Jump to content
Banner by ~ Ice Princess Silky

science Do you believe in Bigfoot?


The Equestrian Brony

Recommended Posts

There was one/(is) in captivity if so, less so a product of broken evolution, more so an abomination of progressive bio chemistry.

 

 

^Either way, it is something very within the realm of what society considers "the norm". It's not some awesome, magical creature who grants wishes and disintegrates into rainbows or anything. I personally, don't understand the fascination people have with Bigfoot considering how "mundane" of a concept it is :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Either way, it is something very within the realm of what society considers "the norm". It's not some awesome, magical creature who grants wishes and disintegrates into rainbows or anything. I personally, don't understand the fascination people have with Bigfoot considering how "mundane" of a concept it is :o

Haha sounds more like you are describing a leprechaun, but I think I get the just of what you are trying to say. the fascination is understanding the biological link, although, unless you yourself had it in captivity, and knew how to draw on the different variables, it isnt something an ordinary person thinks to deeply about. Most stem in intrigue from the fact that there is a human monkey wondering around that might have its own civilization of little human monkeys... they couldnt run from mankind forever in free range, seeing sasquatch in the open would only imply, one is on mushrooms and witnessing a standing black bear or grizzly from far away,two someone is working really hard to pull off an elaborate prank, three its under controlled variables of another individual or group of individuals, and undoubtedly posses no immediate threat to humans, seeing as it is indeed being monitored by other human beings. I live near Leetonia Ohio, so our modern day fascination with bigfoot stems from the fact that people are sensationalizing bear sightings or the fact that one cant deny what is in plain sight, more so rationalizing why, or what the organism is doing in the area, who it belongs to, or how it was created.

 

I can cite sources (personally, which wouldn't mean much to someone else, and myself, with both questioned and recognized credibility to different extents) of things far stranger than bigfoot and the bigfoot itself, so, no I am not going to deny it's existence, but I am not goiing to objectively write off on saying "bigfoot is real, everyone keep your eyes peeled", but I am not going to deny something so plausible as a different variant of humanzee in part of a success project..

Edited by Rose Coil
  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The cases are so bizzare that they cannot be explained.
Not really, to prove this I will now explain both of the examples given.

 

 

 

Bodies turn up in places that have been searched
The obvious answer to this is that the search parties wasn't really that good.

 

 

 

people go missing after leaving a group for minute,
This is also really easy to explain. Someone leaves the group and get lost. It happens all the time.
  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally do believe in Bigfoot. There are too many unexplained things to just write it off as nothing. Granted, there are hoaxes everywhere, and evidence is scarce, but there IS evidence. Hairs and tissue samples were found at a camper's cabin in Washington state in the early 2000s, and it was sent to a lab for analysis. The result: "Unknown Species'. It may not prove its a Bigfoot, but at the same time, it IS an unknown species. 

Can I ask for a source on this?

 

Also, I absolutely love the fact that you follow up the claim that there is evidence that Bigfoot exists with something you yourself admits doesn't actually prove the existence of Bigfoot. 

 

 

 In Nepal, villagers were terrorized by a Yeti, which had attacked and killed one of their number. Many sightings have been made there since but few are reported because these are people living in remote areas that focus more on survival than buying the latest smartphone and posting a new Youtube video every couple of days.  

First of all, source please? Secondly, the fact that people claims that they've seen a yeti doesn't prove anything, since chances are they are either lying or simply misidentified an animal or something. Thirdly, how do you know that there have been many sightings in that area if few of them are reported? 

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really.

The "evidence" people use to say that it exist, have always been rather spotty at best.

Plus at this age of cellular devices, I am pretty sure that someone would have taken an actual picture of one if it/they were real, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really.

The "evidence" people use to say that it exist, have always been rather spotty at best.

Plus at this age of cellular devices, I am pretty sure that someone would have taken an actual picture of one if it/they were real, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

People are just less impressed by a bear that can walk on two feet, who knew? ;o haha

but no, I stand by my first post, it is not inconceivable, it's just also looked on in intrigue for the wrong reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really, to prove this I will now explain both of the examples given.

 

The obvious answer to this is that the search parties wasn't really that good.

 

This is also really easy to explain. Someone leaves the group and get lost. It happens all the time.

 

That is not an explanation at all. You cannot universally say that every single of these hundreds of cases are explained that way. There was one case where a trail had been walked during a search multiple times, and then a down tree had been moved onto the trail and the body of the missing person was placed on top of it.

 

In another case, a missing boy was found alive on an island in a river and he was completely dry.

 

In another, a hiker went ahead of his party and disappeared. He was found a few days later, over a ridge line, face down in a lake bed, with all of his gear in his pack. Including a tent and food that he did not use. And his boots were missing.

 

Another case, a young man was part of a road crew walking a ditch. This man was in the back of the line. He disappeared with no one noticing. Some of his tools and items from his pocket were on the ground. One boot was found close by and his other boot was found in a field.

 

Yeah, just bad searchers.

 

And for "Someone leaves the group and get lost. It happens all the time." That is not an answer, it is merely a restatement of the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not an explanation at all. You cannot universally say that every single of these hundreds of cases are explained that way. There was one case where a trail had been walked during a search multiple times, and then a down tree had been moved onto the trail and the body of the missing person was placed on top of it.

 

In another case, a missing boy was found alive on an island in a river and he was completely dry.

 

In another, a hiker went ahead of his party and disappeared. He was found a few days later, over a ridge line, face down in a lake bed, with all of his gear in his pack. Including a tent and food that he did not use. And his boots were missing.

 

Another case, a young man was part of a road crew walking a ditch. This man was in the back of the line. He disappeared with no one noticing. Some of his tools and items from his pocket were on the ground. One boot was found close by and his other boot was found in a field.

 

Yeah, just bad searchers.

A source or two wouldn't hurt. Plus, the majority of these examples have nothing to do with what Gestum said.  I mean, was the island in example number 2 searched before the boy was found? If no, then it's not relevant at all. And in the first example, if I understand correctly, the body was moved on to the tree after they'd searched that area. So that's also irrelevant.  

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find cryptozoology to be fascinating in general. I love the idea of studying/searching for creatures such as Bigfoot, Moth man, etc. I have always been interested in this field of study and I remember wanting to pursue it at one point in my life. Even though I have put that aside, I am a believer of all things cryptozoology.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not an explanation at all. You cannot universally say that every single of these hundreds of cases are explained that way.

Most of them can be explained that way. And the few who can't have other logical solutions.

 

There was one case where a trail had been walked during a search multiple times, and then a down tree had been moved onto the trail and the body of the missing person was placed on top of it.

Or the person had climbed up into the tree and had died there and the search party didn't find him because they weren't looking there. Then the tree fell down and they found him.

 

In another, a hiker went ahead of his party and disappeared. He was found a few days later, over a ridge line, face down in a lake bed, with all of his gear in his pack. Including a tent and food that he did not use. And his boots were missing

Also not bizzare. He got lost and decieded to rest at a lake bed. He wantef to take a footbath and took of his boots (probably threw them into a bush or something).Then he slipped on a stone or something in the lake bed and died.

 

In another case, a missing boy was found alive on an island in a river and he was completely dry.

This is hardly bizzare, he swam onto the island and then his clothes dried up.

 

Another case, a young man was part of a road crew walking a ditch. This man was in the back of the line. He disappeared with no one noticing. Some of his tools and items from his pocket were on the ground. One boot was found close by and his other boot was found in a field.

The only bizzare thing here is the boots, but even that have logical answers.

 

There's plenty of reasons for why he would take of his shoes,maybe they weren't comftable for an example. My theory is that he took of both boots at the same time and then a animal (or a child or an idiot) took one of them to the field. After taking of his shoes he got lost for one reason or an other.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find cryptozoology to be fascinating in general. I love the idea of studying/searching for creatures such as Bigfoot, Moth man, etc. I have always been interested in this field of study and I remember wanting to pursue it at one point in my life. Even though I have put that aside, I am a believer of all things cryptozoology.

That is the spirit, even if its in trying to disprove it... some people get innovative and get these really crazy crazy theories... or claim they have seen some off the wall things... is it so hard to believe that maybe its more simple than that, and there is something we just dont understand.

Edited by Rose Coil
  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I ask for a source on this?

 

Also, I absolutely love the fact that you follow up the claim that there is evidence that Bigfoot exists with something you yourself admits doesn't actually prove the existence of Bigfoot. 

 

 

First of all, source please? Secondly, the fact that people claims that they've seen a yeti doesn't prove anything, since chances are they are either lying or simply misidentified an animal or something. Thirdly, how do you know that there have been many sightings in that area if few of them are reported? 

First of all, this is not a scientific essay meant to prove the existence of Bigfoot. It's an opinion formed from various sources from books, television and online sources. Second of all, I am not a cryptozoologist that collects and documents everything I find for the perusal of every skeptic out there. 

As far as my claim of evidence of Bigfoot's existence despite shortage of evidence, the evidence is there in the hair and tissue samples. If nobody believes it's a Bigfoot doesn't mean the evidence isn't there; it's just ignored. If it shows aspects of both primate and human, and no other species exhibits these qualities, what else am I to conclude? Especially when they are collected in areas where Bigfoot sightings are prevalent. The cases from the early 2000s and the late 1970s were both from television documentaries. In my foolishness, I didn't document the time, channel and credits of these shows for use on these forums years later. But again, this is not a scientific essay.

 

If you want sources for the Yeti stories, it is true that most aren't 'officially' reported by the witnesses because there isn't anyone to report them to. But when scientists and documentary teams go to these remote places in search of evidence and ask questions, they are answered with these accounts (many first hand). It may not be an official police report, but it is documented nonetheless.

It's not likely they would lie about something like a Yeti because there's no reason to. They see lots of bears and other animals and they identify them as such. When they see something different such as a Yeti, they likewise identify them accordingly. All cultures around the world have their own names for these creatures (see the link below) and I doubt that all of these people (many from primitive places that have no reason to seek notoriety) would just lie for no reason. And to say they're all just mistaken is shortsighted and absurd. 

 

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2011/09/different-names-for-bigfoot-to-z.html

 

If you want to seek the truth, it's good to be somewhat skeptical, but at the same time, you can't just write off everything short of a live specimen captured for analysis. Good investigation needs a skeptical mind but not a closed one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, this is not a scientific essay meant to prove the existence of Bigfoot. It's an opinion formed from various sources from books, television and online sources. Second of all, I am not a cryptozoologist that collects and documents everything I find for the perusal of every skeptic out there. 

As far as my claim of evidence of Bigfoot's existence despite shortage of evidence, the evidence is there in the hair and tissue samples. If nobody believes it's a Bigfoot doesn't mean the evidence isn't there; it's just ignored. If it shows aspects of both primate and human, and no other species exhibits these qualities, what else am I to conclude? Especially when they are collected in areas where Bigfoot sightings are prevalent. The cases from the early 2000s and the late 1970s were both from television documentaries. In my foolishness, I didn't document the time, channel and credits of these shows for use on these forums years later. But again, this is not a scientific essay.

 

If you want sources for the Yeti stories, it is true that most aren't 'officially' reported by the witnesses because there isn't anyone to report them to. But when scientists and documentary teams go to these remote places in search of evidence and ask questions, they are answered with these accounts (many first hand). It may not be an official police report, but it is documented nonetheless.

It's not likely they would lie about something like a Yeti because there's no reason to. They see lots of bears and other animals and they identify them as such. When they see something different such as a Yeti, they likewise identify them accordingly. All cultures around the world have their own names for these creatures (see the link below) and I doubt that all of these people (many from primitive places that have no reason to seek notoriety) would just lie for no reason. And to say they're all just mistaken is shortsighted and absurd. 

 

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2011/09/different-names-for-bigfoot-to-z.html

 

If you want to seek the truth, it's good to be somewhat skeptical, but at the same time, you can't just write off everything short of a live specimen captured for analysis. Good investigation needs a skeptical mind but not a closed one. 

 

Problem is, that the "Hair and Tissue samples"

Have all been looked at / tested.

They run the gambit from Bear Fur to Human Hair to... not actually organic.

 

This actually goes back to the same problem with most Cryptid.

All the non-eye witness evidence is actually harmful to the ideal they exists.

 

 

One of the things that we find when looking at the study of un-known creatures.

Is that very rarely to they remain cryptids for every long.

 

Simply put once a Scientific body knows to look for something, its not really all that hard to find them.

Some thermal Camera's and Drones would more or less prove that Bigfoot existed... And despite that being tried all we proved is that.. ~shock~ There are bears in the woods.

 

 

Another thing that I seam to run into also is when people start saying that -insert scientist here- just wants to disprove -insert thing- here.

Why? Because most Scientists would make a fortune if they proved bigfoot was real....

 

Simply put. The fact that big foot has not been found after a hundred years of looking.

Hundreads of years of co-habitation.

MILLIONS of years of not-leaving a fossil record (In one of the best fossil beds in the world)

And Having a complete lack of lead up evolutionary fossil records.

 

Leads me to a simple point.

 

 

_

Its about as likely that bigfoot is a alien, then a Cryptid that has not been found by now.

 

 

________________________

The argument is about as valid as arguments for 'globsters'

every time we get one, and it gets tested.

We find its something pretty mundane. And they the fact that its been prove to not be a sea monster... is ignored by people WANT to think its a sea monster.

Edited by blackstarraven
  • Brohoof 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of them can be explained that way. And the few who can't have other logical solutions. Or the person had climbed up into the tree and had died there and the search party didn't find him because they weren't looking there. Then the tree fell down and they found him. Also not bizzare. He got lost and decieded to rest at a lake bed. He wantef to take a footbath and took of his boots (probably threw them into a bush or something).Then he slipped on a stone or something in the lake bed and died. This is hardly bizzare, he swam onto the island and then his clothes dried up. The only bizzare thing here is the boots, but even that have logical answers.

There's plenty of reasons for why he would take of his shoes,maybe they weren't comftable for an example. My theory is that he took of both boots at the same time and then a animal (or a child or an idiot) took one of them to the field. After taking of his shoes he got lost for one reason or an other.

Oh, I thought you were being serious. Nevermind.

A source or two wouldn't hurt. Plus, the majority of these examples have nothing to do with what Gestum said.  I mean, was the island in example number 2 searched before the boy was found? If no, then it's not relevant at all. And in the first example, if I understand correctly, the body was moved on to the tree after they'd searched that area. So that's also irrelevant.

 

The books are Missing 411 there are 4 so far.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. This is coming from somebody that lives in the Pacific Northwest, which is primarily where Bigfoot's spotted. The story's been around for too long (the earliest I found was 1890. Didn't look too long, so there might be earlier sightings.) Whether there was one Bigfoot or a whole species, we'd find it by now. Our technology's really good at finding stuff and people are tenacious, so there's no reason to assume that we wouldn't be able to find one by now.

 

Now the reasons why we're still getting Bigfoot sightings? There's three I can think of. First is people not wanting to give up. As I said above, we're a tenacious species. Some will keep going, even when they know they're wrong. The second is a little thing called pareidolia. The mind sees patterns where there aren't any. This is what makes us see things in clouds or the face on Mars. The last is just plain ignorance.

 

On the off chance that this thread is actually about the monster truck, then my answer remains unchanged.

  • Brohoof 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's got to be something out there. We keep discovering fish we didn't know existed. :)

That's because the ocean is a lot larger than the forests he would live in, I think I read somewhere we've only discovered about 1/4 of what's in there. While I didn't look that up to check, I for sure know that we know more about the moon than we do in the deep watery depths. Lots of small species who aren't large enough to be of any importance are going extinct every day.

-------

If there was a big foot, than I would expect someone would be hiding him. I find it almost impossible that no one has caught/shot/found on dead/alive at any point in time. Unless this big foot's really small, skinny and like a ninja. xD

 

Edit:

 

(I DELETED THE QUOTE PART WHOOPS) First of all, source please? Secondly, the fact that people claims that they've seen a yeti doesn't prove anything, since chances are they are either lying or simply misidentified an animal or something. Thirdly, how do you know that there have been many sightings in that area if few of them are reported? 

--------------

 

I agree (kinda) with this, except for the fact that you came across as kinda rude. This could have been worded better. Some believe the cyclops (and other various creatures in the Odyssey) are based off of a exaggerated tale and fear of the unknown. People are quick to blame things on their god(s) when they don't understand something. Still happens today, when people do something in the name of  so and so. While this doesn't directly have to do with the case, I have a feeling that this popular campfire story could have just been a bear on his hind legs in the depths of a dark forest. But what I don't know to be false, I can't say he couldn't exist.

Edited by MintTiramisu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only stated the facts of the case. There comes a point when explanations become too far fetched.

So... "Mythical ape monster that has evaded all detection for decades" isn't a far fetched explanation?

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe there's guy or group of people who prefer  being in a wood as hunter gatherers and have slightly different body structure from ours. Not "Bigfoot".

Edited by TBD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the sense we think of it, no, Bigfoot is not real. Most "evidence" shown is simply fake and can be easily proven as such. However, biologists do generally believe that we have only classified and discovered a small portion of all species on Earth, so it is possible that there could be a land species that we have not discovered yet. This is just based off sheer probability; most species we've discovered are microbes or other small organisms living in extreme environments (ex: deep ocean, volcanoes, ice caps, hot springs). It's very unlikely we'll find one living in such a temperate biome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Join the herd!

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...