Bigfoot. Is it possible they exist?

JosephDredd said:
Mountain lions intrigue me because, in Northern Alberta, they're basically like Batman.They deliberately stay out of sight and you only ever see a foot or a tail as it disappears into the wilderness. A phrase commonly heard to describe them is, "If you see a mountain lion it's because it's attacking you."

So even a creature with that kind of reputation for stealth and subterfuge is spotted all the time.
Click to expand...

I know.. It's crazy.
You, jgarner, Al Gorithm and others in this thread have made the point that for a species as large as, and as numerous as the sightings seem to suggest, to not leave any trace of concrete evidence behind. Or to not have been captured at least on film is ludicrous. And, you guys are probably right.. At least your viewpoints make the most sense.

For me, here's what I can't get my mind around... The Frank Church Wilderness Area which is inside Idaho's state lines (I'm using Idaho because I live here) is TWO times larger than the state of Delaware, and FOUR times the size of the state Rhode Island.

To me, that suggests a 150 Bigfeet friends and relatives could be walking around shitting on trees, clipping their toenails everywhere, and sunning themselves on large boulders and we'd never know. Delaware and Rhode Island's combined population in a combined area six times smaller than this one wilderness area, is over 4.5 million.

I don't believe Bigfoot is real. But I believe if he was, we'd be hard pressed to locate him.
 
RoadKing Custom said:
I know.. It's crazy.
You, jgarner, Al Gorithm and others in this thread have made the point that for a species as large as, and as numerous as the sightings seem to suggest, to not leave any trace of concrete evidence behind. Or to not have been captured at least on film is ludicrous. And, you guys are probably right.. At least your viewpoints make the most sense.

For me, here's what I can't get my mind around... The Frank Church Wilderness Area which is inside Idaho's state lines (I'm using Idaho because I live here) is TWO times larger than the state of Delaware, and FOUR times the size of the state Rhode Island.

To me, that suggests a 150 Bigfeet friends and relatives could be walking around shitting on trees, clipping their toenails everywhere, and sunning themselves on large boulders and we'd never know. Delaware and Rhode Island's combined population in a combined area six times smaller than this one wilderness area, is over 4.5 million.

I don't believe Bigfoot is real. But I believe if he was, we'd be hard pressed to locate him.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to straddle both sides of the fence. I don't believe, but I also have huge respect for how vast and unknowable the wilderness is.
 
andnowweknow said:
I don't think it exists so I'm not really sure why I would need to present anything to the contrary. The fact there are dinosaurs bones doesn't eliminated a sasquatch, that's shit reasoning. The idea that "we would have found it already" makes zero sense as well considering how much uninhabitated and unexplored (in depth, on the ground) land there is in the continental united states let alone other parts of the world.

Here's a large animal that was thought to have been extinct long ago, but because it existed very remotely it wasn't rediscovered until the last few years.

A Stone-Age Horse Still Roams a Tibetan Plateau
By MARLISE SIMONS
Published: November 12, 1995
PARIS, Nov. 10— Deep in Tibet, in a high and icy valley, the explorers came upon the first of the enigmatic creatures. They saw one, and then three of them grazing in the open forest. Soon, to their astonishment, a whole herd of the unusual horses appeared.

"They looked completely archaic, like the horses in prehistoric cave paintings," said Michel Peissel, a French ethnologist and the expedition leader. "We thought it was just a freak, then we saw they were all alike."

A team of French and British explorers, who have just returned here from a six-week expedition in Tibet, say they believe that they found an ancient breed of horse previously unknown to scientists.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/11/12/world/a-stone-age-horse-still-roams-a-tibetan-plateau.html
Click to expand...
It turn out that was a just a regular horse.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riwoche_horse
 
Mr Jay said:
I didn't condescendingly shoot down any of JosephDredd's points. If you are referring to jgarner, then maybe you should read jgarner's responses? I don't seem to call anyone "retarded", etc. like he did. I find it odd that you are getting upset for me pointing out his flaws.

The logical arguments for Sasquatch's non-existence have already been covered. Why would I waste my time parroting what tons of people have already done in this thread? I would rather spend my time, pointing out how the condescending guy acting like he's the smartest person in the room has some flaws in his arguments.

In regards to your "boots on the ground" comment. Did you know the population of Canada is 35.16 million and that about 80% of that Canadian population lives in urban areas, which is about about 28.13 million? This leaves about 7 million people to live in the rest of the country, which is 9.985 km2. Now considering that a fair chunk of Canada literally has never been trekked by human's before. Don't you think there may be a chance that a 200+ pound mammal could still be undiscovered?

Better yet, how about you go into the uncharted Canadian territory and see how long you can live without finding anyone. I bet you could live quite the peaceful life if you knew what you were doing.
Click to expand...


I don't recall you acquiescing to any of the" logical " points in the thread , my apologies if you did. If the natives of this continent and their tens of thousands of years of living in harmony with nature can exist outside of modern mans sight , why can " bigfoot" ? Why should I believe its probable enough to be entertained as a possibility?

It's funny how non of the pro big foot camp will actually own their position. " I don't believe it ( why not if its so plainly possible) , but ot could totally be true"

Maybe you should listen to that little voice that says " maybe I shouldn't admit to believing this in public".......there is a reason that voice is there.
 
JosephDredd said:
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.
Click to expand...

Totally, nature is completely insane. But how crazy nature is, to me, is the only thing that gives the pro-Sasquatch argument any validity. Nature has created some insane things that people never expected to exist. I'm not saying that the Bigfoot, telepathy, mind reading mammal who teleports or visits other dimensions can exist, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone found a 200+ pound mammal who existed currently, or in the past, that matched Bigfoots physical description in an uncharted territory in say, Canada.

Again, I just find it odd how the argument against Sasquatch people seem to favor is "we would have found him already", as if human's have explored every inch of this planet (when we have not).

In regards to the elusive qualities of theoretical Bigfoot, I mean the legend is so well known that anyone who has an odd, unexplained encounter in the woods could call it a "Bigfoot" encounter. Even if there were legitimate stories of a Bigfoot sighting, they would not be taken seriously.
 
Al Gorithm said:
I don't recall you acquiescing to any of the" logical " points in the thread , my apologies if you did. If the natives of this continent and their tens of thousands of years of living in harmony with nature can exist outside of modern mans sight , why can " bigfoot" ? Why should I believe its probable enough to be entertained as a possibility?

It's funny how non of the pro big foot camp will actually own their position. " I don't believe it ( why not if its so plainly possible) , but ot could totally be true"

Maybe you should listen to that little voice that says " maybe I shouldn't admit to believing this in public".......there is a reason that voice is there.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned to JosephDredd:

"Totally, nature is completely insane. But how crazy nature is, to me, is the only thing that gives the pro-Sasquatch argument any validity. Nature has created some insane things that people never expected to exist. I'm not saying that the Bigfoot, telepathy, mind reading mammal who teleports or visits other dimensions can exist, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone found a 200+ pound mammal who existed currently, or in the past, that matched Bigfoots physical description in an uncharted territory in say, Canada.

Again, I just find it odd how the argument against Sasquatch people seem to favor is "we would have found him already", as if human's have explored every inch of this planet (when we have not).

In regards to the elusive qualities of theoretical Bigfoot, I mean the legend is so well known that anyone who has an odd, unexplained encounter in the woods could call it a "Bigfoot" encounter. Even if there were legitimate stories of a Bigfoot sighting, they would not be taken seriously."
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you are trying to have a "gotcha!" moment with me, where you expect me to confess that I do actually believe in Bigfoot. Apparently, one cannot come from the position that some mammal which may match some of Bigfoot's physical qualities could have existed in an extremely remote, uncharted territory with a very small human population inhabiting the area.

My bad, I didn't realize it was unrealistic for me to believe that a hairy, mountain mammal built for cold temperatures and lives in forested area could potentially exist in a mountainous, forested, cold area.

If you are trying to get me to confess that I believe a 7-9 foot hairy mammal lives in multiple areas of the world, and can detect infrared, has telepathic abilities, can sense modern technology, can sense human presence, can go invisible, can travel to other dimensions, and wipe your memory, then no, you won't find me saying I'm a believer.

If you are trying to get me to confess that I believe a 7-9 foot hairy mammal may have lived at some point or still lives in a 9.985 km2 country in the large, uncharted, unexplored area of this country, then I'm saying I could see how that's plausible.

I certainly wouldn't act like all 9.985 km2 of said country is fully explored by it's inhabitants. I mean, keep in mind, before Canada was colonized it had about 2 million native american inhabitants. Do you really, honestly and truthfully feel like 2 million native Americans explored all of Canada? Of course not, they are doing what it's currents inhabitants are doing which is "live in an area where we can actually survive the terrain/conditions/elements". If people, to this day, aren't putting boots on the ground to explore the uncharted area's, why on Earth would Canada's native americans?
 
Al Gorithm said:
It's funny how none of the pro big foot camp will actually own their position. " I don't believe it ( why not if its so plainly possible) , but ot could totally be true"

Maybe you should listen to that little voice that says " maybe I shouldn't admit to believing this in public".......there is a reason that voice is there.
Click to expand...

In the spirit of this post, I'm coming out. You heard that right. I'm coming out and stating that I believe in Bigfoot. I didn't think I did, but I guess I do. It feels great to get that out in the open.

I saw this video recently.. Understand I'm NOT saying it's proof of Bigfoot. But, the video does a great job of visually illustrating the point I've been trying to make in this thread. If the dudes filming weren't there to film this, whatever it is (hoax, bear with hurt front paws, etc.). The area where they are is so vast, we could never monitor what really goes on there, day in, and day out.

 
The only chance for anything like "bigfoot" would be a very small relic population, doomed to extinction, but not yet completely extinct.

The problem with lots of the science I see applied on this topic is that it's always based on "breeding populations" and a currently functional ecosystem. What that sort of thinking ignores is that animals don't go extinct overnight, a handful of individuals of a relatively long-lived species can hang on for hundreds of years.

Could a healthy population exist in NA without being found, no way. But could a couple isolated families of animals have survived to present day and escaped detection from science, unlikely but possible.
 
Cuzcatlan said:
It turn out that was a just a regular horse.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riwoche_horse
Click to expand...
it was an unknown to the west animal, at least in appearance. Meaning large animals can be in remote areas and completely unknown to western civilization.

If a modified gorilla was found in the pacific northwest, it would still be an unknown animal as far as the west is concerned, even if it was a known species.
 
Al Gorithm said:
I don't recall you acquiescing to any of the" logical " points in the thread , my apologies if you did. If the natives of this continent and their tens of thousands of years of living in harmony with nature can exist outside of modern mans sight , why can " bigfoot" ? Why should I believe its probable enough to be entertained as a possibility?

It's funny how non of the pro big foot camp will actually own their position. " I don't believe it ( why not if its so plainly possible) , but ot could totally be true"

Maybe you should listen to that little voice that says " maybe I shouldn't admit to believing this in public".......there is a reason that voice is there.
Click to expand...

keeping an open mind is a sign of intelligence, not the other way around. Why is being open to a possibility a problem? It's the same thing with UFO's or anything like that.

Smart people are open to anything that hasn't been dis-proven, that doesn't mean they are "believers" in anything.
 
From Wiki

  • Chris Walas. Academy Award-winning "makeup artist Chris in the BigfootForums [site] (in 2004) presented a theory that the arching hip line represents the overlap line between a fur costume leggings section and the torso section . . . ."[242]
  • Stan Winston. Academy Award-winning film special effects supervisor and makeup artist Stan Winston, after viewing the PGF, said "it's a guy in a bad hair suit, sorry!" He also added that "if one of my colleagues created this for a movie, he would be out of business." He went on to comment that the suit in the film could have been made today for "a couple hundred dollars" or "under a thousand, in that day".[243]
 
I don't believe in him for the following reasons:

1. No evidence other than eyewitnesses, and eyewitnesses are the least reliable form of evidence there is.

2. Breeding population - there would have to be enough of them to sustain their species, so even if they really did exist 100 years ago, they would've died out by now if their breeding population got too small.

3. If the breeding population was large enough to sustain the species, then it would make it more likely for people to see them.

4. This is not Africa, this is the United States, which is a very developed nation and has little to no locations that are completely isolated from human contact.

5. Everyone has cameras on their phones nowadays. So we should see less "sightings" and more recordings, but we don't. We continue to get more reports of "sightings"
 
ralphc1 said:
From Wiki

  • Chris Walas. Academy Award-winning "makeup artist Chris in the BigfootForums [site] (in 2004) presented a theory that the arching hip line represents the overlap line between a fur costume leggings section and the torso section . . . ."[242]
  • Stan Winston. Academy Award-winning film special effects supervisor and makeup artist Stan Winston, after viewing the PGF, said "it's a guy in a bad hair suit, sorry!" He also added that "if one of my colleagues created this for a movie, he would be out of business." He went on to comment that the suit in the film could have been made today for "a couple hundred dollars" or "under a thousand, in that day".[243]
Click to expand...
Pretty incredible that a couple hundred dollars today is worth almost a thousand way back when. Wish I could go back in time.
 
Al Gorithm said:
That's the problem , I dont think its possible for something that would need 3-5000 calories a day to exist in modern day north America without detection. The only way for me to create that space is to suspend logic and reason.

I'm not one to say much is " impossible" though, so I guess ill concede that .
Click to expand...

I'll address the perceived calorie deficit two ways:
I live in a condominium development spread across some 20 acres. The land supports a herd of deer. They eat the flowers, acorns, and whatever else deer eat. In that small amount of land there is enough food to support a large deer body mass. That is because their diet is tailored to the environment.
Second point I'll have to call upon 'naked and afraid '. There was one show where the guy caught rats. In the 21 days he lost only 5 pounds. Considering the area they allot the contestants to I figure we can scale that for a skilled hunter in its environment and a proportionally large territory, the calorie intake shouldn't be an issue.

As I stated earlier, I am not a believer. However, if a Bigfoot body was to show up some day, I wouldn't be completely surprised.

The only thing I take issue with in this thread is the name calling of those who represent the realm of possibility. Plenty of logical arguments have been made and have sited fact as support.
 
andnowweknow said:
I don't think it exists so I'm not really sure why I would need to present anything to the contrary. The fact there are dinosaurs bones doesn't eliminated a sasquatch, that's shit reasoning. The idea that "we would have found it already" makes zero sense as well considering how much uninhabitated and unexplored (in depth, on the ground) land there is in the continental united states let alone other parts of the world.

Here's a large animal that was thought to have been extinct long ago, but because it existed very remotely it wasn't rediscovered until the last few years.

A Stone-Age Horse Still Roams a Tibetan Plateau
By MARLISE SIMONS
Published: November 12, 1995
PARIS, Nov. 10— Deep in Tibet, in a high and icy valley, the explorers came upon the first of the enigmatic creatures. They saw one, and then three of them grazing in the open forest. Soon, to their astonishment, a whole herd of the unusual horses appeared.

"They looked completely archaic, like the horses in prehistoric cave paintings," said Michel Peissel, a French ethnologist and the expedition leader. "We thought it was just a freak, then we saw they were all alike."

A team of French and British explorers, who have just returned here from a six-week expedition in Tibet, say they believe that they found an ancient breed of horse previously unknown to scientists.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/11/12/world/a-stone-age-horse-still-roams-a-tibetan-plateau.html
Click to expand...
That article is a gigantic fail for not having photographs.
 
For anyone interested, here's more about the story of the retired ranger mentioned in the newscast in the OP. In the link there's a transcript of the radio show in which he describes an incident where a researcher shot at one on his property.

"Last night on the Squatch Detective radio show, Steve Kulls' guest was retired forest ranger Charles Branson of Honobia, Oklahoma.

Charles claims to have had interactions with bigfoots on his property for many, many years. The activity was such on his land that several organizations became interested in researching the area."

http://bigfootlives.blogspot.com/2011/10/public-service-announcement.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,946
Messages
58,329,967
Members
176,001
Latest member
batty

Share this page

Back
Top