Thread: Bigfoot?

I personally believe Bigfoot exists & always have for the following reasons:
1)There have been many reports of sightings by seemingly sane, honest people who have nothing to gain & risk ridicule for claiming a sighting of such a creature.
2)A recent two-pronged investigation of the Patterson/Gimlin concluded that a human could not replicate the walk of the subject of the film. In addition, a microscopic frame-by-frame analysis of the film revealed no trace whatsoever of a costume. But did show eye & mouth movement with corresponding muscle movement in the proper areas.
3)There have been tracks found by people very familiar with bears, that have been in found in areas where no hoaxer could have any hope of them ever being discovered. Some trails of tracks stretching for several miles.
4)There have been hair samples missing a medulla that have been deemed "Unknown primate"
5)There have been scat samples found that have failed to be linked to any known animals.
6)There have been vocalization recordings that so far, have defied Identification.
7)Many of these hair, scat, & vocalization samples have come from areas where Bigfoot sightings have been reported.

For the amount of times Bigfoot has been sighted by people armed with modern weaponry or state of the art cameras it is an even bigger mystery as to why no one can shoot straight or snap a clear photograph.

Most of the people armed with guns that have reported seeing a Bigfoot, say they couldn't shoot because it resembled a human to closely. Over the past 150 years or so, there have been stories of people killing them. But these claims are unsubstantiated. As for why no one has been able to get a clear photograph or video so far. I think that will change in the near future since cameras & video cameras are so much more sophisticated than they were, even in the recent past. But with so much digital photo & video editing software available, (And some of it free) I doubt a photo or video of even the highest quality will do much toward convincing skeptics. Especially those in the mainstream scientific community. That's why I feel the best thing the Patterson/Gimlin film has going for it, is its age. It was shot on 10/20/67

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Most of the people armed with guns that have reported seeing a Bigfoot, say they couldn't shoot because it resembled a human to closely .......... But with so much digital photo & video editing software available, (And some of it free) I doubt a photo or video of even the highest quality will do much toward convincing skeptics.

It is quite obvious from your response that you really wish Bigfoot to be true. 'Couldn't shoot' or 'I doubt...skeptics' suggest that deep down you don't really think Bigfoot is out there. You want modern technology to help you but you have doubts it would be successful and you're not expecting Bigfoot to walk into a big simian trap and be captured or killed any time in ther near future.

If you had said somebody will definitely shoot one of these things soon then I could be reasonably sure you think Bigfoot is real. Alas it is just a hope, probably of a scientific nature, you want it but in reality aren't expecting anything.

Actually. If you read my post again you'll see that I say I think someone will get a good video or photo very soon. By good, I mean one good enough to convince the skeptics that aren't members of the mainstream scientific community. The reason I say I doubt that such a photo or video will convince most members of the mainstream scientific community is because I've watched numerous documentaries on the subject containing interviews with members of the scientific community that begin to list the evidence that has been found & other things they believe that we believe about Bigfoot, & the generally miss most of the evidence and beliefs we have about this creature. I believe this is because they've already dismissed it as a possibility & haven't bothered to investigate the phenomenon at all. Which in itself, is less than scientific. In his book "Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us" author John Green makes an excellent point when he says something to the effect that so many people report seeing this creature either because it exists or for some other reason, and either way, it deserves serious scientific study. Because whether these creatures exist or not, the reports do exist.

He was seen on Mars recently wasn't he?



Sorry I couldn't resist that.

1)There have been many reports of sightings by seemingly sane, honest people who have nothing to gain & risk ridicule for claiming a sighting of such a creature.

This is also true with Nessie, UFOs, dinosaurs (cryptozoologists), and don't forget, miracles.

4)There have been hair samples missing a medulla that have been deemed "Unknown primate"
5)There have been scat samples found that have failed to be linked to any known animals.
6)There have been vocalization recordings that so far, have defied Identification.

This is not very strong evidence because it is all based on what we don't know. We don't know about the hair, the scat, the vocals. . . I prefer to go off of more positive evidence.

7)Many of these hair, scat, & vocalization samples have come from areas where Bigfoot sightings have been reported.

This is circumstantial.
I don't know, but I don't find the evidence all that convincing. I haven't looked too much into it, so I can't be too strong with my answer. Your strong assertion at the beginning and the subsequent evidence you provided did get me thinking though. . . . .

Originally Posted by svwillmer

He was seen on Mars recently wasn't he?



Sorry I couldn't resist that.

obviously a case of misidentifiation : there's no doubt in my mind that what has been discovered on Mars it the Little Mermaid statue from Copenhagen

it's been vandalised several times and even been stolen on the odd occasion - this is obviously one of the stolen ones

tsk, the length thieves go to to avoid detection ...

Originally Posted by Rationalist

1)There have been many reports of sightings by seemingly sane, honest people who have nothing to gain & risk ridicule for claiming a sighting of such a creature.

This is also true with Nessie, UFOs, dinosaurs (cryptozoologists), and don't forget, miracles.

4)There have been hair samples missing a medulla that have been deemed "Unknown primate"
5)There have been scat samples found that have failed to be linked to any known animals.
6)There have been vocalization recordings that so far, have defied Identification.

This is not very strong evidence because it is all based on what we don't know. We don't know about the hair, the scat, the vocals. . . I prefer to go off of more positive evidence.

7)Many of these hair, scat, & vocalization samples have come from areas where Bigfoot sightings have been reported.

This is circumstantial.
I don't know, but I don't find the evidence all that convincing. I haven't looked too much into it, so I can't be too strong with my answer. Your strong assertion at the beginning and the subsequent evidence you provided did get me thinking though. . . . .

I can't argue with your assessment of the evidence except where you say we don't know about the hair, scat, or vocalizations. While I agree we don't know for certain the source(s) of these things. We do know all possibilities that they've been compared to so far, have been ruled out. I personally will remove any reports of vocalizations from my website once they are positively linked to an animal known to science.
P.S.
What do you think about my 2nd reason?

Just to show you I have some compassion for the Bigfoot and the like believers on this forum I devised a little 'fill in the blanks' to help them deal with those who might want to classify them as crazy.

What you are about to read is a customized and plagiarized version of 1897 New York Sun writer Francis Church's response to a letter from a young girl. I've changed a few things to accommodate the cryptozoologists of this world. My apologies to the descendants of Mr Church, purely out of respect for his extraordinary writing skills. So without further ado, here goes....

THE GENERIC CRYPTOZOOLOGIST DECLARATION FORM

Friends, those who insist that _________ does not exist are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds are little. In this great universe of ours, man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

Yes, there is a ________. It exists as certainly as thoughts and ideas and imagination exist. Alas! How dreary would the world be if there was no ________. It would be as dreary as if there were no believers. There would be no childlike faith, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The external light with which believers fill the world would be extinguished.

Not believe in ________! You might as well not believe in fairies. If you do not witness a Griffin fly or a dragon breathe fire, what would that prove? The things that are most real are those which we cannot see. Not seeing a ________ is no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in this world.

There is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived could tear apart. Only faith, poetry, love, romance can push aside that curtain and view the beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? In all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.

No _________. It lives and it lives forever. A 1000 years from now or 10,000 years from now, _______ will continue to make glad the hearts of believers.

________ is real. I will fight that to the death. If you're wondering why I care.....just consider me a lover of all things uncertain... an apparition... a believer.

I hope he exists!

I have always had this dream where i stumble across bigfoot by some treacherous mountain outcrop (somewhere, it doesn't matter where!) and he grunts at me and drags me by my hair back to his big dark cave and treats me in such a beastly manner i stay there for at least a couple of weeks.

I am not kidding here HomoUniversalis or being 'immature' i am deadly serious. I have had this dream since i was at least ten.

So yes, he certainly exists in my mind.

I can't argue with your assessment of the evidence except where you say we don't know about the hair, scat, or vocalizations. While I agree we don't know for certain the source(s) of these things. We do know all possibilities that they've been compared to so far, have been ruled out. I personally will remove any reports of vocalizations from my website once they are positively linked to an animal known to science.
P.S.
What do you think about my 2nd reason?

What kind of animals did they compare the hair, scat and vocalizations to, gorillas or bears I guess? I looked briefly through the analysis of the Patterson/Gimmlin film. It seems that it is highly unlikely that it was a forgery. So I suppose it is a possibility that there is what would be a new species walking around the woods. It certainly hasn't been ruled out completely, but it doesn't have to be considering the burden of proof. On that note, until I see more concrete evidence I think it's more likely that we haven't found it, despite much investigation for many years, because a population of Big Foots doesn't exist, and that it is just another hoax.

They can find a small unknown species of tree kangaroo in Indonesia without looking for it but enormous 800 lb. hairy Simians can roam around the American continent without being seen. Maybe they hibernate 11 months out of the year, ever thought of that possibility...just trying to keep hopes high. :wink:

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

enormous 800 lb. hairy Simians

SWOOooonnn

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

They can find a small unknown species of tree kangaroo in Indonesia without looking for it but enormous 800 lb. hairy Simians can roam around the American continent without being seen. Maybe they hibernate 11 months out of the year, ever thought of that possibility...just trying to keep hopes high. :wink:

If Bigfoot had roamed around the American continent without being seen, this phenomenon wouldn't exist. :wink:

Originally Posted by Rationalist

I can't argue with your assessment of the evidence except where you say we don't know about the hair, scat, or vocalizations. While I agree we don't know for certain the source(s) of these things. We do know all possibilities that they've been compared to so far, have been ruled out. I personally will remove any reports of vocalizations from my website once they are positively linked to an animal known to science.
P.S.
What do you think about my 2nd reason?

What kind of animals did they compare the hair, scat and vocalizations to, gorillas or bears I guess? I looked briefly through the analysis of the Patterson/Gimmlin film. It seems that it is highly unlikely that it was a forgery. So I suppose it is a possibility that there is what would be a new species walking around the woods. It certainly hasn't been ruled out completely, but it doesn't have to be considering the burden of proof. On that note, until I see more concrete evidence I think it's more likely that we haven't found it, despite much investigation for many years, because a population of Big Foots doesn't exist, and that it is just another hoax.

Mostly they've been compared to all mammals known to science in the areas they are found. A hair sample found on a screw board at Snelgrove lake in Canada was microscopically compared to all known mammals in North America & ruled a non-human primate. A miniscule DNA sample from dried blood found on the same screw board also indicated a non-human primate. It's also interesting to note that the shape of the pattern of screws on the screw board that had blood &/or tissue was that of most of a Bigfoot type footprint, that if complete, would've measured 17"-18" in length.

I can't believe 3 people voted yes.

Originally Posted by Neutrino

I can't believe 3 people voted yes.

I can, in this forum I'm surprised it is only three

To Rationalist: Do you honestly believe there has been some big hoax conspiracy going on for at least 200 years that covers 49 states and Canada?

Everycountry has one! The Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot, The Yeti and probably a thousand others yet none have ever been seen, all the huge sea monsters and loviathons reported throughout history, no evidence there either, but if you wanna sell books to gullible idiots what better than adding another chapter to a monster story.....

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Everycountry has one! The Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot, The Yeti and probably a thousand others yet none have ever been seen, all the huge sea monsters and loviathons reported throughout history, no evidence there either, but if you wanna sell books to gullible idiots what better than adding another chapter to a monster story.....

I'd watch who I was calling an idiot if I were you. "all the huge sea monsters and loviathons reported throughout history, no evidence there either" Two species of giant squid has already been proven to exist.

unnoticed large monster in huge ocean : quite probable
unnoticed large mammal on large land mass : less likely, not totally impossible
unnoticed large animal in lake in tourist hot spot : pull the other one

Look: is it possible that somehow a large creature unknown to science is roaming the americas? Yes. Is it probable that somehow a large creature unknown to science is roaming the americas? No - the probability is very, very low. And an urban (or other) legend does not require some large, complicated hoax to keep it alive.

Now let's get this right, A sailor, pissed as a white rat says that his ship was consumed by a Loviathon, people ask him to tell them more he does, they buy him ale a thirsty tale indeed our jolly jack tar has to tell! and thus it goes on, nobody stops to think how he managed to swim 2000 miles back to land though....

Get real please...

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Now let's get this right, A sailor, pissed as a white rat says that his ship was consumed by a Loviathon, people ask him to tell them more he does, they buy him ale a thirsty tale indeed our jolly jack tar has to tell! and thus it goes on, nobody stops to think how he managed to swim 2000 miles back to land though....

Get real please...

Actual video of one & teeth marks of another are hardly a drunken tale

Originally Posted by paralith

Look: is it possible that somehow a large creature unknown to science is roaming the americas? Yes. Is it probable that somehow a large creature unknown to science is roaming the americas? No - the probability is very, very low. And an urban (or other) legend does not require some large, complicated hoax to keep it alive.

A legend, by definition, has some degree of truth to it :wink:

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Now let's get this right, A sailor, pissed as a white rat says that his ship was consumed by a Loviathon, people ask him to tell them more he does, they buy him ale a thirsty tale indeed our jolly jack tar has to tell! and thus it goes on, nobody stops to think how he managed to swim 2000 miles back to land though....

Get real please...

Actual video of one & teeth marks of another are hardly a drunken tale

Except they didn't have video taping capabilities several hundred years ago when the myth of the Leviathan originated - most likely from drunken tales. Especially seeing as giant squids are deep sea creatures that I highly doubt ever actually attacked a human vessel. The only squid that might are Humboldt squid, that travel in packs and are notoriously nasty, but they're far smaller and hunt along coasts where fish are plentiful. The Leviathan of myths and the giant squid as they're known today are two very dissimilar creatures.

The Humboldt was what they found the teeth marks of in the bait they were using

Originally Posted by WVBIG

The Humboldt was what they found the teeth marks of in the bait they were using

Well, there you have it. Even the teeth (beak/tentacle) marks of the Leviathan weren't from giant squid. I thought you meant teeth marks on washed up dead sperm whales, which would actually be from giant squid.

To Rationalist: Do you honestly believe there has been some big hoax conspiracy going on for at least 200 years that covers 49 states and Canada?

This sounds like an argument from incredulity. Short answer. . . yes, I think that is most likely.

I don't remember what depth the bait was. I guess whatever depth Humboldt's are most commonly found at since they were investigating reports of giant Humboldts. The video of Archaetoothus was from very deep in the ocean.

Well I am not sure that creatures (however large) that live at the bottom of the ocean could survive at the top let alone eat ships!

There may well be more creatures yet to be discovered, maybe even some large ones but a plethora or Loviathans is out, of the hundreds of supposed giant beasts trudging through the wilderness not one has been found.

And now with higher resolution even google Earth would pick them up so I am off to build a replica and hide it in the woods where it can only be seen from space!!

If Google earth is so good, why are there still thousands or maybe even tens of thousands of missing people in this country alone?

even if you can see individual people with google earth (i've never used it, so i don't know) surely it's asking too much to be able to identify specific individuals ?

(WVBIG) uh what sort of a stupid response is that?

Originally Posted by marnixR

even if you can see individual people with google earth (i've never used it, so i don't know) surely it's asking too much to be able to identify specific individuals ?

I would think so too. But everybody talks about it like it can see a fly from space or something. lol. I think I read someplace where it could read license plates from space

The Pseudoscience forum welcomes its newest resident, namely this thread! 8)

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

The Pseudoscience forum welcomes its newest resident, namely this thread! 8)

I actually looked for this topic in the Pseudoscience forum before posting it here because I know that's how it's viewed by most of the mainstream scientific community. When I didn't find it there, I got what was apparently a false sense of open-mindedness here

Since posting this thread, I have encountered 1)insults, 2)closed-mindedness, 3)attempts to change the subject, & 4)failure to actually look into the reasons I stated for my belief in Bigfoot in my original post by most of you. None of these things surprise me. One person apparently did actually read my reasons though & for that I'm thankful. What I didn't encounter were any alternative explanations for any of the specific pieces of evidence I've mentioned. Just that the most likely explanation for the phenomenon being an elaborate hoax involving people from all provinces of Canada & 49 out of 50 states over the past 200 years or so. An explanation I find totally ridiculous. All in all, this experiment turned out exactly the way I thought it would.

Two questions for the onboard expert:

1) Why, in the 80 years of searching, has not a single Bigfoot been found, alive or dead?

2) Given that Bigfoots were alive, they would have to breed, which means we should easily find many of them, not just one or two.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Two questions for the onboard expert:

1) Why, in the 80 years of searching, has not a single Bigfoot been found, alive or dead?

2) Given that Bigfoots were alive, they would have to breed, which means we should easily find many of them, not just one or two.

1)If the 80 years of research had been done entirely, or at least primarily, by scientists with vast resources of money & equipment, etc... I have no doubt at least one would've been found by now. But it's been largely left up to those of us with very limited money, resources, & time.
2)What do you mean one or two? There have been literally thousands of sightings.
One piece of evidence that I unfortunately forgot to mention in my original post is that dermal friction ridges with a unique ridge flow pattern have been found on the casts of some footprints.

Originally Posted by WVBIG

1)If the 80 years of research had been done entirely, or at least primarily, by scientists with vast resources of money & equipment, etc... I have no doubt at least one would've been found by now. But it's been largely left up to those of us with very limited money, resources, & time.

Why would scientists need vast resources of money and equipment to find something that should have easily been found in 80 years, alive or dead? Why hasn't anyone even found skeletal remains.

2)What do you mean one or two? There have been literally thousands of sightings.

You didn't answer the question. We should be able to find groups of them if not many of them wandering around, if they require to breed.

Perhaps they just spring up from the ground?

As well, if there were thousands of sightings, why hasn't any skeletal remains been found in those areas? Where are their living quarters?

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by WVBIG

1)If the 80 years of research had been done entirely, or at least primarily, by scientists with vast resources of money & equipment, etc... I have no doubt at least one would've been found by now. But it's been largely left up to those of us with very limited money, resources, & time.

Why would scientists need vast resources of money and equipment to find something that should have easily been found in 80 years, alive or dead? Why hasn't anyone even found skeletal remains.

2)What do you mean one or two? There have been literally thousands of sightings.

You didn't answer the question. We should be able to find groups of them if not many of them wandering around, if they require to breed.

Perhaps they just spring up from the ground?

As well, if there were thousands of sightings, why hasn't any skeletal remains been found in those areas? Where are their living quarters?

A)Bigfoot researcher Robert W. Morgan recently gave what I believe is a very reasonable explanation for why no skeletal remains have been found thus far. He said an old Indian told him that when he was a boy, his grandfather told him of coming up on several Bigfoots burying one of their dead. According to the story, they 1)rolled back a large boulder, 2)Scooped out a trench big enough for the body, 3)placed the body in the trench, & 4)Rolled the boulder back over it. This would hide the body until the meat & tissue had time to decompose & then the rodents that burrow & live underground & back under rocks eat the bones for the minerals.
B)Since we believe Bigfoot to be nocturnal, High quality nightvision & thermal vision equipment are essential. Plus being able to do DNA testing on any hair, blood, tissue, or fecal samples found, is vital. But the biggest advantage scientists would have over us would be the ability to conduct expeditions that last several weeks or maybe even several months. Whereas most of us can only spare a weekend at a time.

Originally Posted by WVBIG

A)Bigfoot researcher Robert W. Morgan recently gave what I believe is a very reasonable explanation for why no skeletal remains have been found thus far. He said an old Indian told him that when he was a boy, his grandfather told him of coming up on several Bigfoots burying one of their dead. According to the story, they 1)rolled back a large boulder, 2)Scooped out a trench big enough for the body, 3)placed the body in the trench, & 4)Rolled the boulder back over it. This would hide the body until the meat & tissue had time to decompose & then the rodents that burrow & live underground & back under rocks eat the bones for the minerals.

So, he devised a vast and intricate rationale based on a old Indian story? Bullocks! What about all those Bigfoots who met with an untimely death through accident or some other event, whose body was not buried but in clear site?

B)Since we believe Bigfoot to be nocturnal, High quality nightvision & thermal vision equipment are essential. Plus being able to do DNA testing on any hair, blood, tissue, or fecal samples found, is vital. But the biggest advantage scientists would have over us would be the ability to conduct expeditions that last several weeks or maybe even several months. Whereas most of us can only spare a weekend at a time.

Yeah, right. Bats are nocturnal too. So what?

Again, you didn't answer the question. Where are all the groups of Bigfoots required for breeding?

Many animals go off by themselves to die. Bigfoot is probably no different. Robert didn't devise anything. That's what the Indian told him. I did answer your question. There are sightings all the time. Texas alone averages 150/year.

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Many animals go off by themselves to die. Bigfoot is probably no different. Robert didn't devise anything. That's what the Indian told him. I did answer your question. There are sightings all the time. Texas alone averages 150/year.

No, you did not, you avoided it.

I could care less for old Indian myths and alleged sightings.

Clearly, your inability to provide anything substantial is as relevant as this thread will ever get.

What kind of answer are you looking for? Maybe something like "You've got a point. I guess Bigfoot doesn't exist"?

Ignore Q VWBIG. He's one of those who pushes people away, he hardly ever addresses a point constructivley. He is just adding his own two cents, let him do that. But you don't have to believe what he says, as neither of each of us do. Q may be a literal person, but that is who he is, based on his life. I believe your point of bigfoots existence is valid. Thats my opinion.

WVBIG - since there is so little substantial evidence in support of Bigfoot, as well as the extremely low probability that such a large creature, despite all the behavioral details you mentioned, could live on a highly populated continent for such a long time and still not leave any substantial evidence, this subject is not taken very seriously.

But I have to commend you for your methodological approach. However, I also think that you wouldn't take as much offense to the general response to your thread as you did if you've seen what other, less organized posters have been greeted with. A few obnoxious posts should not be taken as representative of the forum at large.

Can you provide some links for the sources of your information? The analysis of the patterson video, the footprint analysis, etc? This would better allow us to evaluate the information itself.

Here are some very informative links:

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/Papers/size1.html
http://www.bigfootbiologist.com
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/gps.htm
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/Chilcutt.htm
http://www.searchingforbigfoot.com/P...om_M._K._Davis
http://www.searchingforbigfoot.com/P..._M._K._Davis_2

There are many other links on my site as well:
http://steventitchenell.tripod.com/wvbig

WVBIG, I noticed one of those links you posted had an article on Pennsylvania Bigfoot. I'm not buying that.

Are you a hunter? I've hunted deer in PA and I'm sure WV is similar. There really isn't any part of the woods that is not covered pretty thoroughly on the first couple of days of buck season. Maybe a bigfoot could hide in some thick cover for a while, but what about snow cover? They would have to leave some tracks at some point in time.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

WVBIG, I noticed one of those links you posted had an article on Pennsylvania Bigfoot. I'm not buying that.

Are you a hunter? I've hunted deer in PA and I'm sure WV is similar. There really isn't any part of the woods that is not covered pretty thoroughly on the first couple of days of buck season. Maybe a bigfoot could hide in some thick cover for a while, but what about snow cover? They would have to leave some tracks at some point in time.

PA actually has one of the highest numbers of Bigfoot reports of the 49 states who have any at all. Yes I am a hunter. There are lots of people who don't permit hunting in WV & I'm sure in PA too. The most popular theory to explain why there aren't as many sightings/tracks found in winter is that they hole up in caves & old mine shafts & only come out when they absolutely have to. Which is probably not often since there are a lot of sightings in the fall. My theory is that they gather food in the fall to survive on in the winter months. And don't forget. The majority of the evidence strongly indicates that they are nocturnal. Several people have also reported seeing white Bigfoots.
P.S.
If you've hunted in PA., I imagine you've heard of Chestnut Ridge. Did you know Chestnut Ridge has a long history of Bigfoot reports?

Here is a list of my favorite Bigfoot documentaries:

1)Bigfoot: Man Or Beast?
2)Bigfoot: Man?, Myth?, Monster?
3)Bigfootville
4)On The Trail of Bigfoot
5)Monster Quest: Sasquatch Attack
6)Monster Quest: Bigfoot
7)Sasquatch Oddysey

"Monster Quest: Bigfoot" covers the two-pronged investigation of the Patterson/Gimlin film I mentioned earlier.

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Here is a list of my favorite Bigfoot documentaries:

1)Bigfoot: Man Or Beast?
2)Bigfoot: Man?, Myth?, Monster?
3)Bigfootville
4)On The Trail of Bigfoot
5)Monster Quest: Sasquatch Attack
6)Monster Quest: Bigfoot
7)Sasquatch Oddysey

Hang on what about 'Big Foot Does Dallas"????

Originally Posted by WVBIG

What kind of answer are you looking for? Maybe something like "You've got a point. I guess Bigfoot doesn't exist"?

I was looking for an answer to my question, which you've now apparently and conveniently forgotten.

Bigfoots don't spring up out of the ground, do they? If not, we are left with the incontrovertible conclusion that they must breed. Hence, we should be able to see them all over the place, roaming freely with plenty of evidence everywhere demonstrating their existence beyond a shadow of a doubt. Yet, for 80 plus years, nada, ziltch, nothing, other than a that which appears to be the result of a hoax.

If you actually believe that an entire species of large mammals can exist and not a single one can be found anywhere for over 80 years of searching, is pure gullibility.

Originally Posted by svwillmer

Ignore Q VWBIG. He's one of those who pushes people away, he hardly ever addresses a point constructivley. He is just adding his own two cents, let him do that. But you don't have to believe what he says, as neither of each of us do. Q may be a literal person, but that is who he is, based on his life.

And this is a constructive post? On topic? Not meant to attack a person or anything like that?

I see that you wish to challenge me to expose your lack of education and critical thinking skills. I will happily oblige to humiliate you every chance I get.

Spoken like someone who chooses to ignore that which doesn't fit his/her beliefs. I gave you explanations why none have ever been found. You just chose to ignore them. I'm guessing you never even bothered to check out any of the links I provided. If you had, you'd see that the Patterson/Gimlin film has basically been proven AUTHENTIC.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by svwillmer

Ignore Q VWBIG. He's one of those who pushes people away, he hardly ever addresses a point constructivley. He is just adding his own two cents, let him do that. But you don't have to believe what he says, as neither of each of us do. Q may be a literal person, but that is who he is, based on his life.

And this is a constructive post? On topic? Not meant to attack a person or anything like that?

I see that you wish to challenge me to expose your lack of education and critical thinking skills. I will happily oblige to humiliate you every chance I get.

Bring it on Q

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Spoken like someone who chooses to ignore that which doesn't fit his/her beliefs. I gave you explanations why none have ever been found. You just chose to ignore them. I'm guessing you never even bothered to check out any of the links I provided. If you had, you'd see that the Patterson/Gimlin film has basically been proven AUTHENTIC.

So, you are refusing to answer my question?

Now this is the LAST time I'm going to answer your question. See if you can follow this: The recent two-pronged analysis of the Patterson/Gimlin film determined that A) A human could not replicate the gait of the subject of the film & 2) A microscopic frame-by-frame analysis of the film failed to uncover any evidence of a costume of any kind. This very strongly indicates one has been found alive. Furthermore, I told you what the old Indian told Robert W. Morgan about what Bigfoots do with their dead. If you choose not to believe it, that's on you. Not me. Lastly, as I said before, if scientists with enough money for a long expedition would seriously study the phenomenon, I'm sure they would eventually find some remains that the other Bigfoots didn't get a chance to bury yet or collect a live specimen.

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Now this is the LAST time I'm going to answer your question. See if you can follow this: The recent two-pronged analysis of the Patterson/Gimlin film determined that A) A human could not replicate the gait of the subject of the film & 2) A microscopic frame-by-frame analysis of the film failed to uncover any evidence of a costume of any kind. This very strongly indicates one has been found alive. Furthermore, I told you what the old Indian told Robert W. Morgan about what Bigfoots do with their dead. If you choose not to believe it, that's on you. Not me. Lastly, as I said before, if scientists with enough money for a long expedition would seriously study the phenomenon, I'm sure they would eventually find some remains that the other Bigfoots didn't get a chance to bury yet or collect a live specimen.

So, instead of answering the question, you fallback on a specious film, most likely a hoax, and an old Indian story told to a boy.

Sorry pal, scientists aren't interested in hoaxes and folklore.

The two-pronged analysis of the film was a scientific analysis done by the late Dr. Daris Swindler & others.
Other scientists who believe Bigfoot exists:

1)Dr. Jeff Meldrum
2)Dr. Henner Fahrenbach
3)Dr. John Bendernagel
4)Dr. John Myerjensky(sp?)
5)Dr. Kurt Nelson
6)The late Dr. Grover Krantz

Originally Posted by WVBIG

The two-pronged analysis of the film was a scientific analysis done by the late Dr. Daris Swindler & others.
Other scientists who believe Bigfoot exists:

1)Dr. Jeff Meldrum
2)Dr. Henner Fahrenbach
3)Dr. John Bendernagel
4)Dr. John Myerjensky(sp?)
5)Dr. Kurt Nelson
6)The late Dr. Grover Krantz

Interesting how a dead person can believe...

I think bigfoot is a pet and living in captivity in southern England. I distinctly remember overhearing a conversation part of which was "he had to go and put his bigfoot in it"

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Originally Posted by WVBIG

The two-pronged analysis of the film was a scientific analysis done by the late Dr. Daris Swindler & others.
Other scientists who believe Bigfoot exists:

1)Dr. Jeff Meldrum
2)Dr. Henner Fahrenbach
3)Dr. John Bendernagel
4)Dr. John Myerjensky(sp?)
5)Dr. Kurt Nelson
6)The late Dr. Grover Krantz

Interesting how a dead person can believe...

I think bigfoot is a pet and living in captivity in southern England. I distinctly remember overhearing a conversation part of which was "he had to go and put his bigfoot in it"

You are all wrong!

He is tucked up in my bed right now waiting for me to bring him tea and chocolate digestives.
He says he doesn't want anyone to see him because scientists will want to stick him in a cage and probe and analyse him and everyone will laugh at his big hairy feet!

So you're not having him

Originally Posted by WVBIG

The two-pronged analysis of the film was a scientific analysis done by the late Dr. Daris Swindler & others.
Other scientists who believe Bigfoot exists:

1)Dr. Jeff Meldrum
2)Dr. Henner Fahrenbach
3)Dr. John Bendernagel
4)Dr. John Myerjensky(sp?)
5)Dr. Kurt Nelson
6)The late Dr. Grover Krantz

Again, you refuse to answer the question.

Let's take the first person on your list. Dr. Meldrum has tested the so-called evidence brought forward and has adamantly claimed that none of it is evidence in favor of a Bigfoot.

You lose again.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by WVBIG

The two-pronged analysis of the film was a scientific analysis done by the late Dr. Daris Swindler & others.
Other scientists who believe Bigfoot exists:

1)Dr. Jeff Meldrum
2)Dr. Henner Fahrenbach
3)Dr. John Bendernagel
4)Dr. John Myerjensky(sp?)
5)Dr. Kurt Nelson
6)The late Dr. Grover Krantz

Again, you refuse to answer the question.

Let's take the first person on your list. Dr. Meldrum has tested the so-called evidence brought forward and has adamantly claimed that none of it is evidence in favor of a Bigfoot.

You lose again.

That's not what he says on all the documentaries about Bigfoot that he has been on. In fact, he & the 4th person on my list started a project to study Bigfoot called
"The North American Ape Project"
http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-h...l-king-kong-3/ and he was on the AARF Radio show recently talking with the host, Robert W. Morgan, about why he thinks Bigfoot is either gigantopithecus blacki or a descendant of Giganto
I love it when hardcore skeptics repeatedly show on public forums that they don't have the slightest clue what they're talking about

Originally Posted by WVBIG

That's not what he says on all the documentaries about Bigfoot that he has been on.

So, television is your source? That's hilarious.

I love it when hardcore skeptics repeatedly show on public forums that they don't have the slightest clue what they're talking about

That's cute, coming from a nutjob who uses TV as their source of information.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by WVBIG

That's not what he says on all the documentaries about Bigfoot that he has been on.

So, television is your source? That's hilarious.

I love it when hardcore skeptics repeatedly show on public forums that they don't have the slightest clue what they're talking about

That's cute, coming from a nutjob who uses TV as their source of information.

LOL!!! 1)I'm only using the documentaries as a source of info to dispute your claims that Dr. Meldrum is a Bigfoot skeptic. 2)What's wrong with using those as a source of info when they show Dr. Meldrum himself talking about all the evidence he's aware of that makes him believe Bigfoot exists? 2)One documentary I forgot to mention was "Bigfoot: Legend Meets Science" A documentary made by Dr. Meldrum to support his book by the same name. I haven't read the book, but the documentary has a fascinating segment on dermal ridges & the unique ridge flow pattern found in some of the track casts in Dr. Meldrum's collection. 3)You kept accusing me of not answering your original question. But I see you conveniently forgot to comment on my statement about Dr. Meldrum's recent appearance on the "AARF Radio Show" (Which you can listen to in the archives for yourself at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/theaarfshow ) where he was discussing with the host why he believes Bigfoot is either gigantopithecus blacki or a descendant of Giganto. Just keep talking Q. The longer you talk, the dumber you look.
P.S.
If tv is a poor source of info, maybe I should ignore all the scientific documentaries on tv :?

Bigfoot's real name is cain! ...

i dont no whether bigfoot is real or not. you cant prove he is and you cant prove he isnt. go and find some bigfoot poo and get it checked for dna.

if you cant find any poo then bigfoot is a fake.
if you do find poo then the poo is faked.

Originally Posted by wert

i dont no whether bigfoot is real or not. you cant prove he is and you cant prove he isnt. go and find some bigfoot poo and get it checked for dna.

if you cant find any poo then bigfoot is a fake.
if you do find poo then the poo is faked.

Actually, some scat has been found that is believed to be Bigfoot scat. Some of which contained parasites unique to such samples.

Originally Posted by WVBIG

If tv is a poor source of info, maybe I should ignore all the scientific documentaries on tv :?

This is an excellent plan if you have a genuine interest in science. Even the best TV documentary on a scientific subject is grossly over simplified, rarely deals systematically with alternate views and is wholly lacking in the application of the scientific method.
Like good articles on science in newspapers, a TV documentary should serve only to whet our appetites, it should not be used as a source of scientific information - that is what textbooks and research papers are for. I have never seen any TV documentary, on a topic in which I had some passing knowledge, that did not contain a few errors of fact and several gross and misleading simplifications.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by WVBIG

If tv is a poor source of info, maybe I should ignore all the scientific documentaries on tv :?

This is an excellent plan if you have a genuine interest in science. Even the best TV documentary on a scientific subject is grossly over simplified, rarely deals systematically with alternate views and is wholly lacking in the application of the scientific method.
Like good articles on science in newspapers, a TV documentary should serve only to whet our appetites, it should not be used as a source of scientific information - that is what textbooks and research papers are for. I have never seen any TV documentary, on a topic in which I had some passing knowledge, that did not contain a few errors of fact and several gross and misleading simplifications.

I find this very hard to believe. Especially since many teachers assign their students to watch & then write reports on them & some channels make them specifically for teachers to use in the classroom. The History Channel & The Discovery Channel are two channels that do this. Maybe since you have only a "passing interest" in some of these subjects, you're the one who is making errors.

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by WVBIG

If tv is a poor source of info, maybe I should ignore all the scientific documentaries on tv :?

This is an excellent plan if you have a genuine interest in science. Even the best TV documentary on a scientific subject is grossly over simplified, rarely deals systematically with alternate views and is wholly lacking in the application of the scientific method.
Like good articles on science in newspapers, a TV documentary should serve only to whet our appetites, it should not be used as a source of scientific information - that is what textbooks and research papers are for. I have never seen any TV documentary, on a topic in which I had some passing knowledge, that did not contain a few errors of fact and several gross and misleading simplifications.

I find this very hard to believe. Especially since many teachers assign their students to watch & then write reports on them & some channels make them specifically for teachers to use in the classroom. The History Channel & The Discovery Channel are two channels that do this. Maybe since you have only a "passing interest" in some of these subjects, you're the one who is making errors.

Documentaries are a good introduction for students with little background knowledge, and keep a kid's interest longer than a simple lecture would. However, as Ophi says, they leave out a vast majority of the details, and tend to add in anthrocentric emotional comments that are wholly unrelated to the science involved. I myself don't watch many biology related documentaries anymore, as my own studies have taken me far beyond the level that most of those documentaries cover.

I do like the visually stunning ones though, like Planet Earth. That was enjoyable, and had several vistas never before captured on film.

On the other hand WVBIG definitely has a point. The guy wouldn't be on tv promoting his documentary and book on Bigfoot if he was a Bigfoot skeptic.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

On the other hand WVBIG definitely has a point. The guy wouldn't be on tv promoting his documentary and book on Bigfoot if he was a Bigfoot skeptic.

Thanks for coming back to the subject of this thread

Originally Posted by WVBIG

1)I'm only using the documentaries as a source of info to dispute your claims that Dr. Meldrum is a Bigfoot skeptic.

Dr. Meldrum never makes the claim Bigfoot exists. He merely states that further investigation is warranted, based on the footprints he's examined, despite the lack of any hard evidence.

2)What's wrong with using those as a source of info when they show Dr. Meldrum himself talking about all the evidence he's aware of that makes him believe Bigfoot exists?

The only reason for the existence of television is to sell advertising, whatever programming they feel will turn a profit.

3)You kept accusing me of not answering your original question.

It's a tough question, and your avoidance of it speaks volumes. It's important you understand that in order for a species to exist, there must be a number of them living in close proximity to each other so they may procreate and go on existing. Yet, an entire species of very large mammals roams the earth and yet they've managed to simply disappear.

Just keep talking Q. The longer you talk, the dumber you look.

Umm... yeah. I'm not the one sourcing television to dispute claims.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

On the other hand WVBIG definitely has a point. The guy wouldn't be on tv promoting his documentary and book on Bigfoot if he was a Bigfoot skeptic.

Unless he was looking to make a buck from the gullible. Of course, that would never happen.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by Harold14370

On the other hand WVBIG definitely has a point. The guy wouldn't be on tv promoting his documentary and book on Bigfoot if he was a Bigfoot skeptic.

Unless he was looking to make a buck from the gullible. Of course, that would never happen.

You've never bothered to watch the documentaries Dr. Meldrum has been on or listened to the interview in the AARF Show archives I gave the link for did you? You choose to ignore all evidence of anything that you've already decided doesn't exist. I also noticed you don't have anything to say about the other scientists I listed as believers

"It's a tough question, and your avoidance of it speaks volumes. It's important you understand that in order for a species to exist, there must be a number of them living in close proximity to each other so they may procreate and go on existing. Yet, an entire species of very large mammals roams the earth and yet they've managed to simply disappear."
So just one, or two of the same sex, of a species can't exist? I'm not saying that's all the Bigfoots there are. I'm merely pointing out how ridiculous your definition of existence is. The scientists that have spoken on the subject say it will take A body to establish their existence. Not a breeding population. By the way, Dr. Henner Fahrenbach estimates the Bigfoot population at 6,000-10,000. I personally think, based on my research for my state, that it's more like half that. My estimate for the Bigfoot population in my state is 40-50 assuming of course, that all the anonymous reports that aren't obviously fabricated or misidentifications of known animals, are true. I know of 3 reports for my state that in my opinion, point directly to known animals & not Bigfoot. One points toward a bear & the other two point to mountain lions. I've never received a report that I didn't feel was credible or that I felt was a misidentification. But I did receive two photos that I chose not to publish because one that was suppose to be of a Bigfoot was an obvious fake & thus tainted the credibility of the other photo which was allegedly of a Bigfoot track.
P.S.
You might think if there were 3,000-5,000 Bigfoots in North America, they would be seen very frequently. But I submit that if there were only 3,000-5,000 dogs in North America, only a small amount of us would've seen one in real life. And dogs like being around us.

Let me first say that I do not believe in Bigfoot. Ok, that being said, let's for the moment consider the possibility that they exist and that they are maybe only slightly less intelligent that humans. Let's further assume that they are actively avoiding contact and removing evidence of themselves to achieve this. It could even be an evolutionary defense (and I think the best option) against humans eliminating competing hominids in the distant past. Does this make sense?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Let me first say that I do not believe in Bigfoot. Ok, that being said, let's for the moment consider the possibility that they exist and that they are maybe only slightly less intelligent that humans. Let's further assume that they are actively avoiding contact and removing evidence of themselves to achieve this. It could even be an evolutionary defense (and I think the best option) against humans eliminating competing hominids in the distant past. Does this make sense?

I think the biggest reason that most scientists won't even investigate Bigfoot is the possibility of finding out we're not the only intelligent, bipedal primates on the planet.

i think that's a big slur on many a scientist's reputation : i for one would be thrilled to bits to discover that there was a semi-intelligent primate elsewhere in the world

why do so few scientists look ? no evidence except for witness reports

it's a bit like you saying that there's a black cat in a dark room, but i can't hear or see no evidence to back up your statement - if no evidence shows up to back up your claim, i'll lose interest after a while + doubt the validity of your claim

I for one would be thrilled to bits to discover that there was a semi-intelligent primate elsewhere in the world

I am not a scientist, but I would be overwhelmed! I can think of little else that can conceivably get me as excited. Maybe if aliens actually make contact. But for that to happen, Bigfeet would actually have to be discovered by reputable sources. The only supposed sources and evidence that exist at the moment (unfortunately) has no more credibility than alien abductions, fairies, ghosts, etc.

Originally Posted by WVBIG

I find this very hard to believe.

Skepticism is an excellent quality.

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Especially since many teachers assign their students to watch & then write reports on them & some channels make them specifically for teachers to use in the classroom.

If I remember I'll take a look at a couple of documentaries and cite some examples. I agree you shouldn't accept what I am saying without evidence.

Originally Posted by WVBIG

Maybe since you have only a "passing interest" in some of these subjects, you're the one who is making errors.

Highly unlikely. The errors I have identified are generally absolutely basic in character. Also my reference to a "passing interest in" is typical British understatement for "life long passion and thoroughly professional commitment to an understanding of".

By the way, your use of documentaries in this thread to clarify the beliefs of Dr. Meldrum was wholly correct. That is observational science of good quality. (I am surprised a (Q) falling into such an obvious, and accidental, trap.) My concern is with expecting such documentaries to contain uniformly sound, accurate, meaningful science. They don't.

Originally Posted by marnixR

i think that's a big slur on many a scientist's reputation : i for one would be thrilled to bits to discover that there was a semi-intelligent primate elsewhere in the world

why do so few scientists look ? no evidence except for witness reports

it's a bit like you saying that there's a black cat in a dark room, but i can't hear or see no evidence to back up your statement - if no evidence shows up to back up your claim, i'll lose interest after a while + doubt the validity of your claim

I've already listed all the evidence that I'm aware of besides eyewitness reports, earlier in this discussion.

I think there's even more confirmed hoaxers for bigfoot/yeti myths than even for UFO's. It's amazing what a few people with some spare time can come up with. One guy figured out how to enlarge casts of his own feet to produce bigfoot sized molds that still had dermal imprints and all the details you'd expect to see in a foot. Then there was the two guys who figured out that if you strap big feet molds to your feet and hang onto the back of a moving truck, you could increase your gait so as to match that of the supposed 8-10 critter. I also like the guy who was some kind of EPA dude who took leftover waste from some animals, broke down the material to the point where it couldn't be identified, and then had some fun telling people it was yeti poo, chupacabra vomit, and dinosaur dung.

As amazing as it is that these myths get carried on for decades and more, it's a hallmark to the ingenuity (and fun-loving nature) of humanity to come up with more gimmicks and stunts.

Although, sometimes it's not always funny. There's apparently this group of people in the Mississippi area who have convinced themselves that the only way bigfoot is ever going to be found is if they shoot one. So each night they go out in their boat, armed to the teeth, and crawl through the creeks and swamps, shooting at anything that moves. However, those armed folks blazing recklessly through the swamps can't be called idiots, because they're not religious, and only religious folks do stupid stuff or have stupid notions...apparently.


There's an inherent problem with large-scale myths like bigfoot. A lot of times the evidence gets clearly proven false, yet people ignore the proof. The chupacabra was proven to be caused by a variety of natural effects, even right in front of the eyes of various figures of authority, and was still ignored. The perpetuation of fear is allowed to continue.

Yeah, so bigfoot may not cause such a problem, but it does make you wonder...

But let's think about this a moment:

1. How many individuals in a mammal population do you need to sustain a population?

2. How do you hide such a population within the borders of a nation that really doesn't have much unexplored region left?

3. How do you hide all viable evidence of such creatures, in a nation that has had people crawling through its backwoods for centuries?

4. What is the probability that a population of creatures within such a populated area, over time, won't have left at least one carcass somewhere?

5. If we assume that such creatures possess the social capacity to gather their dead, such as primates and humans, this would likely indicate some sort of centralized social structure (either nomadic or stationary). If so why haven't we encountered gathering places before?

6. Is it possible that such a creature could illude the US military, and, even if it hadn't and this topic devolved into a government-conspiracy topic, what are the odds that such a military secret wouldn't have its own faction of government-conspiracy nuts, similar to if-not-equal-to the UFO folks and all the rest?

Originally Posted by Wolf

I think there's even more confirmed hoaxers for bigfoot/yeti myths than even for UFO's. It's amazing what a few people with some spare time can come up with. One guy figured out how to enlarge casts of his own feet to produce bigfoot sized molds that still had dermal imprints and all the details you'd expect to see in a foot. Then there was the two guys who figured out that if you strap big feet molds to your feet and hang onto the back of a moving truck, you could increase your gait so as to match that of the supposed 8-10 critter. I also like the guy who was some kind of EPA dude who took leftover waste from some animals, broke down the material to the point where it couldn't be identified, and then had some fun telling people it was yeti poo, chupacabra vomit, and dinosaur dung.

As amazing as it is that these myths get carried on for decades and more, it's a hallmark to the ingenuity (and fun-loving nature) of humanity to come up with more gimmicks and stunts.

Although, sometimes it's not always funny. There's apparently this group of people in the Mississippi area who have convinced themselves that the only way bigfoot is ever going to be found is if they shoot one. So each night they go out in their boat, armed to the teeth, and crawl through the creeks and swamps, shooting at anything that moves. However, those armed folks blazing recklessly through the swamps can't be called idiots, because they're not religious, and only religious folks do stupid stuff or have stupid notions...apparently.


There's an inherent problem with large-scale myths like bigfoot. A lot of times the evidence gets clearly proven false, yet people ignore the proof. The chupacabra was proven to be caused by a variety of natural effects, even right in front of the eyes of various figures of authority, and was still ignored. The perpetuation of fear is allowed to continue.

Yeah, so bigfoot may not cause such a problem, but it does make you wonder...

But let's think about this a moment:

1. How many individuals in a mammal population do you need to sustain a population?

2. How do you hide such a population within the borders of a nation that really doesn't have much unexplored region left?

3. How do you hide all viable evidence of such creatures, in a nation that has had people crawling through its backwoods for centuries?

4. What is the probability that a population of creatures within such a populated area, over time, won't have left at least one carcass somewhere?

5. If we assume that such creatures possess the social capacity to gather their dead, such as primates and humans, this would likely indicate some sort of centralized social structure (either nomadic or stationary). If so why haven't we encountered gathering places before?

6. Is it possible that such a creature could illude the US military, and, even if it hadn't and this topic devolved into a government-conspiracy topic, what are the odds that such a military secret wouldn't have its own faction of government-conspiracy nuts, similar to if-not-equal-to the UFO folks and all the rest?

Don't tell me you actually believe the story of the guys who allegedly put large wooden feet on their own feet & hung onto the back of a pickup or other SUV to create above normal stride lengths? )) If that was the cause of such stride lengths, where were the tire tracks from the pickup?? And as far as the person who figured out how to keep making molds of his own feet until they were very large & had dermal ridges, I believe you're speaking of Dr. Esteban Sarmiento who is also a former Bigfoot skeptic. His experiment didn't explain the unique ridge flow pattern. I hadn't heard about the EPA guy. My organization is strictly no-kill.

What would all you consider solid evidence for the existence of Bigfoot?

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

By the way, your use of documentaries in this thread to clarify the beliefs of Dr. Meldrum was wholly correct. That is observational science of good quality. (I am surprised a (Q) falling into such an obvious, and accidental, trap.)

It might have been a trap, if the good doctor actually had claimed belief, but he didn't.

My concern is with expecting such documentaries to contain uniformly sound, accurate, mean ingful science. They don't.

Dr. Meldrum does good science. He has looked at all the evidence but has not claimed the existence of Bigfoot.

Originally Posted by WVBIG

I think the biggest reason that most scientists won't even investigate Bigfoot is the possibility of finding out we're not the only intelligent, bipedal primates on the planet.

Or, the fact that no hard evidence has ever been presented in over 80 years. Your even a bigger fool if you start claiming conspiracies are "afoot."

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by WVBIG

I think the biggest reason that most scientists won't even investigate Bigfoot is the possibility of finding out we're not the only intelligent, bipedal primates on the planet.

Or, the fact that no hard evidence has ever been presented in over 80 years. Your even a bigger fool if you start claiming conspiracies are "afoot."

You keep referring to the 80 years of searching. Where are you getting this figure? The investigation has only been going on since about 1956 & the reports go back to the late 1700's in some areas. So I don't understand your repeated references to 80 years.

Originally Posted by WVBIG

You keep referring to the 80 years of searching. Where are you getting this figure? The investigation has only been going on since about 1956 & the reports go back to the late 1700's in some areas. So I don't understand your repeated references to 80 years.

I use that in reference to the 2 separate 1924 incidents and resulting searches when Bigfoots first became widely publicized.

Certainly, Steve, one thing that is really annoying, and perhaps predictable, is the ChristianCafe pop-up ads on your website. But, at least it places another piece of the puzzle as to why you believe in Bigfoot.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Certainly, Steve, one thing that is really annoying, and perhaps predictable, is the ChristianCafe pop-up ads on your website. But, at least it places another piece of the puzzle as to why you believe in Bigfoot.

I'm thinking of upgrading to the ad & pop-up free package that Tripod offers. I haven't seen any of the specific pop-ups you mention though.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Originally Posted by WVBIG

You keep referring to the 80 years of searching. Where are you getting this figure? The investigation has only been going on since about 1956 & the reports go back to the late 1700's in some areas. So I don't understand your repeated references to 80 years.

I use that in reference to the 2 separate 1924 incidents and resulting searches when Bigfoots first became widely publicized.

Ah. ok. I thought maybe you were referring to the Fred Beck & Albert Ostman stories. But the real investigation didn't start until 1956 or 1957. I doubt many people took Fred Beck seriously in 1924 & I don't think the Ostman story came to light until later. I have doubts about the Fred Beck story since there are several versions of it. But then again, some of the versions come from different people & the 2nd version Mr. Beck himself told was over 40 years after the event allegedly occured. Not at all like the two different versions a certain person told, in short order, of being the guy in the suit in the Patterson/Gimlin film. When people who had actually been to the site started pointing out things he got wrong about the location, he came out with a 2nd version. The most revealing inconsistency between his two stories was in the first version, he said he never showed anyone the suit & in the 2nd version he said he stopped off at a bar after filming & showed the suit to everyone in the bar.

Have you been out in the woods lately? Its a dangerous place, so dangerous that even little kids are shot accidentally. During hunting season it is best to stay out of there but occasionally the unaware or misinformed populace ventures into no-man's-land without regard for hordes of gun-toting city slickers and local yokels brandishing everything from bows and arrows to AK-47 assault rifles. Along with copious amounts of alcohol the platoons of sharpshooters keeps an eye out for anything that moves, and when something rustles a bush or snaps a twig it's as if blitzkrieg has started all over again. These guys and gals can nail a cow or a 'no hunting' sign from a 1000 yards. With remarkable dexterity and timing, Bigfoot has managed to dodge hails of bullets. Perhaps it is just luck or maybe Bigfoot comes equipped with a bullet force field. Many times hunters have claimed a kill only to discover that the Bigfoot corpse somehow magically turned into a bear or deer, yes even a cow.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Have you been out in the woods lately? Its a dangerous place, so dangerous that even little kids are shot accidentally. During hunting season it is best to stay out of there but occasionally the unaware or misinformed populace ventures into no-man's-land without regard for hordes of gun-toting city slickers and local yokels brandishing everything from bows and arrows to AK-47 assault rifles. Along with copious amounts of alcohol the platoons of sharpshooters keeps an eye out for anything that moves, and when something rustles a bush or snaps a twig it's as if blitzkrieg has started all over again. These guys and gals can nail a cow or a 'no hunting' sign from a 1000 yards. With remarkable dexterity and timing, Bigfoot has managed to dodge hails of bullets. Perhaps it is just luck or maybe Bigfoot comes equipped with a bullet force field. Many times hunters have claimed a kill only to discover that the Bigfoot corpse somehow magically turned into a bear or deer, yes even a cow.

There aren't nearly as many hunting accidents as you & some other people seem to think. Although, if you're going to be in the woods during hunting season, I'd advise wearing blaze orange. Part of the reason nobody has brought in a dead Bigfoot during hunting season may be that most hunters do wear blaze orange. That & the gunshots scare them into hiding in areas inaccessible to us. A lot of states require it for hunters. WV. requires hunters to wear at least 400 Sq. in. of it during deer/firearm season.

Originally Posted by WVBIG

There aren't nearly as many hunting accidents as you & some other people seem to think.

You may need to reinvestigate that. Just google 'shot hunters 2007 USA' and you'll find one incident after the other.

I live near USA border on Canadian side of the Niagara River. I remember a headline from the Buffalo Evening News newspaper after the first day of deer hunting season. It read: Hunters 458...Deer 8. That's 8 hunters shot the first day, some fatally, wearing orange.