Bigfoot

[Jetthebinturong]

Oh but the documentary I'm talking about was done by scientists in a bid to finally confirm/deny the existence of the yeti, their strongest piece of evidence was a hair taken from one of the supposed attacks that they tested for DNA and it didn't fit with anything. Of course, I didn't watch it, my parents did, and this is the information they gave me. (And yes they did most of their experiments on screen)

[Hickory]

Attacks? But why? *raises eyebrow*

[Jetthebinturong]

I don't know, maybe yeti are territorial. It might not even have been attacks, it was probably just encounters

[Rusvul]

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.

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.

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? 

Mostly hidden as in they do all the math, they stabilize the footage, it would have been very easy for them to falsify something, or for something to have been falsified at some point. In order to trust what the video you linked says, you would have to...

1. Trust that the Patterson film might be something other than a hoax

2. Trust that the film wasn't monkeyed with around the time of its recording (Which might be a difficult thing to monkey with, truth be told, I don't know how difficult it is to mess with physical film)

3. Trust that the several facts that went along with the Patterson film (Distance, camera lens, etc.)

4. Trust that the film wasn't monkeyed with when it was 'stabilized.'

5. Trust that a TV show didn't misinform the public, or at the least misrepresent facts to cause more buzz. There are any number of sensationalist TV shows that are along the lines of '<finding/searching for/investigating/etc> <bigfoot/loch ness monster/aliens/etc>' and you know how they all end? 'The evidence is chilling... There might be things out there that we don't know about. Maybe one day we'll find them.'


   That's a lot of questionable things to trust. Sure, 1 isn't a problem if you ignore 3, 4, and 5... But ignoring any of these leaps of faith would be unwise. Cryptozoology is filled with sensationalism, confirmation bias, circumstantial evidence, and fishy logic. Which is kind of a shame.

[Unimaginative]

I LOVE CRYPTZOOLOGY!

In fact, I did a 6th grade science project on it. I actually got a good grade on it. 

[The Skarzs]

I got a good grade on my explosives project. . . I blew stuff up with M80's.

[Cornflower MM]

I don't know whether Bigfoot exists or not, and honestly? I couldn't really care less either way. This is to me another big controversial topic helping to keep everyone stuck in the mud, in a matter of speaking. If he/she/it did exist, what would he/she/it be eating? And for that matter, where is the matter that comes out the other end, if you get my meaning? That's just my take on it, if you don't like it, sorry.

[The Skarzs]

Everyone's allowed their opinion; I find leaving room for critics keeps one looking at things with a better mind.

[Izeroth]

 I don't think Bigfoot exists. None of the attempts to find him have ever succeeded, an I think that if such a creature did exist, we would have found one by now. All the other North American megafauna have been discovered; how could a large ape-like creature elude us? If The United States and Canada were developing countries, with vast swathes of unexplored land, I might be more inclined to believe in Bigfoot, but we're industrialized!

[The Mask]

^^ That's why I think a yeti, or perhaps it's bogans cousin the yowie may exist.

[Ungatt Trunn]

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.

But the problem with what you just said is that there is in fact ALLOT of places were Bigfoot can hide; I said in my post that in Washington State alone there is roughly 9.7 MILLION acres of woodland that no (known) man has ever set foot on. And also, I learned that only %25 of Canada is actually populated. And allot of that %75 hasn't been charted yet.  And that is not counting the rest of the United States. I believe that, if Bigfoot does exist, they reside within the millions of acres of woodland that man rarely ever goes or has just plain out never been. The reason that there are so few sightings is that, if these sightings are real, they're just when people get lucky enough when a Bigfoot comes a bit closer to civilization than usual. But I still respect your opinion 

I don't think Bigfoot exists. None of the attempts to find him have ever succeeded, an I think that if such a creature did exist, we would have found one by now. All the other North American megafauna have been discovered; how could a large ape-like creature elude us? If The United States and Canada were developing countries, with vast swathes of unexplored land, I might be more inclined to believe in Bigfoot, but we're industrialized!

Yes, we are: but there still is TONS of unexplored woodlands in the States and Canada: millions and millions of acres of woodland. Just think: the odds that, if Bigfoot does indeed exist, those unexplored places would most likely be were it "hides" you might say; only sometimes when a Sasquatch comes anywhere near society and somebody is fortunate enough to be in the right place at the right time, with the ability to record a video of it or take a picture.

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.

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.

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? 

Mostly hidden as in they do all the math, they stabilize the footage, it would have been very easy for them to falsify something, or for something to have been falsified at some point. In order to trust what the video you linked says, you would have to...

1. Trust that the Patterson film might be something other than a hoax

2. Trust that the film wasn't monkeyed with around the time of its recording (Which might be a difficult thing to monkey with, truth be told, I don't know how difficult it is to mess with physical film)

3. Trust that the several facts that went along with the Patterson film (Distance, camera lens, etc.)

4. Trust that the film wasn't monkeyed with when it was 'stabilized.'

5. Trust that a TV show didn't misinform the public, or at the least misrepresent facts to cause more buzz. There are any number of sensationalist TV shows that are along the lines of '<finding/searching for/investigating/etc> <bigfoot/loch ness monster/aliens/etc>' and you know how they all end? 'The evidence is chilling... There might be things out there that we don't know about. Maybe one day we'll find them.'


   That's a lot of questionable things to trust. Sure, 1 isn't a problem if you ignore 3, 4, and 5... But ignoring any of these leaps of faith would be unwise. Cryptozoology is filled with sensationalism, confirmation bias, circumstantial evidence, and fishy logic. Which is kind of a shame.

As I said before, I trust Bill Munns: and also, the video was recorded from the National Geographic channel. And I know a thing or two about editing: aside from the previews that the Youtube poster edited out, I can't spot any other tampering anywhere. Also, this isn't the first time that those measurements have been used: I have read at least three other books were the writers all came to the same conclusion: the skeleton design of the "costume" wouldn't really allow a human being to fit in there. Also, that video, as I can see, got all facts about Bigfoot that it stated in the video right: thanks to the association of Bill Munns, probably, but accurate none the less.

And also, I can link you to a book were a man is able to determine the exact location of where the alleged Bigfoot was in the P&G video, the distance between Patterson (the person who actually recorded it), and the Sasquatch when the film was shot, and so on. It's a pretty long book, but fascinating none the less...

[Cornflower MM]

Everyone's allowed their opinion; I find leaving room for critics keeps one looking at things with a better mind.

I know. I'm just firmly stating I don't much care if it exists or not - This is just another controversial topic that keeps everyone (And I do mean everyone) stuck.

[Ungatt Trunn]

Everyone's allowed their opinion; I find leaving room for critics keeps one looking at things with a better mind.

I know. I'm just firmly stating I don't much care if it exists or not - This is just another controversial topic that keeps everyone (And I do mean everyone) stuck.

Yes, its a topic that no one has a real answer to: but there is allot of scientific evidence for Bigfoot than most other "mystery" creatures (like Aliens, Almas, etc.): that is one thing that makes it at least potentially possible.

[Cornflower MM]

I know, Ungy dear, I know.

[Ungatt Trunn]

I know, Ungy dear, I know.

Uh, yes, I see that now