Bigfoot - A real animal or a hoax?

[Dradan]

I would like to start a fresh debate about Bigfoot for a couple of reasons.

As most of you know, the fascinating thing about a creaute like Bigfoot, is the fact that there is a small chance that such a creature could indeed exist, when you consider the theories about how we, as humans, are species who are evolved from apes and how these primates could actually be our ancestors, unlike similar cryptozoological creatures such as the lochness monster and mokele mbembe, which are fun to think about, but without any logical evidence or biological reasoning behind them.

As for the evidence of Bigfoot existing or not existing at all, I am going to include probably the most controversional piece of evidence for us to discuss, the 952 frames of film shot in 1967 by amateur film makers Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin. People can share their thoughts on what speaks both for and against this film being a hoax, but I am going to break this film down into facts so we can have a better look and understanding of the credibility of the Patterson film.

The Patterson Film

1. This speaks for the film being genuine:

- The creature in the film

. (4:04). Constructing a gorilla suit with such details would be a major task for two amateur film makers in 1969.

- An experiment conducted by a group of scientists from the university of minnesota came to the conclusion that the gait of the creature in the film is impossible for a human to imitate. (14:05).

- Digital microscopical examination

. (3:58)

- The placement of the mouth on the creature is far below its nose, similar to chimpanzees and apes. (42:02) Wearing a mask with such details while still maintaining the ability to open and close your mouth would be somewhat problematic.

-

. (3:45). Most of the Bigfoot sightings in the 1960's were based on encounters with a male Bigfoot, so building a female gorilla suit for a hoax doesn't seem to make any sense.

- A lot of people have claimed to be the man wearing a suit in the Patterson film, however no one has ever been able to provide credible evidence for their claims.

- The film was shot in 1969. People are still struggling to come up with a similar video or a film to show and prove how easy it is to produce a Bigfoot hoax with a man in a suit that matches that of the Patterson film.

- The creature releases what appears to be a surprised facial expression as it turns its head and looks at the camera filming it. If it is a hoax that has been staged, then it should hardly come as a surprise for the actor wearing a mask, that he or she is being filmed.

- Science has gone into extremes by using microscopical examination as well as hiring a trained athlete in attempt to produce evidence that would point towards the subject in the Patterson film being a man in a suit, but without success.

2. This speaks against the film being genuine:

- In the exact same day as Roger Patterson decides to go out and look for a Bigfoot, he coincidentally finds... a bigfoot. Seems a bit suspicious, given the fact that people have spend years looking for Bigfoot without finding anything.

- Bob Gimlin claims that he regrets that he was involved in the bigfoot sighting (44:01), but several videos on youtube reveals

.

- Since the film was shot, no bones or bigfoot carcass has been found near the film site. Dinosaur fossils have been found several places on earth, but no remains from a bigfoot population has ever been discovered anywhere on the planet.

I would like if we could discuss the subject and share our theories about Bigfoot, as well as bringing up arguments as to why Bigfoot might exist, or why it never did exist in the first place. Also, since this board seems to have a reasonable amount of users, we could try and see if we could perhaps come to a final conclusion about the Patterson film, based on the knowledge that we currently have about the film as well as by evaluating whether the claims are stronger than the counterclaims and vice versa. We have had more than 40 years to study the film, so I think it is the right time to have a conversation about it and see which side, be it the skeptics or the believers, are currently holding the best cards.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

You could have left a third option, really.

3. The Patterson film was fake BUT Big Foot is still a real animal

Other than that, no problem-o

[Mr.United_Nations]

another bigfoot thread? do we really need another?

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

2. This speaks against the film being genuine:

I'd like to take a shot here:

- In the exact same day as Roger Patterson decides to go out and look for a Bigfoot, he coincidentally finds... a bigfoot. Seems a bit suspicious, given the fact that people have spend years looking for Bigfoot without finding anything.

MEANS NOTHING. Patterson had been looking for YEARS, btw.

- Bob Gimlin claims that he regrets that he was involved in the bigfoot sighting (44:01), but several videos on youtube reveals

.

Again, MEANS NOTHING.

- Since the film was shot, no bones or bigfoot carcass has been found near the film site. Dinosaur fossils have been found several places on earth, but no remains from a bigfoot population has ever been discovered anywhere on the planet.

BF bones have never been found *anywhere* ever. This basically means NOTHING, as well.

The reason why bones cannot be found *may* have an answer, one that of course, no one knows.

And that sounds like it has to be the case because Big Foot does exist.

another bigfoot thread? do we really need another?

We need... HUNDREDS of them!! Heeeee-HAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[Neognosis]

• BF bones have never been found *anywhere* ever. This basically means NOTHING, as well.

False.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Llalesay's post was a good one.

When I think a bit more on it,,

Reasons were listed as to why the animal is thought to be real. Answers listed had nothing to do with Patterson, Gimlin, or anyone else, it had to do with "qualities" of that animal/human-in-a-monkey-suit in that film.

Now, for Antis to come up with some "legit" reasons as to why that Man/Monkey is not real, your reasons should pertain to that film of that creature ONLY. Paterson has nothing to do with it. Gimlin has nothing to do with it. It's either a man in a monkey suit or a big foot. People in China could discern just as well, and they know nothing about all this other side-show material.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

• 
  

False.

prove it

[Rafterman]

prove it

Ah, the old prove it switcharoo. Classic.

Everyone knows you cannot prove a negative. But what can be proven is whether or not Bigfoot exists and, unfortunately, that has never been done.

Perhaps you would like to share your evidence?

[+OverSword]

The sheer number of sightings by witnesses from all walks of life would indicate that something may be out there.

I for one don't see how anyone could look at the patterson film and yell fake when looking at all of the attempted fakes since then which don't even come close to the level of believability the patterson creature has decades later.

[Q-C]

Aw, Llalesay where's the fun in coming to a consensus?

[Neognosis]

prove it

You cannot prove a negative.

However, the lack of any physical evidence is extremely telling. So is the sum of all our knowledge about the ecosystem that bigfoot is supposed to live in. It is beyond extremely unlikely that a giant ape species could exist in any north american ecosystem without leaving a very observable "footprint" on that ecosystem.

The sheer number of sightings by witnesses from all walks of life would indicate that something may be out there.

Also false.

As is the idea that there are very many reliable sightings. The idea that there are a large number of sightings by reliable witnesses directly contradicts the lack of any physical evidence. The conclusion is obvious.

[Thorvir]

No proof of bigfoot's existence. So, for now, bigfoot isn't real. The film was and is a hoax.

Glad to be part of yet another bigfoot thread. Sheesh.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Thorvir Hrothgaard

[theotherguy]

If I asked this question in another thread I apologize for repeating myself, but on the subject of physical evidence, does anybody know how often physical evidence of wild mountain gorillas is found? How many naturally dead gorillas are found in a given year? How about food, scat, anything like that? Their (presumed) habitats are similar--forested, mountainous, difficult to reach--and I think they would have a similar social structure and lifespan. Can a schmo with a camera and high hopes find evidence of gorillas in a couple of days of looking? If so, I'm much less inclined to believe in Bigfoot. If not, though...

Maybe some day when I have a few thousand dollars and hours to spare, I might take basic Bigfoot-tracking supplies to Africa and see if I can find evidence of a confirmed species with that equipment.

[Thorvir]

If I asked this question in another thread I apologize for repeating myself...

No, it's not you. Bigfoot threads pop up all the time, at seemingly random intervals. And there's nothing new provided; and never any "evidence" of course.

But that's okay. You're not doing any harm with your thread. Just thought I would point it out.

[+OverSword]

Also false.

As is the idea that there are very many reliable sightings. The idea that there are a large number of sightings by reliable witnesses directly contradicts the lack of any physical evidence. The conclusion is obvious.

So over the last 100 years there have not been hundreds of sightings, many by reputable people such as police officers or forest rangers? Right.

[SpiritWriter]

So over the last 100 years there have not been hundreds of sightings, many by reputable people such as police officers or forest rangers? Right.

Big foot is real!!!

:-)

OS did you get my msg? Check your profile feed.

[Q-C]

If I asked this question in another thread I apologize for repeating myself, but on the subject of physical evidence, does anybody know how often physical evidence of wild mountain gorillas is found? How many naturally dead gorillas are found in a given year? How about food, scat, anything like that? Their (presumed) habitats are similar--forested, mountainous, difficult to reach--and I think they would have a similar social structure and lifespan. Can a schmo with a camera and high hopes find evidence of gorillas in a couple of days of looking? If so, I'm much less inclined to believe in Bigfoot. If not, though...

Maybe some day when I have a few thousand dollars and hours to spare, I might take basic Bigfoot-tracking supplies to Africa and see if I can find evidence of a confirmed species with that equipment.

A census in 2011 recorded fewer than 900 mountain gorillas left in the wild. http://www.awf.org/w...untain-gorilla. They must use something concrete to come up with that 900 number.

Where is the scientific NA bigfoot census?

Google mountain gorillas. Their is no lack of available documented images and reputable sites with information on these animals. The public can even view them in zoos. We've touched them, studied them, located them in the wild, photographed them, captured them, etc. I don't understand the comparison to a North American bigfoot.

Edited August 26, 2014 by QuiteContrary

[evancj]

If I asked this question in another thread I apologize for repeating myself, but on the subject of physical evidence, does anybody know how often physical evidence of wild mountain gorillas is found?

I think your question is moot as Gorillas are 100% real, we are not dependent on finding their dead to prove they exist. Bigfoot on the other hand never succumbs to disease, injury, or old age.

Apparently if you happen to be in Africa in the areas where gorillas are found all you need to do is go to the local bush meat market and you can find all sorts of physical evidence. Sometime they will even sell you the orphaned babies.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/photogalleries/bushmeat_2/

https://www.google.com/search?q=gorillas+at+bush+meat+market&client=firefox-a&hs=5vQ&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=nts&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=qgj9U5a1C5KQyASSoIGIAg&ved=0CEsQsAQ&biw=1344&bih=664&dpr=1.25

The billy ape, was discovered from a found skull.

How many naturally dead gorillas are found in a given year?

I have never been able to find numbers on that, and I have looked. Then again why would a local report such a thing anyway? Finding dead apes in the jungle happens, see the example below.

http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/2014/08/13/deadly-ebola-virus-wiping-out-gorilla-population-across-africa/

One day in 1996, boys from a village in northern Gabon brought home a chimpanzee they found dead in the forest. The villagers butchered it for food. That act set off an Ebola outbreak that killed 21 people, according to the World Health Organization. Years later, on a reporting trip in Gabon, author David Quammen met two men from the village who were there during the outbreak. At the time Ebola was ravaging their village and their families, they noticed something strange. In the forest nearby, 13 gorillas lay dead. Thirteen dead gorillas, 21 dead humans.

How about food, scat, anything like that? Their (presumed) habitats are similar--forested, mountainous, difficult to reach--and I think they would have a similar social structure and lifespan. Can a schmo with a camera and high hopes find evidence of gorillas in a couple of days of looking? If so, I'm much less inclined to believe in Bigfoot. If not, though...

Maybe some day when I have a few thousand dollars and hours to spare, I might take basic Bigfoot-tracking supplies to Africa and see if I can find evidence of a confirmed species with that equipment.

The local poachers and Eco-tourist guides have no problem tracking gorillas in the forest. Apparently they (the gorillas) make quite the impression on their environment and can be tracked quite easily if you know what your looking at.

http://www.gorillas-world.com/gorilla-habitat/

If you pay close attention to the signs in the vegetation you will be able to tell if gorillas have recently been there or not. One of the best signs is those of their nests where they would have slept. They also have a clearing method that they use for feeding so you will see definite paths along the way that show they have been through there recently.

If they have been in an area recently, it may smell like sweat from humans. They will also leave behind quite a bit of waste from their bodies so the smell you come upon may not be one you want to have lingering!

[evancj]

So over the last 100 years there have not been hundreds of sightings, many by reputable people such as police officers or forest rangers? Right.

Ones profession does not necessarily make one reliable.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

Ah, the old prove it switcharoo. Classic.

Everyone knows you cannot prove a negative. But what can be proven is whether or not Bigfoot exists and, unfortunately, that has never been done.

Perhaps you would like to share your evidence?

Just for your edification, of course I busted his chops, as he busted mine.

I made two statements in sentence form. His "FALSE" is a totally ridiculous ballbreaking claim.

catching my drift? two wrongs don't make a right but the 2nd one tastes to damn good for me to pass up on.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

You cannot prove a negative.

However, the lack of any physical evidence is extremely telling.

Firstly, you never told me what was "FALSE", and you still haven't. (there were two sentences that you quoted}

2nd, you're right, the lack IS telling, but you act like you know what it tells.

American Indians think it tells that the BF transcends dimensions. So, again, PROVE IT

Your below thrust falls apart just as easily.

So is the sum of all our knowledge about the ecosystem that bigfoot is supposed to live in. It is beyond extremely unlikely that a giant ape species could exist in any north american ecosystem without leaving a very observable "footprint" on that ecosystem.

Also false.

As is the idea that there are very many reliable sightings. The idea that there are a large number of sightings by reliable witnesses directly contradicts the lack of any physical evidence. The conclusion is obvious.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Earl.Of.Trumps

[+OverSword]

Ones profession does not necessarily make one reliable.

So true. That statement does not negate the fact that there have been hundreds if not thousands of reported sightings going back further than europeans occupation on this continent. I'm not saying you have to believe it I was responding to another posters earlier post.

[+OverSword]

Why don't more people vote. Plenty post.

[Neognosis]

So over the last 100 years there have not been hundreds of sightings, many by reputable people such as police officers or forest rangers? Right.

Nope.

Not unless you have a very loose definition of "sighting."

[Neognosis]

American Indians think it tells that the BF transcends dimensions. So, again, PROVE IT

I don't have to prove anything. Because first, you cannot prove a negative, as has been pointed out several times already.

And second, the one making the claim has to come up with the proof.

And there is no evidence of bigfoot existing today. None. Not a single piece.

Do you understand how nature works, and why it is simply overwhelmingly unlikely that a giant ape could exist in the north american ecosystem without leaving an observable mark on it?

I ask because this has been written about on this forum ad nauseam, and I don't want to repeat it if you've already read it.

Yes, the lack of evidence is telling. It tells us that it is overwhelmingly unlikely that a giant ape has been living in the north american ecosystem.

And I said "false" in response to the statement I quoted. Right above where I said "false." That's how a quote works on a forum like this. You quote something, then what appears directly after it is considered a response to the quote.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Neognosis