I just don't understand why Bigfoot is considered imaginary [Youtubes]

I think we all know the big issue here. We need a body. Rarely do people consider how difficult it would be to track down, corner, and shoot an 800 pound primate in the most rugged terrain in the country.

Until we have a body, every skeptic and nay-sayer will rest comfortably at night thinking they are right. Bigfoot does not exist.

But what if such skeptics actually saw Bigfoot? What if they, like thousands of other ordinary citizens, saw something tha totally changed their life? Would they care about bodies then?

If we have mountains of evidence, footprints, individual sightings and reports that have been verified by institutions... if we have actual footage of a creature that CANNOT be disproved or affirmed as a hoax...

then why is Bigfoot still considered imaginary?

Well... I already started a thread (signature) about how and why people doubt everything they see. I firmly believe that we have had actual evidence of Bigfoot for the past 100 years and that people are simply in denial, relying on the superstitious belief that anything and everything supernatural is fake.



If we have experts who devote their lives to this subject, insisting that there is something there... and people still huff and haw at the topic of Bigfoot, it's going to take a body.

So far though, I do not need a body. There is very little doubt in me. I know people who have seen him, I know areas where I live that he has been seen, I know of the historical and modern reports, some which go so far back that no person in the 1800's would have the need to make up such stories (especially not where I come from.)

I don't know... I just don't understand skeptics anymore. Is anyone else in this dillema? Struggling to understand how people can DISBELIEVE something as simple as a Primate who has not yet been shot and killed. It seems as silly as people disbelieving that the world was round.

The face in that video shows the outline of a mans face in the opening of the headpiece.

The sun outlines the shape of his nose and the top of his mouth.

Clearly a fake.

Originally posted by OhZone
The face in that video shows the outline of a mans face in the opening of the headpiece.
The sun outlines the shape of his nose and the top of his mouth.
Clearly a fake.

You say 'clearly a fake' when experts have been studying the film for 40+ years, and believe it is authentic?

How is it so easy for you to dismiss things? Because skepticism is EASY, that's why. And in this case, it is unfounded. No, you cannot see a 'mans face' anywhere in the Patterson footage. The eyeballs and the eyelids are set right up against the plane of Patties face. This has been verified by expert analysis.

The sun outlines the shape of HER nose and the bottom lip of HER mouth, you're right. And both the nose and the mouth are out of human proportion. The mouth opens slightly and this has been documented by expert analysis.

"clearly" not a fake to anybody but skeptics and amateurs. And these are not the people I want deciding the validity of Bigfoot. I want the experts and the witnesses. And we have plenty of them

[edit on 8-3-2008 by NewWorldOver]

reply to post by OhZone


Dude are you kidding?! Do you know anything about the Patterson footage?

Not only has it not been debunked but it's been validated so many times in the different points of study of the film. The Patterson film is the most compelling evidence of authenticity in the entire history of cryptozoology IMO.

This film is what puts my belief level in the 80% level regarding BF. I suggest you look at all the different studies of this film prior to claiming "fake".

Wasn't that the footage that someone came forward to say was a hoax, some old guy on his deathbed? or am I confusing differing footages together?

I have been watching that footage in the last few days and found the person who was asked to wear the suit.

YouTube

Also if you are interested the The Luxembourg Bigfoot footage has also been revealed.

YouTube

Sorry but I can't seem to post videos. The always state malformed in Youtube.

Originally posted by Hulehvalen
Wasn't that the footage that someone came forward to say was a hoax, some old guy on his deathbed? or am I confusing differing footages together?

No, Patterson went to his deathbed knowing that he filmed a real Bigfoot.

And yes, people have come forward claiming to be the guy in the suit. They have failed miserably to prove it. They do not have access to the suit, or any capability of reproducing it, one such man couldn't even find the location the footage was shot at

The Patterson footage has at no point been disproven. This is fact... and people are obviously undert the wrong impression.

reply to post by NewWorldOver


Footage does not make a bigfoot. Film doesn't prove anything, and isn't even evidence for anything, other than anecdotally for whatever it portrays. There are plenty of experts out there who don't think it's real.

Bigfoot is still considered a mythical beast because there is no evidence for it existing. Quite rightly so.

Until a body is produced and DNA can be sampled, it will remain mythical. Just as with other animals, it has to be properly identified (as in not just via a camera) for it to be considered real. The burden of proof is on those who say it's bigfoot, not on those who say it isn't.

As for NewWorldOver's question of what if a skeptic saw Bigfoot? Well, if they were logical, they'd see it was anecdotal evidence at best. People can be very easily fooled, by shadows, movement, and other optical illusions. To trust your own experiences above everything else is about as childish as seeking knowledge gets.

More difficult than the challenge of hunting an 800-pound ape is how an 800-pound ape can exist in a wilderness without sufficient food to sustain a large enough population, sufficient space for it to hide, and how an ape can make dead bodies disappear without trace.

So the ball is firmly in the "bigfoot exists" camp's side of the court. Provide real evidence, or go find another made-up animal to chase

reply to post by NewWorldOver


huh. I stand corrected. I just thought that I remembered a Discovery Channel show about that. But I agree with dave420. I would want a body on the table, living or dead before I consider it real.

Originally posted by dave420
Bigfoot is still considered a mythical beast because there is no evidence for it existing. Quite rightly so.


....


More difficult than the challenge of hunting an 800-pound ape is how an 800-pound ape can exist in a wilderness without sufficient food to sustain a large enough population, sufficient space for it to hide, and how an ape can make dead bodies disappear without trace.

Every one of those statements is false...

There is evidence for Bigfoot. Tracks, vocalizations, scat and hair samples, thousands of sightings... all of these things have been studied intensely by Science.... a well known forensic scientist stated that dermal ridges on the footprints is evidence that would hold water in a COURT OF LAW.

And you claim there is no evidence?

You claim there is no way for a large animal to sustain itself?

I live by the mountains, I know this is false. Massive Grizzly bears thrive and flourish, they gorge themselves out here. It is hardly impossible for any large animal to survive in the wildernes... there is game and food everywhere.

You claim there is not enough room to hide a sasquatch?

I can't even address that claim with any seriousness. You obviously have no idea what the real scope of American wilderness is like.

No way to sustain a population?

Sasquatch have been sighted in family groups, and have been noted to migrate and be sighted in different areas by different people. They migrate, they mate.... why would Bigfoot have any trouble doing what deer and elk do all the time???

And finally, the no dead bodies argument holds no water.

It is extremely rare to find a dead body of an animal in the wilderness. Bodies decompose or are scavenged by other animals - likewise, most animals will go to a secluded area to die. No hunter ever comes across a dead bear carcass...

So there you have it. Every argument against there being no evidence is dismantled.

The ball is in the 'prove Bigfoot does not exist' court... and it always has been.

reply to post by NewWorldOver

It is extremely rare to find a dead body of an animal in the wilderness. Bodies decompose or are scavenged by other animals - likewise, most animals will go to a secluded area to die. No hunter ever comes across a dead bear carcass...

Agreed. This could also suggest burial rites.


www.abc.net.au...


could it be that BF holds a high reverence for their dead?

reply to post by NewWorldOver


That is circumstantial evidence. A footprint is not evidence of bigfoot, just evidence of a footprint that can't be identified. A good quality DNA sample that was definitely from an ape, but matched no known ape, would be actual evidence of something, as it's very difficult to fake that evidence. Footprints, hair, etc. are easily faked.

Your logic is massively flawed. If bigfoot existed, we'd have seen them the same that we see the grizzlies you talk about. Their numbers would have to be massive for them to survive this long, and the larger the numbers the more likely we are to see one, or find a body.

Yes, the US wilderness is massive, but the knowledge of what exists in the wilderness is just as massive. The fact that not one carcass has ended up in the hands of scientists is massively telling. We've got fantastic samples of ridiculously rare animals from across the globe, yet US scientists can't even see the 800-pound ape marching around their back garden? Do you really believe that?

The burden of proof is on those who think bigfoot exists, as only you can prove something exists. I can not prove something doesn't exist, as that's logically impossible. That, however, does NOT mean it's logically valid to claim something exists, and because it can't be disproven it somehow gains credibility.

So, the ball is in your court. Cough up real forensic evidence (DNA, blood, cells), or accept it that BF is faaar away from being recognised as a real animal.