Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
david4121

Do bigfoots exist really?

532 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Carnoferox
1 minute ago, Razumov said:

Your claim the paper wasn't about Bigfoot is bizarre.

It's pretty much entirely about the yeti, which isn't the same as bigfoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
6 hours ago, PrisonerX said:

The best part of being in the know, is that you don't feel obligated at all to prove anything to anybody. 

When people doubt and mock it just becomes all the more enjoyable.

Predictably you'll call this another empty post, and that will give me more joy than you could imagine. Because if you haven't yet figured it out, I'm not here to convince anybody at all.

I'm here solely to amuse myself at you and your ilks expense, while simply telling the truth - Sasquatch is real, and compartments within the government already know about it.

It is amusing how somehow can predict that their vacuous post is vacuous.

The reality is that sasquatch does not exist and no amount of frivolous appeals to government cover up changes the minds of people above a third grade intellect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
6 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

#1 saying "it leaves no trace of itself" is dubious unless you DEBUNK all the eyewitnesses.

#2 you cannot eliminate a large ape **without EVIDENCE** at least, and perhaps, proof.

But then again, you're the mighty you and you can do anything you want. Screw science!

The witnesses have little bearing on this since we all know how poor witnesses are. Any check of news accounts shows the poor quality of witnesses.

There have been no new apes reported that have not been observed for long periods of time.

I love it when people say screw science. it simply reveals the uneducated nature of the poster.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
3 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 

Yea everyone that comes in here says that.:huh:  I still can't figure out their attraction to BF threads. Maybe they think they are social justice warriors trying to save me from myself. Who knows. LOL

It is just that people from Wooville make my teeth itch.

Share this post


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

The bigfoot samples were inconsequential and all turned to out to be from known animals.

Were any of them "human"?

Share this post


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

It's a very weak case with a lot of grasping at straws. Not only are gibbons small, but their general morphology differs from the hominid-like characteristics of most cryptohominids.

I postulated that the wildman known as Orang Pendek in Malaysia was in fact the Siamang. Both are reported at around 3 feet high and both appear in the remote jungle areas.

It wouldn't be crazy for another type of gibbon to be as tall as 4 feet tall and spend more time on the ground. From what I've read the people of China about 3000 years ago were only a foot or so taller at around 5 feet tall. Such a critter would have seemed like a wild man.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I simply find it hard to believe that BF exists because no carcass has been found despite decades of looking. Fires, floods, storms, lightning all kill other animals. 

Lots of reports come in. There are loads of trail cams out there. People supposedly find tracks but not anything other than tracks. 

Consider the snow leopard. It numbers less than 5,000 yet it is filmed in the wild. It is elusive and lives far out yet it is regularly observed and filmed.

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

You are right that there is no Known bones, or DNA evidence. However there are many trail cam pics, and videos, which show something that Could be a furry wild man. That you want to explain those using other animals doesn't necessarily make what you think true.

14 hours ago, stereologist said:

I like to think of this as a pile of manure. Make the world's biggest pile of manure and there are no gems in there, just manure.

The idea of a large pile of manure having a 1 in a million chance of a gem in there is false. It is still 0.

Actually, if someone SAW a gemstone tossed into the pile of manure, then the logical assumption would be that it is in there. People have seen bigfoot, and taken pictures and videos of what they say is bigfoot. Thus searching through the manure pile is not 0% chance, because there is actually something there that needs to be explained.

Dismissing hypothesis is fine, just call it opinion, not fact. Even saying that the overwhelming past evidence concludes.... is fine. But saying 0% is just bad logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimalists

Why don't some one just produce a damn body (or skeletal remains) and we can lay this to rest once and for all...Weather this author or that author or this paper or that paper proves a Bigfoot is irrelevant at this point..Bigfoot rests in the imagination of some ones psyche and amounts to no more than a cultural phenomena steeped in urban legend.....If the creature actually exists it should not take going on 11 pages on an internet forum to prove it....So far no one has produced anything even remotely close to even circumstantial  evidence that would prove this creature.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

You are right that there is no Known bones, or DNA evidence. However there are many trail cam pics, and videos, which show something that Could be a furry wild man. That you want to explain those using other animals doesn't necessarily make what you think true.

Actually, if someone SAW a gemstone tossed into the pile of manure, then the logical assumption would be that it is in there. People have seen bigfoot, and taken pictures and videos of what they say is bigfoot. Thus searching through the manure pile is not 0% chance, because there is actually something there that needs to be explained.

Dismissing hypothesis is fine, just call it opinion, not fact. Even saying that the overwhelming past evidence concludes.... is fine. But saying 0% is just bad logic.

The best video I saw was easy to understand once someone ponted out it looked like teenagers in the woods smoking weed at night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
11 hours ago, stereologist said:

The witnesses have little bearing on this since we all know how poor witnesses are. Any check of news accounts shows the poor quality of witnesses.

There have been no new apes reported that have not been observed for long periods of time.

I love it when people say screw science. it simply reveals the uneducated nature of the poster.

 

The hallmark of a troll is to LIE like a rug.And you're doing a great job.

I have just recently posted the article of the new ape that has been discovered. They used the word "new" in that article  (I would have said uncovered, it is old)

When I referenced people who say "Screw science", I was paraphrasing YOU and your troll ilk.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
5 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I have just recently posted the article of the new ape that has been discovered. They used the word "new" in that article  (I would have said uncovered, it is old)

It's an extinct ape irrelevant to the discussion of living undiscovered species.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
5 hours ago, Alien Origins said:

Why don't some one just produce a damn body (or skeletal remains) and we can lay this to rest once and for all...Weather this author or that author or this paper or that paper proves a Bigfoot is irrelevant at this point..Bigfoot rests in the imagination of some ones psyche and amounts to no more than a cultural phenomena steeped in urban legend.....If the creature actually exists it should not take going on 11 pages on an internet forum to prove it....So far no one has produced anything even remotely close to even circumstantial  evidence that would prove this creature.

 

Why do you say that, Alien Origins?

Nobody has ever seen a neutrino either but we know it exists because of the trail it makes in a hydrogen bubble chamber.

In other words, if BF leaves BF tracks, then we know it exists.

Personally, I do not believe all eyewitnesses are mistaken or lying, and I don't think all BF tracks are artificial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
4 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

It's an extinct ape irrelevant to the discussion of living undiscovered species.

Oh, all of a sudden you're in the discussion? Ok.

The new species of ape (their term) IS relevant to the discussion. It speaks volumes for proving that just because humans have not discovered it, does not mean it does not exist.

Dude get with the program. Well over 80% of all species have yet to be discovered. That means those species exist or existed yet we do not know about it.

Now, please DON'T lecture me like you're an authority about how that science cannot be referencing big apes UNLESS YOU GET THAT ON AUTHORITY.

Otherwise, I'll just throw it into the spam bucket.

Share this post


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

Were any of them "human"?

Out of the 18 purported bigfoot samples only one was human, while the rest were from were from bears, horses, cows, sheep, deer, dogs, raccoons, and porcupines. 

6 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I postulated that the wildman known as Orang Pendek in Malaysia was in fact the Siamang. Both are reported at around 3 feet high and both appear in the remote jungle areas.

It wouldn't be crazy for another type of gibbon to be as tall as 4 feet tall and spend more time on the ground. From what I've read the people of China about 3000 years ago were only a foot or so taller at around 5 feet tall. Such a critter would have seemed like a wild man.

Gibbons don't match a lot of the characteristics reported for the yeti or almas, and their arboreal habits and morphology suggest against them being any cryptohominid.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
29 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Oh, all of a sudden you're in the discussion? Ok.

The new species of ape (their term) IS relevant to the discussion. It speaks volumes for proving that just because humans have not discovered it, does not mean it does not exist.

Dude get with the program. Well over 80% of all species have yet to be discovered. That means those species exist or existed yet we do not know about it.

Now, please DON'T lecture me like you're an authority about how that science cannot be referencing big apes UNLESS YOU GET THAT ON AUTHORITY.

Otherwise, I'll just throw it into the spam bucket.

I've been in this thread before you even were.:lol: A small extinct ape in Africa from 12 million years ago doesn't make finding a giant living ape in North America any more likely. This is as laughable as your nonsensical red wolf comparison.

Edited by Carnoferox
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimalists
45 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Why do you say that, Alien Origins?

Nobody has ever seen a neutrino either but we know it exists because of the trail it makes in a hydrogen bubble chamber.

In other words, if BF leaves BF tracks, then we know it exists.

Personally, I do not believe all eyewitnesses are mistaken or lying, and I don't think all BF tracks are artificial.

Show me a body...Then we can continue this discussion...Until then none of your dogs are hunting. I would just like to add that there is no evidence of apes ever being in North America...Now there are monkeys in South America. Is it likely one made its way this far North? Not likely unless it hitched a ride on a banana boat....And you cannot miss an 8 foot monkey! Can you produce evidence that there were apes indigenous to North America? And I don't think Gigantopithecus ever made it over the Bering Land Bridge.

 

Edited by Alien Origins
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam
52 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

In other words, if BF leaves BF tracks, then we know it exists.

But there are no bigfoot tracks relating to a bigfoot - bigfoot.

Can you show an alleged bigfoot track, that would entail an actual track and not a cast of a one footprint going or coming from nowhere.

Edited by freetoroam
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
1 hour ago, Carnoferox said:

I've been in this thread before you even were.:lol: A small extinct ape in Africa from 12 million years ago doesn't make finding a giant living ape in North America any more likely. This is as laughable as your nonsensical red wolf comparison.

key word - "likely".

You do realize you have no exact science to back you when you start saying what is likely and what isn't, right?

Did science say it was likely or unlikely we would ever find one of those giant squids that sailor folk lore told us about? If scientists did speak up on it, I bet they said it was very *likely* we'd never find one, it's very likely such a creature does not nor did not exist.

Same for Gigantopithecus. Before 1935, if one claimed that we'd find remains of a 10 foot tall big ape, science would likely laugh in their face.

 

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
55 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

But there are no bigfoot tracks relating to a bigfoot - bigfoot.

Can you show an alleged bigfoot track, that would entail an actual track and not a cast of a one footprint going or coming from nowhere.

Hi freetoroam.

this angle that you come in on is quite curious. you seem think without proof that all casts of BF prints are fake. that's fine.

here is a *possible* analogy:

For many years whale hunters knew that big markings on whales indicated that whales had been in attacks by giant squid.

All the excusenics came up with "more likely" explanations for the markings.

Sure, now that the cat is officially out of the bag, we all agree that the huge markings on whales did in fact come from the suction cups of the giant squid.

We don't know if this analogy really fits because a BF has yet to be discovered. As far as the prints go, unless reputable scientists debunk them ALL, then we simply DON'T KNOW for sure. AS I have opined before, I don't think all prints are forgeries and I don't think all eyewitnesses are giving false information. For me, it's a numbers game and an endurance game. This theory of Big Hairy Man has been in America for 15,000 years or more. that's way too long for a practical joke to keep on going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimalists
32 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

key word - "likely".

You do realize you have no exact science to back you when you start saying what is likely and what isn't, right?

Did science say it was likely or unlikely we would ever find one of those giant squids that sailor folk lore told us about? If scientists did speak up on it, I bet they said it was very *likely* we'd never find one, it's very likely such a creature does not nor did not exist.

Same for Gigantopithecus. Before 1935, if one claimed that we'd find remains of a 10 foot tall big ape, science would likely laugh in their face.

 

Still waiting for proof apes were in North America....

 

Edited by Alien Origins
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam
26 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Hi freetoroam.

this angle that you come in on is quite curious. you seem think without proof that all casts of BF prints are fake. that's fine.

here is a *possible* analogy:

For many years whale hunters knew that big markings on whales indicated that whales had been in attacks by giant squid.

All the excusenics came up with "more likely" explanations for the markings.

Sure, now that the cat is officially out of the bag, we all agree that the huge markings on whales did in fact come from the suction cups of the giant squid.

We don't know if this analogy really fits because a BF has yet to be discovered. As far as the prints go, unless reputable scientists debunk them ALL, then we simply DON'T KNOW for sure. AS I have opined before, I don't think all prints are forgeries and I don't think all eyewitnesses are giving false information. For me, it's a numbers game and an endurance game. This theory of Big Hairy Man has been in America for 15,000 years or more. that's way too long for a practical joke to keep on going.

Blar blar blar.

Where are the tracks?

tenor.gif

 

 

Edited by freetoroam
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
13 minutes ago, Alien Origins said:

Still waiting for proof apes were in North America....

 

That's fine! You're a doubting Thomas. No prob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trelane

My own doubt is formed from my personal experiences out in the wild and never once encountering the creature. Additionally I have never seen or found any form of evidence or proof of the animal's existence. Mind you this is from exploring many remote areas in the U.S. and Canada over 24 years, so not a small sample size.

As I have stated, I have really wanted the animal to exist but there's nothing out there. Nothing at all.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimalists
5 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

That's fine! You're a doubting Thomas. No prob.

Just what I thought..You have no evidence to prove apes were ever in North America..So how did this ape get here? He come over on a banana boat? I mean he got here some how right? Since we know GP never crossed the Bering Land Bridge we can rule GP out...No apes made the trek from South America to North America so they can be ruled out.....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
20 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

Blar blar blar.

Where are the tracks?

tenor.gif

 

 

 

Yikes. I couldn't guess. But 150 of them are kept in a  lab at University of Idaho State, Jeff Meldrum

nat-geo link

"Investigator Jimmy Chilcutt of the Conroe Police Department in Texas, who specializes in finger- and footprints, has analyzed the more than 150 casts of Bigfoot prints that Meldrum, the Idaho State professor, keeps in a laboratory.

Chilcutt says one footprint found in 1987 in Walla Walla in Washington State has convinced him that Bigfoot is real.

"The ridge flow pattern and the texture was completely different from anything I've ever seen," he said. "It certainly wasn't human, and of no known primate that I've examined. The print ridges flowed lengthwise along the foot, unlike human prints, which flow across. The texture of the ridges was about twice the thickness of a human, which indicated that this animal has a real thick skin." "

 

So when someone says "it is proven" that all BF prints are fake, they're wrong. If it was proven, this Chilcutt would believe them. He doesn't. Many others don't either.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.