Ever believed in Bigfoot?

Post Reply New Topic

I was really interested in Bigfoot when I was 14, but not so much nowadays. I used to be subscribed to a YouTube channels, of a guys who were "Bigfoot Researchers" (AKA unemployed). I'm only joking about that, but still, it's silly how they called themselves that. There was this one guy who went into the woods to hunt Bigfoot everyday, and one time he thought he caught one on camera. He was breathing really hard, saying "Oh God, there he is!" The guy walked closer, it was a rock.....lol!

Have you ever believed in Bigfoot?

No. When I first heard about "Bigfoot", it was just after learning that there were no "Chariots of The Gods", and my cynicism was high, and I never found any "evidence" for "Bigfoot" that could not be explained away with natural causes or outright fraud.

Understandable, there isn't enough evidence to support it's existence. It is kinda fun to imagine what it would be like if Bigfoot was real

I'm both a Christian and I believe in Bigfoot.

I don't believe in bigfoot, but I'm thoroughly entertained by the animal planet series "Finding Bigfoot". The Patterson/Gimlin footage is pretty neat...the fact that it's probably fake just adds to the mystique...I think.

Like much of cryptozoology, I don't know what to think. There is some evidence of it's existence, so I can't rule it out but then again, if it was real, wouldn't someone have shot one and taken it as a trophy by now? It's not like they only populate places where hunting is strictly illegal. You have to think that someone with a high powered rifle will have come in contact with one at some point, felt threatened by it, and killed it in self-defense.

Doesn't really fascinate me.

I've always believed in Bigfoot.

He had six fingers on each hand....he had beautiful hair...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EppoBdFUyYE[/youtube]

Every remotely scientific analysis of the Patterson/Gimlin film I've seen concludes that there is no possibly way it could have been faked.

But a lot of these were TV documentaries and who knows if you can trust those anymore.

Every claim that it is fake I have seen consists of circular logic. "The film is fake because it's fake."

I used to think Bigfoot was fake. Now I think sasquatches might exist.

This is the larger problem with our media driven society. Truth is now relative and you can find someone who will support or deny anything. Whatever will get ratings so that advertisers buy commercials is what the show will have on it. The truth is irrelevant so long as it sells.

When I was 11 I got into Bigfoot and UFOs and the Bermuda Triangle and all that weirdness.

I always found Big Foot kind of boring.

I was never interested, it's not part of the mythology of my land either.

And I'm not sure if there is a cultural background which gave rise to the existence of Big Foot.

The patterson film came in 1967 when I was junior high, and I got hooked on the subject for a while.

There is a large amount of weak evidence, and not much strong evidence for its existence.

But I remember my 12 year old self thinking, back in the late sixties, that the patterson film will be the opening wedge and more and more films of bigfoot will appear as time goes by.

Well
The human population of the nation has grown by more than 50 percent since 1967. More people tramp throught the woods than ever before. And a GREATER proportion of that greater number have home movie capability if they cross paths with America's wild primate.

Only a tiny minority of folks had either professional, or consumer, home movie capablity in the late sixties.

Today every child has a video cell phone.
More folks intrude into Saskwatch country than every before, and each person is more likely to have handy video devices.

But where are the newer Patterson films? Why hasnt bigfoot made any film cameos since '67? There have been film clips, but none as dramatic.

Could it be that he doesnt exist?

Ive gone back and forth. There are the occasional footprints that look like they were made by a lame individual with evidence of specific bones being deformed that look quite real.

But if I had to vote- I would vote no- it prolly doesnt exist.

LOL!

There are of course many similiar legendary creatures all around the world, Bigfoot being just one. I would say that at this point, following archeology (which is a pastime) I am a bit more inclined to believe that something along this line may have happened. By that I mean some last remnant of a race exsisted into more recent times then has yet been discovered/proven. An example would be a Neanderthal group somewhere in a very remote place. Current finds place the race going extinct around 30,000 years ago, but the most recent finds and some re-evaluating of dating might bring it closer to us eventually, like to say only 25,000 years ago. It's concievable that some lasted longer, and maybe up to modern prehistory, like say only several thousand years ago, and any interactions with Homo Sapiens might then enter stories, legends, etc. It is also interesting to note that evidence is building of other races, like Neanderthals exsiting up to a similiar time frame. We, Neanderthals and these others seem to be kind of like cousins and are just different branches that all originated from the same ancestor. It has been recently established that we at times interbred with Neanderthals to a limited degree, and it is similiar findings that are helping establish these other cousins we may have bred with (in mid asia). So there were likely more then one, and possibly several different types of hominids slowly dying out. Who knows but the Neanderthals gave rise to some legends and these eastern cousins (who would have looked somewhat different) gave rise to the Abomidable Snowmen legends, or others. Its all spectulation at this point, but to me science is moving the pieces closer to it being feasible.

That's the best argument against bigfoot I've ever heard/read. No circular logic.

Of course there are a lot of new videos on youtube, but faking technology has improved just as recording technology has, and a lot of the videos are of very low quality.

I've heard TV documentaries claim that In the Patterson/Gimlin film the sasquatch's thigh is longer relative to the rest of it's body than would be in a human, and there is no way to fake this. Also, the detail is remarkable for the time: compare to the costuming in The planet of the apes. I've also heard that primate hair samples have been collected from all across North America that do not match any known primate, but have the characteristics of primate hair.

But again, TV documentaries. However it was a NatGeo documentary, which I feel is a little more credible than the history channel or animal planet. It was part of their Is it real? series which presented both the evidence for and against something, and most of the episodes, while not outright drawing a conclusion, seemed to answer the titular question with a "no". Only the sasquatch episode was different...