List of Bigfoot shootings in chronological order, dating back to 1829

a reply to: LDragonFire

Interesting how people have such a adverse reaction to the Sasquatch phenomena. I am aware of all these stories and many more that I will cover some in my new book. Your statements sir about some of these things is so far removed from the reality of it. The fact is that native North Americans to early settlers had numerous encounters with these animals. 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. There is much less sightings of giant Pandas in their native habitat then Sasquatch like animals. 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.
The natives said in their legends that they got tired of these giants attacking at them and set the cave on fire. In recent times the cave was investigated not for those reasons but for research of early inhabitants they may have lived in the cave systems and low and behold they find several giant skulls that are much larger then humans and are authentic sitting in a scientific facility. The natives had described right to the tee the truth and the skulls were there as they had said they burned them out. The problem is that because no one has a Sasquatch body to compare with the skulls cannot be said to be of a sasquatch simply do to we do not have a body of one proven. 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.

Many other forms of evidence exists 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 how could so many always when making up or dreaming a monster all describe the same thing yet back in those days especially many people lived maybe hundreds of miles from their neighbour yet they describe same things. If you look through the history of old newspapers you will find all the time sasquatch like creatures either being shot or even captured as well in diaries and journals everyone from presidents to native groups all have had encounters or describe encounter from family member or friend.
Very simple this animal is actually seen more often then even wolverines or proven animals and really is well known It simply has high intelligence like Gorillas and Oranges’ are proven to have and knows to avoid man. And most hunters have small 22 or similar weapons so to get lucky enough to be able to shoot one correctly and kill it to get authorities in would be slim to none . However the odd one in historical records has been shot or found dead and back then they did nothing about it. Hair Feces with types of bacteria that is not known to be hosted by any known living animal is in some collections. So even if you cannot fathom such a creature you cannot argue with physical evidence that some unknown species exists because the evidence is there. One last thing you may ask yourself why does the USA government spend huge money on manuals for their rangers and some other groups mentioning the sasquatch and warning them how to avoid one? If you know such a thing does not exist and is like the boogie man why do you spend tax payers money to warn of something not there. Officially they will not tell you it exists but unofficially they spend money to warn some of their workers that may run across them in the fields. The Sasquatch exists and if you want to see one simply watch the Patterson film it is all you need to see.
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.
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 authenticity.
. 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. 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. 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.

a reply to: DARTheResearcher

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. but for those of us who know what's what, it hardly matters. ole sasquatch is better off remaining "undiscovered".

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 gets genuine 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.

www.jasoncolavito.com...

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 obvious.

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 authenticity.

Link please.

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 to 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.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

I suggest you look deeper . All your disbelief stems from your lack of research. Granted I'm not going to list the thousands of reports I've read for you. I suggest you read about bigfoot researcher Keith Foster. He has ideas about bigfoot that aren't discussed. Many sightings are made by bow hunters. Most are never reported. Tell me this, why would a bow hunter 10 miles deep in dark timber possibly sight or find tracks? Its because they hunt where 99.9 percent of humans will never go. Try reading Keith Foster before you call bigfoot a myth

originally posted by: dvldwg89
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

I suggest you look deeper . All your disbelief stems from your lack of research.

Another bigfooter assumption. It stems from exactly the opposite.

It stems from researching areas where claims are made, instead of running off thinking monsters are real. Such as cataloguing the real wildlife in such areas over extended periods and finding plausible answers. Knowing from experience that believers choose to ignore such things. Noticing common threads in this phenomena world wide, which indicates that something other than real unknown hominids are likely to be the cause. From discussing the same with others, some of whom have been on genuine expeditions to some of the more remote places on earth.

It stems from genuinely wanting to know why people see such things and not accepting pseudo science or bs.

There's no problem where people claim to know personally that bigfoot exists. I know some researchers who seem very credible that swear they have personal experience to know this. However they seem to understand that in a scientific sense, there is nothing. It is when it is proclaimed as a fact that all should believe and is backed with junk science that it is less acceptable.

It is a shame that bigfooters don't reject pretend science, but credulously accept whatever will support their belief. It is the nonsense research of those who use their academic credentials to bolster a fantasy that is one of the biggest drawbacks to this area of study being taken seriously.

Granted I'm not going to list the thousands of reports I've read for you. I suggest you read about bigfoot researcher Keith Foster. He has ideas about bigfoot that aren't discussed.

As always, lots of talk, lots of claims, no bigfoot.

Many sightings are made by bow hunters. Most are never reported.

Then how would you know?

Tell me this, why would a bow hunter 10 miles deep in dark timber possibly sight or find tracks? Its because they hunt where 99.9 percent of humans will never go. Try reading Keith Foster before you call bigfoot a myth

Yet, they were there.....

If you think bigfoot encounters only happen, or that most happen miles into "deep dark timber" where people rarely go, it is you who need to broaden your research. All sorts of people are playing with them regularly (or claim to be) in rural and semi rural areas. What researchers claim as wild areas where few people go and what might really be such a thing, can also be very different.

I have very good reason to believe when people claim to see such things that they are being truthful (a percentage of them anyway). Though I don't accept the reasons put forward by the cultural group known as bigfoot research. It amounts to pseudo science at best and looks like wishful thinking. As yet nothing genuinely indicates an existence for a biologically real unknown hominid species anywhere on earth, unless you are prepared to look at it with an awful lot of pre existing belief and confirmation bias.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum
Again I disagree with you. By what you post you clearly show you know nothing about real sightings and real 22 inch tracks in snow found deep in the Colorado Rockies. Do yourself a favor and Google Kieth Foster Bigfoot. Read what he has posted on a bow hunting forum. Its very interesting . He has done lengthy research in Colorado. Tell me do you spend anytime in the woods? What do you base your claims the bigfoot doesn't exist if you don't even look at the evidence?
I'll give you an example. I've hiked and fished many remote areas here in Colorado. No I've never seen or heard a bigfoot. I've seen only one mountain lion in all those years. Its because they are wary and avoid humans. Yes I have found huge bipedal tracks in glacier snow . Try and explain to me what made those huge barefoot tracks at 11500 ft. I can't explain it. Trust me just read Keith Foster. You ask for evidence , read what he has reported.

originally posted by: dvldwg89
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum
Again I disagree with you.

That's fine, should be encouraged to form our own opinions. It's only when opinion pretends to backed by (pseudo)science that it becomes different.

By what you post you clearly show you know nothing about real sightings and real 22 inch tracks in snow found deep in the Colorado Rockies.

First part is completely wrong. Second part... I only know about bigfoot in the Colorado rockies from someone who has led a research group there for a very long time. I don't doubt he believes what he claims (seems very honest), I can see a range of possibilities that don't require a real bigfoot.

Do yourself a favor and Google Kieth Foster Bigfoot. Read what he has posted on a bow hunting forum. Its very interesting . He has done lengthy research in Colorado.

I did. It is interesting. Do me a favour and point out the part where he demonstrates unambiguously and where I won't have to rely on someone else's claims, or interpretation, that bigfoot exists.

Tell me do you spend anytime in the woods? What do you base your claims the bigfoot doesn't exist if you don't even look at the evidence?

A lot more time than the average cryptid researcher. I have found things that I have given to interested researchers (that I can't easily explain), on the proviso that it is not with the intention of anything else than it needs an explanation. They are sure it helps confirm an undiscovered hominid. I also know that many other claims that are said to indicate such creatures existence, don't and there can be an amazing lack of objectivity when people begin research with a belief in the object of such research. Including certain scientists.

All I really find is anecdotes, claimed bigfoot tracks and more claims. Same ol' same ol'. No bigfoot. At sometime a bigfoot, or the genuine scientific documentation and observation of such (as happens for other creatures that do exist) will be required. When that doesn't happen for centuries amongst a heavily populated and technologically advanced society something becomes obvious. When people claim regular interaction on the fringes of suburbia yet have absolurtely nothing to support it, it becomes more obvious.

I'll give you an example. I've hiked and fished many remote areas here in Colorado. No I've never seen or heard a bigfoot. I've seen only one mountain lion in all those years. Its because they are wary and avoid humans. Yes I have found huge bipedal tracks in glacier snow . Try and explain to me what made those huge barefoot tracks at 11500 ft. I can't explain it. Trust me just read Keith Foster. You ask for evidence , read what he has reported.

I don't disbelieve you. That you can't explain it without invoking bigfoot doesn't mean it has no other explanation. If you find personal reasons to believe a species (possibly several different species) of massive apes are inhabiting the US (with similar claims from basically every continent except Antarctica) that's up to you. That's very unlikely, with the US claims around the least likely of all.

There has only ever been one genuine scientific paper offered in this area of study. It also found no bigfoot.

originally posted by: CallmeRaskolnikov

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: LDragonFire

and not one piece of credible evidence

wow, what a contribution...lol

As they say the TRUTH hurts!!!

ok - to the people that replied to my post :

please cite the most compEling single peice of evidence contained in the annecdotes of the OP

I always wondered if the Sasquatch break up the bones of their dead into little pieces with rocks and dispose of them somehow? Just crossed my mind a few times that since we've never "officially" found one maybe they don't keep it their dead whole.

Anybody else think that national forests and parks were set up to contain certain species under the guise of preserving natural landscapes?

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

from what i've heard they bury their dead. same as us.

2 things on this subject. Firstly with all theses shootings why have we never had a credible body? Also secondly why would you shoot this creature? Unless you were threatened, other than that I can see no "sport" in killing a mythical beast! Humans a imbeciles!

a reply to: damo1583

Unless you were threatened, other than that I can see no "sport" in killing a mythical beast!

If we can't make a sport of killing mythical beasts.... what is left?

Humans a imbeciles!

Some are, if I am reading this the way that you intended me to read it.

a reply to: butcherguy

I can't see it as sport in killing what could for all purposes be a one off and if real I possibly the rarest animal of all time! We should of learned by now as we as a species have already hunted many others to extinction! Point taken on the imbeciles remark although I would meet you halfway by altering it to most

a reply to: damo1583
You said 'mythical beast'.
If the beast is mythical, it is not real.

I say we kill the crap out of mythical beasts.

They come and go. They have protection from a higher power to come to this place from time to time to eat. Someone had a plan that was used before to get them to be host to some that want us dead. The reason is because they do not question what is asked of them they just do it.

There is also lots of stories about sasquatch beeing shot at but without any obvious harm to them. Is there knowledge of what a gorilla can take? They are/were slaughtered on end, so those poachers should be able to tell if its "easy".

a reply to: Geomand

I would be guessing the hunters used dum dum bullets, hunters in Africa generally used these to bring Dow big "game"