Bigfoot

Ungatt Trunn · January 05, 2015, 07:16:35 PM

So I've been in a cryptozoology mood lately, which means I've been doing allot of research on things like, of course, Bigfoot. So I decided to start a little thread just to give forth my top reasons as to why Bigfoot has a high chance of existing.

No before I start I just want to say that I have been researching the Bigfoot (or Sasquatch) phenomenon for nearly two years now. So yes, I do know a thing or two about the subject. Just to let you guys know that I'm no ignoramus posting about something that I have no real knowledge on

So here are my top reasons as to why I thing Bigfoot has the high potential to exist:

- The sheer amount of sightings. Every year there is roughly two to three dozen sightings. They mostly take place in Canada and Washington State (There was a supposed Bigfoot sighting only an hour away from where I live once), but they happen other places as well. And from what I've seen, only about %5o of them can actually be explained away. Just think, all you Bigfoot skeptics: only (roughly) half of all Sasquatch sightings can be explained away as misidentification of animals or other objects, or are just plain out hoaxes. What about those other several hundred sightings, alleged vocalizations and footprints that no one has been able to disprove? Not that this is definite proof that Bigfoot exists, but it certainly does make you wonder...

- The Patterson-Gimlin film. This 56-second video is considered to be the strongest piece of evidence of Bigfoot's existence by most people. It was recording in October of 1967 at Bluff Creek, California. Here is the original video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Us6jo8bl2lk

(Sorry I didn't just post the video here upright, but the [youtube] tag isn't working for some reason)

And here is a video analysis from Bill Munns on the film:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=MKUwdHex1Zs

So basically, to this time, no one has really been able to disprove this footage. As you can see in the Bill Munns analysis, it very unlikely that it was a person in a costume, as the measurements for the costume would have been virtually impossible for any human to fit in. And they didn't have stuff like robotics or computer animation that could have been used to make this back in 1967. Heck, we didn't even make it to the moon yet at that time!

Also, there have been several claims from people saying that they were the person in the "costume": but more than 10 people have claimed this, and most of them have since been proven to be lying. Again, not decisive proof that it is real, but the odds for it being a legitimate Sasquatch are quite high.

- There has been no real, direct evidence againsed the possibility of it's existence. And don't just say something like "well if Bigfoot is so big then why has it escaped our detection?" or "if there are so many of them [as enough for them to reproduce and survive] then why don't we see them that much?". Well, the truth is, in Washington State alone, there is roughly around 9.7 million acres of unexplored forests. And that's in just Washington State: think about how many more acres man hasn't explored in the rest of the United States or Canada. If Bigfoot is real, then the reason that we see them rarely is probably because were lucky enough to be somewhere at least near the vast wilderness were a Sasquatch(s) are possibly at that time. In the potential future, were we may have the technology to thoroughly explore all that wild woodlands, then who knows what we'd find! Maybe then, we will actually be able to located Sasquatch consistently; but until then, were just left with the lucky sighting here and there of people who have had the possible chance to see a real Bigfoot.

There are several other points that I could point out: the whole subject on Bigfoot prints, recording of supposed Bigfoot vocalization, other Bigfoot-like creatures around the world (yes, like the Yeti), and so on. But these are just my three top reasons as to why I think Sasquatch has a high chance of existing.

I know that there still is a chance, maybe a high chance that Bigfoot doesn't exist. But there's just evidence out there that people just can't ignore...

Jetthebinturong · January 05, 2015, 07:35:55 PM

Well there was a tv program a while back about finding out whether the yeti legend was true, they concluded by saying it was very likely. If yeti can exist, why not bigfoot?

For when you get bored of cryptids:

Ungatt Trunn · January 05, 2015, 07:37:41 PM

Quote from: Jetthebinturong on January 05, 2015, 07:35:55 PM
Well there was a tv program a while back about finding out whether the yeti legend was true, they concluded by saying it was very likely. If yeti can exist, why not bigfoot?

For when you get bored of cryptids:

Well yes, I do believe that, if Bigfoot and similar creatures like the Yeti are real, then they probably have the same ancestral relations.

And waddya mean, get bored with cryptids??? Who can?

Rusvul · January 05, 2015, 07:46:32 PM

There is no good way to disprove most theories along the lines of cryptozoology. (Or religion, or conspiracy theories... Take your pick, humans as a race love things that can't be disproven) But that doesn't make them correct.

After watching the video you linked, I have a few observations.

1. It's a TV show. I think that inherently makes it less reliable, a TV show saying Bigfoot exists will get much better ratings than a show that says it doesn't.

2. Their analasys is mostly hidden, they don't tell you how they derived results (for the most part) but only what their results were.

3. The film itself is not from a reliable source.

I don't think a shrouded analasys of unreliable footage from an unreliable source is very good evidence. And that's the trouble with most bigfoot sightings, and cryptozoology in general- It's a pseudoscience, riddled with confirmation bias. While it's impossible to say there is no credibility to any of it, most evidence for the existence of unknown creatures is circumstantial and unreliable.

The Skarzs · January 05, 2015, 07:50:25 PM

I don't doubt the existence of Bigfoot; it's possible for him to exist.
I have my own theory on what he is, and those of you who don't believe in the Bible just hear me out. Cain, Adam's son, killed his brother Abel. For this, he was cast from Adam's lineage. It might be that Bigfoot, and/or the yeti are Cain's descendants.

I also think that it is possible for creatures like fairies and other mythical beings to exist, but, not being like humans, might be able to hide themselves from human eyes.

Hickory · January 05, 2015, 07:53:21 PM

When was the Patterson film done? maybe ome one returning from a costume party...

Rusvul · January 05, 2015, 07:54:24 PM

If the film and the people analyzing it are to be believed, it is biologically impossible for a human to have been inside the suit.

Hickory · January 05, 2015, 07:56:21 PM

... hmmmmmm... i will post a lengthy reply later

Ungatt Trunn · January 05, 2015, 07:59:52 PM

Quote from: rusvulthesaber on January 05, 2015, 07:46:32 PM
There is no good way to disprove most theories along the lines of cryptozoology. (Or religion, or conspiracy theories... Take your pick, humans as a race love things that can't be disproven) But that doesn't make them correct.

After watching the video you linked, I have a few observations.

1. It's a TV show. I think that inherently makes it less reliable, a TV show saying Bigfoot exists will get much better ratings than a show that says it doesn't.

2. Their analasys is mostly hidden, they don't tell you how they derived results (for the most part) but only what their results were.

3. The film itself is not from a reliable source.

I don't think a shrouded analasys of unreliable footage from an unreliable source is very good evidence. And that's the trouble with most bigfoot sightings, and cryptozoology in general- It's a pseudoscience, riddled with confirmation bias. While it's impossible to say there is no credibility to any of it, most evidence for the existence of unknown creatures is circumstantial and unreliable.

1. I will admit, TV shows are a bit harder to trust nowadays, But I'll will tell you something: I do trust Bill Munns. He has done lots of research on the Bigfoot phenomenon, most that I have read: that at least boosts its credibility somewhat.

2. They show full 3D computer generations to show their measurements. I honestly don't see what you mean by "mostly hidden" though...

3. You mean the actual video or the Patterson-Gimlin video? If it's the last one, then I can assure you that it does comes from reliable source. People have been speculating it since it was recorded in 1967. In fact, one of it's recorders, Bob Gimlin, is still alive today, and there has yet to be found a hole in his telling of the event.

Quote from: The Skarzs on January 05, 2015, 07:50:25 PM
I don't doubt the existence of Bigfoot; it's possible for him to exist.
I have my own theory on what he is, and those of you who don't believe in the Bible just hear me out. Cain, Adam's son, killed his brother Abel. For this, he was cast from Adam's lineage. It might be that Bigfoot, and/or the yeti are Cain's descendants.

I also think that it is possible for creatures like fairies and other mythical beings to exist, but, not being like humans, might be able to hide themselves from human eyes.

I actually think that your first theory is very plausible: not that its very likely, but possible. I do believe in the Bible, and all in all it doesn't seem that far-fetched.

Quote from: Sagetip, the hare on January 05, 2015, 07:53:21 PM
When was the Patterson film done? maybe ome one returning from a costume party...

It was recorded in 1967: and who would be having a costume party in the middle of the woods?

The Skarzs · January 05, 2015, 08:01:26 PM

Fursuits for giants in 1967. . .

Ungatt Trunn · January 05, 2015, 08:02:08 PM

Quote from: The Skarzs on January 05, 2015, 08:01:26 PM
Fursuits for giants in 1967. . .

Yep...

James Gryphon · January 05, 2015, 08:29:59 PM

I'll parrot the mainstream here, and say that I highly doubt that there's any such entity as Bigfoot. A potentially edited video and a few hysterical reports over the last century do not a primate make. You can find similar stacks of 'evidence' denying that the Earth is round or that men walked on the moon. If there was any such creature, I'm pretty sure it would be in a zoo or hanging on some game hunter's wall by now. For such beings to survive largely undiscovered for over a century would require ninja-like stealth that no other recorded primate has exhibited. I think this is just a case of an idea entering the public imagination and being used to explain away strange events.

As far as any extrapolation based on Scripture goes, there's no evidence that Cain was transformed into an ape-being after his transgression. He was exiled and disowned, but I don't see anything that says he ceased to be biologically human. He had children who were named, and their deeds recorded, just like Seth's. I think it's fair to assume that all of Cain's descendants were wiped out in the Flood.

SilentSam · January 05, 2015, 08:40:06 PM

I believe. I think that it is possible that an ape-like animal lives in North America. Other ones that i believe in: Jackalope, Yeti, Jersey Devil!!!!, and a few others.

The Skarzs · January 05, 2015, 09:07:37 PM

You might want to leave it up to speculation before you outright say that you believe in such creatures; just a bit of cautionary advice.

Hickory · January 05, 2015, 09:08:55 PM

I don't believe. Looking at the size, think, "What does this thing eat?" Is it omnivorious? Besiddes that, what does it do? Where could it live? I'll admit Canada and Washington State are extremely large and under-populated, but what about park rangers?

On the other hand, if I want to be stupid, maybe it's like monsters inc.

News:

Bigfoot