows:

1. They are very disciplined about burying their dead. (None die alone, apparently, ever.)

2. They are really good at hiding. (Really, really, really, really, really, Really, super, super, super, super, stupendously Good!)

3. They are very good at cleaning up their area. (Like yikes good.)

4. Their bones are being confused with human bones. (Pathologists everywhere are howling in laughter at this stupidity)

5. These are interdimensional beings that flit in and out of our universe. (Oh come on!!!!)

I'm sure there are a bunch more but at this point who cares.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Merc14

[Merc14]

You sound like you are spoiling for a fight on this subject. How much time have you spent researching the evidence for such a creature before posting on this topic?

Invariably the naive comment on this subject, it's so glaringly obvious to me that the bulk majority of those who don't believe there is a possibility of existence, have not examined the evidence closely. Many of you are just naive to the amount of evidence there is for a relic hominid species. I don't like the name Bigfoot. They are wild humans, and they most definitely exist. For those who have seen one, the paradigm has shifted to knowledge of, not theory of.

I'm sorry, you are right, I really haven't spent a lot of time examining the evidence. You want know why I haven't examined it? Because there IS NONE! Not a bone fragment. Hot a single hair. Not one legitimate photograph. Not a single turd even. Nothing. Post your evidence and I'll consider it. We all will. Not holding my breath though.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Merc14

[Tira]

I'd post some links but then of course it has all been done before and mattered zero as you and some others here are simply FTBs that don't care if the facts fit the narrative. You have no physical evidence of any kind to show that these things exist amongst us, in relatively large numbers and that is simply unthinkable, especially considering the vast numbers of people actively seeking them out.

Personally I'd be amazed and happy to find out that a new species of bipedal mammal had been discovered wandering North America.. To date I haven't seen a lick of evidence that it is so. Excuse matrix follows:

1. They are very disciplined about burying their dead. (None die alone, apparently, ever.)

2. They are really good at hiding. (Really, really, really, really, really, Really, super, super, super, super, stupendously Good!)

3. They are very good at cleaning up their area. (Like yikes good.)

4. Their bones are being confused with human bones. (Pathologists everywhere are howling in laughter at this stupidity)

5. These are interdimensional beings that flit in and out of our universe. (Oh come on!!!!)

I'm sure there are a bunch more but at this point who cares.

Not sure what's going on in your life lately, but I've never seen you post such caustic and derisive drivel. I'm usually in agreement with most of your posts. Why are you so volatile about this subject? Why so p***y? You should go interview some eye witnesses and see what feeling you leave with after the fact. We are talking hundreds of trained observers risking reputation and livelihood in some cases over reporting their sighting. Cops, Sherriffs, Wildlife Biologists, Military personnel, Pastors, people from all walks of life....tens of thousands, close to 100,000 eye witness reports, going back hundreds of years. You are saying all these people are lying or mistaken??? All of them??? That's presumptuous and arrogant.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Here are two more compilations

The list is not all there is, just what picked out quickly from a list of several hundred:

Tribe – Traditional Name – Translation

Alabama-Coushatta – Eeyachuba – Wild man

Algonkian – Yeahoh- Wild man

Caddo – Ha’yacatsi – Lost giants

Cherokee – Kecleh-Kudleh - Hairy savage

Cherokee - Nun’ Yunu’ Wi – Stone man

Chickasaw – Lofa – Smelly, hairy being that could speak

Chippewa - Djeneta` – Giant

Choctaw – Kashehotapalo – Cannibal man

Choctaw – Nalusa Falaya – Big giant

Choctaw – Shampe – Giant monster

Comanche - Mu pitz – Cannibal monster

Comanche – Piamupits – Cannibal monster

Creeks – Honka – Hairy man

Iroquois - Ot ne yar heh – Stonish giant

Iroquois – Tarhuhyiawahku – Giant monster

Iroquois/Seneca - Ge no sqwa – Stone giants

Menomini – Manabai’wok - The Giants

Micmac – Chenoo - Devil cannibal

Mosopelea - Yeahoh – Monster

Ojibwa - Manito – Wild man

Seminole – Esti capcaki -Tall man

Seminole - Ssti capcaki – Tall hairy man

Seneca – Ge no’sgwa – Stone giants

Here’s another list of Native American names alledged to correlate to bigfoot compiled by Kyle Mizokami, Henry Franzoni, Jeff Glickman. Some examples of some of the more ambiguous entries:

Name>Tribe>Translation

Skanicum – Colville Indians – “Stick Indians”

Steta’l – Puyallup/Nisqually Indian – “Spirt Spear”

Qui yihahs – Yakama/Klickitat Indian – “The Five Brothers”

Kushtaka – Tlingit Indian – “Otter Man”

Tah tah kle’ ah – Yakama/Shasta Indian – “Owl Woman Monster”

Gilyuk – Nelchina Plateau Indian – “Big Man with little hat”

Ge no’sgwa – Seneca Indian – “Stone Coats”

Atahsaia – Zuni Indian – “The Cannibal Demon”

Misinghalikun – Lenni Lenape Indian – “Living Solid Face”

Wsinkhoalican – Lenni Lenape Indian – “The Game Keeper”

Hecaitomixw – Quinault Indians – “Dangerous Being”

Yé’iitsoh – Navajo Indians – “Big God “

[S2F]

Not sure what's going on in your life lately, but I've never seen you post such caustic and derisive drivel. I'm usually in agreement with most of your posts. Why are you so volatile about this subject? Why so p***y? You should go interview some eye witnesses and see what feeling you leave with after the fact. We are talking hundreds of trained observers risking reputation and livelihood in some cases over reporting their sighting. Cops, Sherriffs, Wildlife Biologists, Military personnel, Pastors, people from all walks of life....tens of thousands, close to 100,000 eye witness reports, going back hundreds of years. You are saying all these people are lying or mistaken??? All of them??? That's presumptuous and arrogant.

Which begs the question, if all or even most of these reports are true then how is it even possible that no concrete evidence has been brought forth? To complicate matters even further, if we assume that some of the accounts are false where do we draw the line? How do we objectively determine which reports to believe and which ones to discard? Especially when we consider that eyewitness testimony is notoriously fallible. That doesn't even bring hoaxes and charlatans into the equation yet. The volume of reports isn't a black and white indicator of Bigfoot's existence, it's not as simple as that.

[Tira]

Which begs the question, if all or even most of these reports are true then how is it even possible that no concrete evidence has been brought forth? To complicate matters even further, if we assume that some of the accounts are false where do we draw the line? How do we objectively determine which reports to believe and which ones to discard? Especially when we consider that eyewitness testimony is notoriously fallible. That doesn't even bring hoaxes and charlatans into the equation yet. The volume of reports isn't a black and white indicator of Bigfoot's existence, it's not as simple as that.

What's your definition of concrete? Was there any more concrete evidence of some of the Ancient Amazonian Tribes that have been recently discovered in the past 50 years? We had no idea they existed. How much evidence did we have for the Mountain Gorilla before it was discovered less than 100 years ago?

If in fact, we are talking hominids closely related to us, that have evolved to avoid us and live in the wild, and difficult to access areas of forest, why couldn't a small population of relic hominids survive to this day undiscovered. Imagine a human that has evolved in the wild for millennium by doing exactly what you all don't want....Avoiding our species at all costs. We probably pushed them to the brink of extinction. It just doesn't make sense that we have historical accounts from Native Americans going back 1000's of years. The Patterson Gimlin film when looked at objectively is strong evidence, 100, 000 eye witness reports going back 200 years, the footprint and cast evidence is damn near overwhelming, hair, scat, and dental evidence has been submitted that is not able to be identified as a known animal, but show primate indicators. There is a lot of evidence, if one just tries to educate themselves on the subject. As the OP said he has not even evaluated any of it, just summarily dismissed it as all false or nonexistent, that doesn't make his argument very strong IMO....the whole premise, which is quite common, is to choose an argument that one can argue from authority on a subject and scoff and deride those who are proponents. It's just a stroke off session for someone who needs feel authoritative. After all, who really get there panties bunched up over folks who believe in Bigfoot? A narcissist, that's who.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Tira

[Merc14]

Not sure what's going on in your life lately, but I've never seen you post such caustic and derisive drivel. I'm usually in agreement with most of your posts. Why are you so volatile about this subject? Why so p***y? You should go interview some eye witnesses and see what feeling you leave with after the fact. We are talking hundreds of trained observers risking reputation and livelihood in some cases over reporting their sighting. Cops, Sherriffs, Wildlife Biologists, Military personnel, Pastors, people from all walks of life....tens of thousands, close to 100,000 eye witness reports, going back hundreds of years. You are saying all these people are lying or mistaken??? All of them??? That's presumptuous and arrogant.

That was a response to Earl who can be especially annoying. If you take what Earl says as proof you'll also have to believe in the Thunderbird and various other American Indian folklore.

Eyewitness reports, in all situations, are amongst the worst pieces of evidence there is. This is especially true at night and in densely wooded environments which is where most BF sightings occur. This Stanford Law School article http://agora.stanfor...her&tversky.htm does a great job of explaining why. It is not especially long and worth a read.

In the world of BF the above problems are compounded by the massive amount of fraud and charlatanism endemic throughout the entire industry (and it is most definitely an industry generating tens of millions of dollars a year, if not more). I think you would have to admit that. Top it all off with people getting preconfigured to see Bf by the various TV series and eyewitness accounts get even less trustworthy.

Honestly, if eyewitness accounts are all the evidence you have then you don't have much of a case but if there are some that you think are iron-clad and proof beyond a doubt, post a link.

As far as why this issue p***es me off it really doesn't but I abhor charlatans and frauds that seek to fool the people with garbage like this. Seriously, not one iota of physical evidence in all of history and with all the millions(billions?) of sasquatch that have lived and died and we are taking this seriously?

Edited December 4, 2014 by Merc14

[Merc14]

What's your definition of concrete? Was there any more concrete evidence of some of the Ancient Amazonian Tribes that have been recently discovered in the past 50 years? We had no idea they existed. How much evidence did we have for the Mountain Gorilla before it was discovered less than 100 years ago?

Big problem right here. The mountain gorilla and Amazonian tribes were in remote areas that no white man had ever visited. When we did go into those areas we found the rumored creatures/men fairly quickly and there was massive amounts of evidence regarding there existence as we prowled around. BF sightings occure all over this country including in relatively well populated areas. Point of fact is your two examples have little to do with present day BF.

If in fact, we are talking hominids closely related to us, that have evolved to avoid us and live in the wild, and difficult to access areas of forest, why couldn't a small population of relic hominids survive to this day undiscovered. Imagine a human that has evolved in the wild for millennium by doing exactly what you all don't want....Avoiding our species at all costs. We probably pushed them to the brink of extinction. It just doesn't make sense that we have historical accounts from Native Americans going back 1000's of years. The Patterson Gimlin film when looked at objectively is strong evidence, 100, 000 eye witness reports going back 200 years, the footprint and cast evidence is damn near overwhelming, hair, scat, and dental evidence has been submitted that is not able to be identified as a known animal, but show primate indicators. There is a lot of evidence, if one just tries to educate themselves on the subject. As the OP said he has not even evaluated any of it, just summarily dismissed it as all false or nonexistent, that doesn't make his argument very strong IMO....the whole premise, which is quite common, is to choose an argument that one can argue from authority on a subject and scoff and deride those who are proponents. It's just a stroke off session for someone who needs feel authoritative. After all, who really get there panties bunched up over folks who believe in Bigfoot? A narcissist, that's who.

You say we pushed them to the brink of extinction but don't say how? Was it by hunting them down? Can't be since no bones or cups made of BF skulls or BF overcoats have ever appeared anywhere. Nor is there a story of a guy with a BF over his fireplace.

By encroaching on their territory? Generally when we encroach on an animal's territory we get a lot of verifiable meetings between the two species but all we have is spurious accounts with not even one decent photo. Not one! That is quite a record and unheard of in modern biology. If these things were out there in breeding populations we'd have a lot of photos and evidence.

The Patterson film is looking pretty sketchy after modern analysis BTW.

If someone is going to make wild claims then I am going to ask them to prove it. Not sure how that makes one a narcissist but I have just as much right to challenge fantastic claims as you do of making them. There are plenty of mysteries I'd want my kid pondering rather than sasquatch.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Merc14

[Tira]

That was a response to Earl who can be especially annoying. If you take what Earl says as proof you'll also have to believe in the Thunderbird and various other American Indian folklore.

Eyewitness reports, in all situations, are amongst the worst pieces of evidence there is. This is especially true at night and in densely wooded environments which is where most BF sightings occur. This Stanford Law School article http://agora.stanfor...her&tversky.htm does a great job of explaining why. It is not especially long and worth a read.

In the world of BF the above problems are compounded by the massive amount of fraud and charlatanism endemic throughout the entire industry (and it is most definitely an industry generating tens of millions of dollars a year, if not more). I think you would have to admit that. Top it all off with people getting preconfigured to see Bf by the various TV series and eyewitness accounts get even less trustworthy.

Honestly, if eyewitness accounts are all the evidence you have then you don't have much of a case but if there are some that you think are iron-clad and proof beyond a doubt, post a link.

As far as why this issue p***es me off it really doesn't but I abhor charlatans and frauds that seek to fool the people with garbage like this. Seriously, not one iota of physical evidence in all of history and with all the millions(billions?) of sasquatch that have lived and died and we are taking this seriously?

You seem to have convinced yourself quite nicely without ever examining the evidence that does exist and is readily available with a keyword search on any of the search engines available. What about your obviously- biased without research- viewpoint do you want me to help educate you on, and what possible motivation would I have for such a joyless exercise? If your convinced the recent charlatan bandwagon(last 20 years), the money that lies therein, and the likelihood that every single eye witness, including Trained Observers, with absolutely nothing to gain by testifying to this creature's existence are lying or mistaken, where can we possibly go from there? Of course you would say nowhere because it's a fictitious creation, or some mass delusion that goes back thousands of years. Ridiculous, and obtuse. It's pointless to argue with someone who's convinced they are an authority on a subject that they have done zero research on beyond the skeptical enquirer. There is plenty out there for you to cut and paste, so get on with it. You obviously began this thread to deride proponents and sit on your high horse. I'm not going to educate you on the evidence by providing links, go research on your own, no one feels compelled to prove the subjects for the ongoing mystery are authentic. I know they are real, because of experience. When that's the case, who cares who else knows, I'm happy enough that I know without a doubt, and you are just ignorant. That's ok with me.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Tira

[ellapenella]

Why is this folk tale still so popular? There is no proof of any kind, no dead bodies, no bones, no hair, no decent photographs, no droppings, nothing, yet it flourishes. The proof that is out there seems half baked and peddled by hucksters and charlatans yet still the faithful hang on. Why? TV shows, websites, millions of believers and I haven't a clue why. Can some of you FTBs let me in on the secret here?

sheesh Merc14 . lol

I like the mythical thought of it all. I don't follow shows , but I've watched some things of it. Some people are believable , like you know they've seen and experienced something , just don't know what exactly ??? Some people are credible .

[Tira]

Big problem right here. The mountain gorilla and Amazonian tribes were in remote areas that no white man had ever visited. When we did go into those areas we found the rumored creatures/men fairly quickly and there was massive amounts of evidence regarding there existence as we prowled around. BF sightings occure all over this country including in relatively well populated areas. Point of fact is your two examples have little to do with present day BF.

----You act as if you are unaware how many square miles of American Wilderness are without habitation, or even exploration. You completely discount the propensity for these small tribes of hominids, who are physically and intelligently adapted to living and hunting in the wilderness, would try to avoid us if we were to encroach on their territories. You are still thinking in terms of an animal, which is common, as opposed to a human that had evolved expertise in a wild domain to avoid or dispatch us if necessary. You are wrong in your summation of bigfoot sightings as being in "very populated" areas. You are attempting to cast doubt on all the sightings, and witness reports by pointing to very few. This is also quite common among the skeptical crowd. Scientists agree there are probably remaining tribes in the Amazon that we have yet to contact. These are humans, not trying to avoid us. There was zero fossil or remnant evidence for the mountain gorilla, and your assertion is false that no white men had explored those regions of Africa, btw many of the natives had described the mountain gorilla for hundreds of years only to be scoffed at by the high brow scientists of that time. Sound familiar? I don't think you are aware of how many places there are in North America that are virtually inaccessible to modern humans. Have you explored any of the Pacific Northwest or even looked at a map of the vast wilderness we have in this country, that is virtually never accessed by people????? I bet you have not.

You say we pushed them to the brink of extinction but don't say how? Was it by hunting them down? Can't be since no bones or cups made of BF skulls or BF overcoats have ever appeared anywhere. Nor is there a story of a guy with a BF over his fireplace.

------We killed off almost half of all Native Americans with disease, small pox, etc. The NA's described Bigfoots as tribes of Natives, albeit hairier and wilder! I'm not sure a native killing a bigfoot would be to keen on securing artifacts from it's anatomy with other members of the tribe near. These are social animals, they live in family groups. I'm sure they have been curious about interaction with us at some point on the evolutionary stage, I'm juststating that may not have gone well for them, and thus the avoidance at all costs behavior which is truly a fundamental aspect of why they have not been discovered as of yet.

By encroaching on their territory? Generally when we encroach on an animal's territory we get a lot of verifiable meetings between the two species but all we have is spurious accounts with not even one decent photo. Not one! That is quite a record and unheard of in modern biology. If these things were out there in breeding populations we'd have a lot of photos and evidence.

-----You rant about a lack of evidence and then in the same sentence poopooo every eye witness report in history, 100,000 of them, as "spurious". You probably have never even read a report. You can't have it both ways. And there are a lot of very convincing, and reliable reports from trained observers that you should read, I'm not going to link them for you, do some homework, and quit demanding everyone convince you.

The Patterson film is looking pretty sketchy after modern analysis BTW.

---Oh like Anatomy Professors authenticating it as unique bipedal locomotion, see Jeff Meldrum, Idaho State University, muscle movement, toe flexion-try that with rubber feet, footprint evidence collected on site, with dermal ridge detail in the 60s. Show me the suit from the 1960s that can duplicate what's on that film, and you'll have a convert. It's absolutely impossible to duplicate what's on that film with a man in a suit. It's never been done, and never will be, because it's not a man in a suit. The limb ratios are also completely impossible to duplicate with the kinetic qualities the subject on that film displays. You are just lazy, you have never even watched the full clip with an objective eye....guaranteed.

If someone is going to make wild claims then I am going to ask them to prove it. Not sure how that makes one a narcissist but I have just as much right to challenge fantastic claims as you do of making them. There are plenty of mysteries I'd want my kid pondering rather than sasquatch.

No one is making wild claims here but you, with zero research in to the subject whatsoever. Keep cutting and pasting from your skeptical garbage, I'm not wasting another keystroke on you. You are a narcissist because it's very obvious you have chosen a topic that you can argue from authority on, and your belittling and derisive dismissal of proponents without even a preliminary investigation into the subject matter for yourself, screams ME<ME>ME.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Tira

[Tira]

"Eyewitness reports, in all situations, are amongst the worst pieces of evidence there is. This is especially true at night and in densely wooded environments which is where most BF sightings occur. This Stanford Law School article http://agora.stanfor...her&tversky.htm does a great job of explaining why. It is not especially long and worth a read."

Is this what you were saying about the witnesses in Ferguson, whose testimony resulted in a no bill from the grand jury? It's only true if it fits the narrative though right?

[S2F]

What about these rare animals, most with populations lower than the estimations for Bigfoot yet we have crystal clear photographs of them and have even studied them enough to understand their ecological impact.

http://news.national...436_600x450.jpg

Edited December 5, 2014 by S2F

[S2F]

What's your definition of concrete?

I would consider any evidence that was independently verifiable. Some things I would not consider concrete evidence: Footprint casts, blurry or poor quality pictures/video, inconclusive DNA evidence, Bigfoot in a freezer or other exposed hoaxes and last but not least, eyewitness testimony. Furthermore people like Dr. Ketchum or Matt Moneymaker (the complete list could take up an entire thread of it's own) are absolutely not the people you want to get data about Bigfoot from. Their credibility is abysmal and they are far too invested in the mythos to remain objective. Dr. Meldrum is probably the most credible Bigfoot proponent out there though that isn't saying much as his credibility has been stretched pretty thin in recent years.

[Merc14]

"Eyewitness reports, in all situations, are amongst the worst pieces of evidence there is. This is especially true at night and in densely wooded environments which is where most BF sightings occur. This Stanford Law School article http://agora.stanfor...her&tversky.htm does a great job of explaining why. It is not especially long and worth a read."

Is this what you were saying about the witnesses in Ferguson, whose testimony resulted in a no bill from the grand jury? It's only true if it fits the narrative though right?

Actually the forensic evidence is far more compelling than eyewitness accounts in Ferguson.

You make an assumption that I haven't heard all this before and it is a bad assumption. BF has been debated here fro a loooong time and I think I have seen just about all the evidence there is. It is all garbage. All you have is eyewitness accounts so I asked you to present your best example and you refuse to present it so what can I say.

It is not my fault that you have no physical evidence regarding a creature that is seen all over the US, not just in the deep wilderness, hence your 100,000 eyewitness accounts. Show us the #1 irrefutable eyewitness account from your "trained observer". I am assuming you completely blew off my link regarding eyewitnesses and that is ashamed.

When you believe in something as passionately as you seem to about this you should consider all aspects of the phenomenon before committing so much to it. I asked some very obvious questions that any rational person would consider and the total lack physical evidence is beyond troubling, it is a myth killer. You claim 1,000's of years of these things existing but not one piece of it has ever been found. That is bizarre.

You like to bring up strawmen so I'll bring up the fact that we have samples of creatures and very clear photographs from parts of the oceans that only a couple of men have ever been to. I am sure there is still a lot of unidentified creatures down there but I'll say they exist when we find them, not before. My point is that we have more evidence of bizarre creatures existing in one of the most inhospitable places on earth than we do of creatures living in the woods behind the house.

[KevinP]

Tira? There are some interesting sightings from credible people, and there are footprints, however the problem is without proof of the existence of a creature then they are only anecdotal. The guys here are largely skeptical, and that's a good thing because there are so many hoaxers, charlatans, and dare I say it, just plain idiots who either have an agenda or they simply get off on perpetrating a hoax. Sort of like the psychos who write viruses and put them up on the internet, they enjoy it and it makes them feel like they're twenty different kinds of awesome.

Now, there are accounts where someone has reported seeing a Bigfoot, and some of those aren't easily dismissed because the person had some credibility or something to lose by making the report. For instance there have been police officers who have reported seeing "a Bigfoot" or they reported seeing something large and hairy, but stop short of using the the "B" word. Now while these do carry a little more credibility than the average person, they aren't really proof of anything, other than the Officer reported he saw something and he isn't sure what it was.

Now I personally, would consider a report from someone like that something to consider and maybe take just a bit more seriously than a couple good old boys who were coming home from a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert late one night after consuming a couple cases of beer and burning a bag of weed. But because I take it more seriously, it's still not proof, in order to provide the level of proof required to convince myself and most of the guys and girls here it's going to take a body or skeleton. One that's been looked over by experts, real experts with letters after their names, DNA tested and verified by other real scientist who've put their results out for the scientific community as a whole to look over and consider.

It's an extraordinary claim and as a result requires extraordinary proof. Fuzzy photos, blurry video and some footprints can be faked too easily.

[J. K.]

Check out http://www.bfro.net/. A lot of work has gone into that website, including several thousand eyewitness reports. If the site is totally fiction, what does the web author gain?