originally posted by: DARTheResearcher
Gorillas the same thing hundreds of years of tales and people like yourself told them they are imagining it all and that no such a creature exists.
Giant Panda was not discovered until the 1930s and by that time many scientific explorations had traversed the world and yet large animal not known
and not well hidden either yet we miss it.
Unlike bigfoot, natives gave missionaries gorilla skulls, to go with their stories. Gorillas and Pandas were
actually found. The bigfoot
also aren't inhibiting the uncharted wilds of equatorial Africa in the mid 1800's, for example, but are claimed to be breeding populations of massive
apes living in places like Ohio at this moment.
Not only that, but have claims of being "habituated" in such places. Yet unlike Gorillas, every time something that is purported to be from bigfoot
scientific scrutiny, it is found to be from everything else but bigfoot. Would make you wonder how people are mistaking
racoon for bigfoot?
Your claim that non bigfoot believers told them they were imagining it is, in itself, imaginary.
There is physical evidence in fact two skulls now in a vault had the origin of this a cave that the native people had told in their legends of
that a race of red haired giants lived in the cave system and would come down and attack at them or steal their woman and children of course people of
the sceptic view said native fairy tales and of course cannot be true.
However here we have physical evidence that some kind of giant hominid- bigfoot like skulls in our holdings which does prove one thing that some huge
race of giant hairy ape like people or gorilla like creature did actually exist in these cave systems as the natives say. You cannot argue with
physical evidence it is real and exists so some unknown human to gorilla like creature in somewhat modern times there is proof for.
Not bigfoot. More like big bs.
Many other forms of evidence exists
Lets see it.
and ask your self how could it be that for hundreds of years with white man and thousands for natives telling of the exact same description
spread all over North America
That's the point, they don't.
If the previous poster had bothered to do any genuine research on the hupa for example, he might have found that their "Oh-mah/bigfoot" (for example)
that are claimed as bigfoot by 'footers, were historically/traditionally a "sorcerer who used magical arrows of burning flint" or some such being
(there are others). Research overlooks the obvious paranormal (even religious) aspect of such myths and the obvious paranormal aspect of many modern
encounters. I can understand why the "paranormal bigfoot" enthusiasts feel it is some otherworldy entity (though I don't believe it).
how could so many always when making up or dreaming a monster all describe the same thing
Again, they don't. There are areas around the world where sightings do have some regional and historical consistency, NA isn't one of them though. If
you widen your horizons a bit and speak to people from such places and also do genuine research (not from biased bigfoot propoganda), this could be
But if they did, so what? There have been (and still are) billions of people have been in telepathic communication with and have all manner of
experience with a Jewish zombie ,for much of the last 2,000 years they all describe in a similar way. They also "know" it's real.
It's called cultural mythology. Same as bigfoot (which is also now a quasi religious belief).
And if your going to go on about the Patterson film I Use to converse often with Renee owner of the film and many claims have been made about it but
simple truth not even with today’s technology can anyone remotely come close to the supposed suit the fact is that in 1967 Roger and Bob like
thousands of others have or at least have claimed to a Sasquatch and he filmed it. Every scientific principle you can find and experts in Movie making
special effects have stuck their heads out and stated that in their field they know it is impossible to be a man in a suit.
Except for all the ones that you overlook, that think it as a man in an ape costume. The best that could be said for it is that the detail simply
isn't there to prove it is a hoax. Patterson was as shady as it gets. "Honest Bob" Gimlin seems to do ok at the 'footer backslapping love fests.
Wonder why mainstream science isn't looking? They most certainly would be if something really indicated such a thing exists.
Even experts like Jayne Goodall and so many credible people of many walks of expertise will stick up for the Patterson film I have watched it
since it's near inception thousands of times looking for the zipper the proof to prove it is fake the more I watch the more I know of it's
Again, it overlooks that almost everyone else thinks it's a hoax (including expert primatologists) and the only scientists that pretend to be looking
for bigfoot, do quite well financially, by never finding it.
. I also interviewed Bob Gimmlin and he is a real decent honest man so I have no issue with sceptics I always look for logical solutions first
but when all have been checked and the evidence climbs over the sceptic view I have no choice but to except that even though it sounds crazy the
animal truly does exist.
The film is a fake. That creature doesn't exist. You can believe what you wish. It will only amount to proof that someone claims
have filmed bigfoot. If this really is the best you've got.....
I have been studying this phenomenon since the sixties so I am much more versed about the pile of evidence out there then typical sceptics are
not so when they make statements they are going by not evidence they go by gut.
Then I applaud your efforts. Lets see this "pile".
If they truly had spent decades researching and finding so many peaces of a puzzle that all fits there would sure be less sceptics. Sure have a
sceptic viewpoint but when you see that all the evidence points against your view be a man and change it. If some one could prove tomorrow it is all
imaginary and they could do that I would have no issue saying well I guess i was wrong. However that is not going to happen do to the evidence is over
whelming actually in its favour.
Let's see it. I'll have no trouble changing my mind if it's that good.
originally posted by: CallmeRaskolnikov
you're right. you have some good points in you post. some people are just too obtuse and there's no sense in trying to convince someone whose mind is
already made up. no degree of information will suffice.
Having a different opinion than yourself doesn't necessitate being obtuse. Let's see what you base your bigfoot belief on?
ole sasquatch is better off remaining "undiscovered".
Ol' sassy has little choice in that, it seems.
edit on 26-7-2014 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it