Bigfoot. Is it possible they exist?

[andnowweknow]

Just a thought if it is real, self aware and closer to human than other apes...

It may have been hunted by humans for centuries ...even millennia. It may have found certain areas humans have never settled in any numbers. It may have been living secluded from humans for thousands of years.

I would imagine that if the above were true this animal would have to be very close to us in intelligence but quite different in terms of levels of curiosity. It has to have such a tremendous fear of humans that it literally never strays far from remoteness.

For me this conversation elicicits more curiosity in the recent findings on other human family bipeds that lived very recently beside us (denisovan, Neanderthal, red deer cave people, hobbit man...and likely a few others). To me denisovan because of its possible size is most curious.

I honestly think there is no bigfoot and that many people have experiences that fool them. I certainly don't believe the majority of sightings are disingenuous accounts.

 

[minute bull]

MOTIVATED WEREWOLF IS A MYTH

 

[DoomPatrol]

Yep, just keep ignoring everything and cherry pick what you want.



Totally, every square inch of Canada has been walked across by humans! There are definitely not unexplored areas that have never been walked across, that may or may not equate to the size of India. Nope, definitely not.

I don't know what you think I'm ignoring, as I'm trying to answer a million different people directly calling me out. So sorry if I miss anything.

These areas aren't as empty as you think. This is 2015, there's not much out there that we don't know about anymore. Saying Sasquatch is realistically hiding in the woods is like saying werewolves, chupacabre, fairies, trolls, and mermaids are possibly hiding in the woods. Sure, anything is possible, but it's really not probable. I'm pretty sure our biologists know that Bigfoot isn't hiding in the Canadian tundra or the Pacific Northwest Rainforest.

 

[BearGrounds]

No reasons yet ? Dodge noted.

Roadking man'd up and owned his position, that's respectable. What exactly are you doing? Still here arguing that something you absolutely dont believe has a great chance of being so? You make a decent point about remoteness, and instead of leaving it there ,decide to go on some Aspergers'esq tangent about bigfoot being Canadian. You're obviously too emotionally invested to hear any criticism and and then respond with any sort of cogent argument.

Did I call anyone any names? Disparage their mothers? You got your ass on your shoulders with me initially and you're still going, each post a little more whiney than the last. Cry more!

And yes ...it is hilarious, a literate first world adult seriously entertaining your silly opinion. Absolutely great stuff!

It's perfectly understandable for someone to generally disbelieve due to the lack of physical evidence, yet still think it possible based on other factors. That seems to me to be that poster's stance.

Also, Canada is and has always been one of the regions in question ITT. However, neither Canada nor the US are special in this regard. As has been stated in the OP, there's names for these animals all over the world. Russia, Australia, Nepal, etc.

I don't know what you think I'm ignoring, as I'm trying to answer a million different people directly calling me out. So sorry if I miss anything.

These areas aren't as empty as you think. This is 2015, there's not much out there that we don't know about anymore. Saying Sasquatch is realistically hiding in the woods is like saying werewolves, chupacabre, fairies, trolls, and mermaids are possibly hiding in the woods. Sure, anything is possible, but it's really not probable. I'm pretty sure our biologists know that Bigfoot isn't hiding in the Canadian tundra or the Pacific Northwest Rainforest.

Jane Goodall (arguably the worlds foremost expert on chimps) thought it was possible that they were out there.

“I’ve talked to so many native Americans who all describe the same sounds, two who have seen them,”

Canadian Wildlife Biologist Dr. John Bindernagel:

“Wildlife biologists such as myself regularly depend on tracks and other wildlife sign as evidence for the presence of bears, deer, wolves, and other mammals, recognizing that tracks constitute a more reliable and persistent record of the presence of a mammal species in an area than a fleeting glimpse of the animal itself. I am satisfied that the Sasquatch is an extant (or ‘real’) animal, subject to study and examination like any other large mammal, and am much more concerned with addressing ecological questions such as how it overwinters in the colder regions of North America, than with dwelling on the controversy of whether it does or does not exist.”

 

[God_Emperor_Of_Mankind]

And lol at the moutain gorilla being discovered 100 years ago. It was the first time a white man ever made a record of it. I wouldn't imagine too many white dudes were traversing the dense mountain rainforest of the Congo before the 20th century. Assuming the locals were unaware of their existence is pretty far out, and no offense to our Congolese posters but I highly doubt they were in any position to contribute to the scientific journals of Europe and North America

I am from congola and what is THIS SIR ?

 

[cmw43]

Just a thought if it is real, self aware and closer to human than other apes...

It may have been hunted by humans for centuries ...even millennia. It may have found certain areas humans have never settled in any numbers. It may have been living secluded from humans for thousands of years.

I would imagine that if the above were true this animal would have to be very close to us in intelligence but quite different in terms of levels of curiosity. It has to have such a tremendous fear of humans that it literally never strays far from remoteness.

For me this conversation elicicits more curiosity in the recent findings on other human family bipeds that lived very recently beside us (denisovan, Neanderthal, red deer cave people, hobbit man...and likely a few others). To me denisovan because of its possible size is most curious.

I honestly think there is no bigfoot and that many people have experiences that fool them. I certainly don't believe the majority of sightings are disingenuous accounts.

In the last 10 years they've discovered 6ft tall 'Lion Killer Chimps' in the remotest parts of the Congo, they're something in between Chimps and Gorilla's. They've got the size of Gorilla's but with chimp like skulls and behaviours.

If they'd found these in the Pacific Northwest I would've said there's your Bigfoot.

I don't think it's out of the realms of possibility that there could be similar creatures in the other places that have Bigfoot type sightings like the Himalaya's.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2007/jul/14/conservation.internationalnews

 

[ironwolf]

I don't know what you think I'm ignoring, as I'm trying to answer a million different people directly calling me out. So sorry if I miss anything.

These areas aren't as empty as you think. This is 2015, there's not much out there that we don't know about anymore. Saying Sasquatch is realistically hiding in the woods is like saying werewolves, chupacabre, fairies, trolls, and mermaids are possibly hiding in the woods. Sure, anything is possible, but it's really not probable. I'm pretty sure our biologists know that Bigfoot isn't hiding in the Canadian tundra or the Pacific Northwest Rainforest.

People still discover thug a with google earth that were never seen before. There's places in my home state of New Mexico where I'm sure I was the first person there. There are incredibly remote places on earth and while drones and stuff give us a better idea than before, I don't think it's hard to hide from drones.

 

[ironwolf]

Gasm is implying that Sasquatch is only in the US, hence his comment which is why I asked the question

You're not very good at this, are you?

I would like to see your debate about the existence of the invisible space ship, you may have better luck with that topic.

Nobody claimed that Sasquatch is only in the USA. You're pulling at straws here. One guy mentioned the USA he never said Sasquatches are only in the USA. Maybe you joined the thread late but China, Australia, USA and Canada have been discussed, I also mentioned Bhutan. Nobody is talking ahit about Canada, the dude just mentioned thre usa. If you want to fight with people come on over to the war room. Let's talk about bigfoots here!!!

 

[ironwolf]

People also recently discovered a beaver dam so big it defies all logic in Northern Alberta... and they found it using Google Earth. No one had actually been there. (A beaver dam so big that it's visible to satellites. WTF nature?)

But the quote you're responding to wasn't regarding the exploration of Alberta making sasquatch unlikely, but how even an animal that's known to have all the elusive qualities of the theoretical bigfoot is still seen all the time.

I remember reading about that beaver dam and some guys who made an expedition to go see it. It was funny because you can see it from the air, but once they got there, they could hardly see anything because it was grown over and wasn't high as much as it was flat and wide.

 

[MusclesMarinara]

Operating under the assumption bigfoot exists (Big leap, but let's go with for the sake of the discussion). Which species would you associate with creature?
1) Homo Heidelbergensis

Perhaps homo sapiens weren't the only ones to cross that land bridge? There are also tales of homo heidelbergensis who grew to almost giant proportions.

2) gigantopithecus

This guy definitely fits the description. But I'm not sure if the geographical range matches.
The image depicts why this beast would have such a great fear of man.

3) short faced bear

Notice the length of the limbs when it stands. The outline of this animal is almost giant humanoid in shape. Believed to have went extinct 11,000 years ago.

4) Some unknown new species
I would largely discount this as there is no fossil record to back this. And as others have said it is difficult to exist on this planet at that size without ever leaving a trace.

I'd like to see your proposed suspects or hear your thoughts on mine.

added bonus

 

[wellz6]

This guy seems like he is being honest about what he saw.

 

[MusclesMarinara]

I found this image while searching the subject

Am I the only one finding something familiar about this angle?

 

[ironwolf]

I'd say gigantopithecus as they fit the description rhe best.

 

[BearGrounds]

Yea, I'd go with Gigantopithecus as well. Big enough, arguments have been made it could have been upright walking, and it presumably sustained itself with a plant based diet.

Also, a number of the stories I've come across report the creatures having a conical head. This would be in-line with a giganto skull.

 

[MusclesMarinara]

The issue I have with gigantopithecus is the geographical range (in reference to the north american bigfoot). Further reading has indicated this species roamed, what is to be considered, modern day India, China, and Vietnam.
Perhaps this is a viable link to the yeti?

 

[BearGrounds]

The issue I have with gigantopithecus is the geographical range (in reference to the north american bigfoot). Further reading has indicated this species roamed, what is to be considered, modern day India, China, and Vietnam.
Perhaps this is a viable link to the yeti?

Found this link from the BFRO ( Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization ) when searching about Gigantopithecus brain casing.

The Bigfoot-Giganto Theory

http://www.bfro.net/ref/theories/mjm/whatrtha.asp

Here's what they had to say on that,

"Bigfoot-Giganto theorists believe that Gigantos' large brain size (perhaps the largest in the terrestrial animal kingdom) and upright-walking posture facilitated their dispersion across Asia and North America. Thousands of years of adaptation to temperate and mountainous climates, it is believed, would have given these large upright walking apes the ability to tolerate cold temperatures, climb through deep snow, and cross high mountain ranges with relative ease."

 

[Deleted member 409801]

Operating under the assumption bigfoot exists (Big leap, but let's go with for the sake of the discussion). Which species would you associate with creature?
1) Homo Heidelbergensis

Perhaps homo sapiens weren't the only ones to cross that land bridge? There are also tales of homo heidelbergensis who grew to almost giant proportions.

2) gigantopithecus

This guy definitely fits the description. But I'm not sure if the geographical range matches.
The image depicts why this beast would have such a great fear of man.

3) short faced bear

Notice the length of the limbs when it stands. The outline of this animal is almost giant humanoid in shape. Believed to have went extinct 11,000 years ago.

4) Some unknown new species
I would largely discount this as there is no fossil record to back this. And as others have said it is difficult to exist on this planet at that size without ever leaving a trace.

I'd like to see your proposed suspects or hear your thoughts on mine.

added bonus

My guess would be giagantopithecus or a cousin anyway considering the proximity to the old land bridge and the physical characteristics described.

 

[MusclesMarinara]

fair enough.. If I am willing to accept homo heidelbergensis crossing the land bridge I should accept the same from gigantopithecus.

 

[MMouse]

Bob Heironimus wore the suit in the Patterson film and took a lie detector test to prove he is telling the truth.



Nobody else involved, who claim it wasn't Bob in a suit, have ever taken a lie detector test though they were asked.

so it's been debunked patterson film is a fraud?

does he have the exact suit in the film?

 

[BKMMAFAN]

I don't think it's out of the realms of possibility that there could be similar creatures in the other places that have Bigfoot type sightings like the Himalaya's.

The chances are so extremely remote as to effectively put it outside the realm of 'possibility'. There just isn't any credible evidence to suggest the plausibility of such theories. The Himalayas are about as opposite of an environment from tropical Africa as you can get. The likelihood that it could support a very large, undetected bipedal ape is extremely unlikely. It's even more unlikely to be true when it comes to the Pacific NW.

I can understand how some people would want to believe in 'bigfoot' or 'yeti', but to suspend your rationality in the complete absence of compelling evidence for their existence is to do yourself a disservice.