Bigfoot/Sasquatch Fact or Fiction?

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


I wasnt even gonna dignify this post with a response because you present no proof whatsoever that the bigfoot legend is a hoax.All you do is embed videos of gigantic people from the past and somehow conclude that this is proof of a hoax? Have you ever gone and talked with First nations peoples and listened to their stories and legends that go back thousands of years regarding bigfoot?Are they all in on this hoax?Have you ever gone out in the field and spent weeks and weeks in the bush doing your own research? Why would the government start a hoax regarding bigfoot? When did this hoax begin and why? What would the government gain from this when only a very small percentage of people even believe in bigfoot to begin with? I dont mean any disrespect but embedding videos and somehow using Andre the giant , goliath and the tallest woman in china to conclude that somehow we are all being duped is pretty weak.You go tell a first nations elder whose family has inhabited the northern part of British Columbia for thousands of years, and has an absolute one hundred percent symboitic connection to the land and all the creatures that dwell within it,that he is delussional and his ancestors were fabricating lies and see what happens.Let alone all the honest credible people who have had real encounters with something that has changed their lives.I'm sorry I know you are a long time member here but I know a weak argument when I see one and could not just let it slide. Peace.

reply to post by mark1167


No disrespect taken from anything you've said.

I will ask though if you read any of my previous posts because from what you wrote it seems you have not.

No disrespect meant.

My post to which you are specifically posting is an addition to my previous posts in regards to size and strength.

Of giant people, who may or may not, be in monkey-type suits in the boonies.

I never said I was right or anyone else was wrong, it's called a discussion board for a reason.

We're discussing a topic, in this case, crytpozoology, and the existence of "Bigfoot" as fact or fiction.

And just for clarification Native Americans know warfare.

Not necessarily in the same manner as you or I nor the Cavalry back when America was unsettled.

But they knew warfare.

Sure, some tribes were peaceful, some were insanely territorial.

A part of warfare is psychological operations.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Psychological Operations

Psychological operations are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.

Meaning what if the different tribes figured out "The White Man" will not be stopped by us?

So through this they decided to begin psychological operations?

I am not stating this is a fact I am postulating it to you.

On top of this trappers, as in fur trappers, often dressed in the furs they trapped.

What if those same tribes instead of using psychological operations saw a trapper dressed head to toe in furs?

Trappers come in various shapes and sizes.

You may see a weak argument, from me, but I see a weak rebuttle with a lack of preparation and or a lack of reading each of my posts, from you.

No offense meant in the least.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


Thanks for the reply and maybe I was being a little rude using the term weak.I apologize.But my lack of time here on this site does not invalidate any of the questions I posed. I have read every post on this thread and I can appreciate all sides of the discussion and mean no disrespect to any viewpoint presented here.I geuss I get a little annoyed with so much imbedding as a way to prove a point .I prefer discussion and actual research that puts people in the trenches to endless links and videos.Again I'm sorry.
On the discussion of warfare , I agree many early first nations people did engage in warfare within certain areas against other tribes and I'm sure at some level physcological tactics were used for one reason or another that is a given in any type of warfare , but many of the legends of bigfoot handed down predate white mans arrival on the continent and for one tribe to use a phoney story about a hairy apeman to scare another tribe, who would know full well they were being tricked because they know the land as well as the next tribe,just doesnt make much sense.Some of the oldest totem poles in British Columbia are over one thousand years old and depict this creature very vividly, and when you stand there looking at them and talk to the elders about the story the pole depicts you start to wonder .Bigfoot was revered and respected by many first nations tribes,and from what I've learned there is no evidence from within all the west coast tribes that this was nothing more than a trick of self preservation. Also there are no stories from early Canadian settlers or early Canadian explorers anywhere regarding tactics used by indiginous peoples in this way when first contact was made.I'm not so sure about first contact with American tribes , but on the west coast of British Columbia first contact by many of the first nations tribes with white men did not result in any warfare at all. I have personally spent many months within first nations communities learning the origins of many of these stories to try and make some sense of the legend and discovered the little known fact that first nations people believe that there is also a spiritual and almost supernatural aspect to bigfoot as they know it.They tend to believe things about him that I have yet to really understand. I am just trying to get my head around his existance.So you do bring up some interesting points of veiw, and I do have an open mind to all possibilities, but when you've done the field work within indiginous communities and ignore all the hype and the patterson footage, its hard to walk away not believing something is out there. Peace.

reply to post by mark1167


No apologies necessary.

What you see as embedding videos is what I am supplying to anyone curious enough to watch or read.

Wikipedia, Youtube, or whatever I link.

Usually, I post books, as links and pictures of the covers so other people might seek them out or recognize them.

If they have seen them before.

Unfortunately, I do not have any of the books on "Bigfoot" I used to and cannot remember their names.

Each book I reference, I own, or got from the library, or borrowed so I remember it intimately.

Using only the keywords for reference through links, embedding, and quotes.

Because I'm an avid book reader as well as investigative person on many levels.

I do understand your references as well as others with pre-dating "Bigfoot" to the "white man's" arrival.

Trust me, I have more in common in the "Native American" than I do the white man.

Even though I am white myself.

My stepfather grew up around the Seminoles and I've heard many stories.

I saw through the horse puckey sold as history about the settlers and how the tribes got screwed.

Government, settlers, and men who saw themselves as entrepeneurs really did not try to understand the culture of those they took advantage of with a few exceptions, very few in fact, to the point of near eradication of those tribes whose culture was not only beautiful and spiritual, but ultimately respected the land and did not rape the land like the white man is wanton to do.

Reservations are pre-Concentration Camps in my estimation.

Since you brought up the British Columbia (Canada) region let us not forget the Norse men who invaded prior to Columbus, and as well their tendency to use the berserker to terrify people into submission, dressing like wild bears or wolves, high on semi-narcotic style drugs to evade pain and going into rages, this could be linked through hearsay to the early Native American sightings as well.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Berserker

Berserkers (or berserks) were Norse warriors who are reported in the Old Norse literature to have fought in a nearly uncontrollable, trance-like fury, a characteristic which later gave rise to the English word berserk.

Berserkers are attested in numerous Old Norse sources.

Most historians believe that berserkers worked themselves into a rage before battle, but some think that they might have consumed drugged foods.

The Úlfhéðnar (singular Úlfhéðinn), mentioned in the Vatnsdœla saga, Haraldskvæði and the Völsunga saga, were said to wear the pelt of a wolf when they entered battle.

Úlfhéðnar are sometimes described as Odin's special warriors, with the pelt from a wolf and a spear as distinguishing features.

These are examples and in no way stating anyone is right or wrong but simple discussion.

I agree there is much more to this story than many of us know but I have done my own independent research.

Listening to ghost stories or spiritual re-tellings does nothing for me because it is something I see as a part of indoctrination into a belief system and not wholly true and or realistic, but a ritual of sorts, which is meaningless to me unless I am seeking to enter into a rite of passage.

I detest ceremonies, pomp and circumstance, and rituals due to the nature of people inherently pulling the wool over people's eyes with what I see as chest puffing, bragging, and saber-rattling, no matter the culture, no matter the reason.

I am the sort of person who looks at you strange for giving me a medal for doing my damn job right.

The majority of what I have posted here in this post goes towards the psychological operations aspect of hoaxing a "Bigfoot" and all the types of understandings, histories, and ways someone specifically trained to pull off hoaxes might perpetuate them.

Nice thread Slayer.

I shared your work with a friend of mine today who has spent decades in the bush of British Columbia.

He has hunted, fished, hiked and 4x4'd his way through all of BC's Bigfoot hotspots so I think his observations are relevant. In appproximately 40 years he has only once found an animal carcass. Dead bodies are consumed by the environment within 48hrs. The big animals turn up first, Cougar, Wolf, Coyote, all the way down the food chain to the rodents, then the bugs etc etc so the lack of Bigfoot remains is hardly suprising.

He has never heard any BF calls or the like, or had any sightings, niether have any of his friends who know these areas, but from my own experience of the backcountry in BC it is so mind numbingly large, mountainous and heavily vegetated that if a man wanted to get lost there no one would ever find him. If Bigfoot is in survival mode he could easily avoid the Chimps with the sticks.

Thanks for your time and effort Slayer.

Pi

Originally posted by cacnotcam

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
You know what they say, never say never. But I doubt it, Slay. Seriously. As I read somewhere the other day, wouldn't a skeleton at least have turned up somewhere by now?

Wouldn't they be at least dumpster-diving, or applying for food stamps?

I have always wondered about the skeletons/carcasses/bodies, etc, myself. With that being said, could someone who is more knowledgeable than I, tell me how often one stumbles upon a dead bear or some other large creature just chilling? And who knows, maybe their kind, if they exist, does something with their deceased, like bury the body. Who knows.

I lived in the mountains of Southwestern Virginia, on the edge of the Cumberland Plateau, and spent a good deal of time in the woods, mostly by myself. There are bears in those hills, have no doubt of that. In all that time, maybe 20 years or so, I saw exactly ONE partial bear skeleton in the woods, on Clinch Mountain. The mountain next to it (actually a spur of Clinch) is called "Beartown Mountain", to give you an idea of he character of the area.

By the time I saw it, the only parts left were the pelvis and part of the backbone. Even the skull was gone. It was in a pretty rough area, and I'd have to guess it died naturally - I don't think a trophy hunter got it, because up there, even the trophy hunters carry all of the meat out of the woods, and in any event, have to have a carcass to check in. I don't know of anyone there ever trying to check in with just a head of what they've killed. Even deer bones, as plentiful as deer are, are a rare find. Cattle bones are more common, because they're usually found closer to the beaten path.

Originally posted by Wolfenz
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I'm not talking about Indian legends, like the Algonquian Missisengw (Guardian of the Forest), I'm talking about reports from pioneers and explorers. I'll give one example, and I'm willing to bet no one has ever heard of it, simply because of the circumstances.

I have listen to the legends when i was young In The Mohawk territory Mostly in Akwasasne of Giants (like Bigfoot) The Little People ( like Europe's, Pixies , Gnomes , Brownie's ELVES etc. ) Limmikin (Werewolf, Lycans, Loup-Garou) and the Most Known is ! the Lake Champlain Monster similar to Scotland's Nessie

Interesting about Lord Dunmores War though. maybe it was a giant ? Hominid ?

The Shawnees have a legend of a tribe of red-haired giants that used to live in Kentucky, but who were exterminated. They say that's why no tribes were allowed to settle in Kentucky, that the spirits of those giants still haunted the ground, and would not allow settlement - only hunting for food to keep the children from starving. As a matter of fact, The Dark and Bloody Ground is supposed to have gotten it's name originally from this incident, although during the settlement period, it proved to be accurate. "Kentucky", as we know it's borders today, isn't exactly the same ground, only part of it. "Kentucky" of the Shawnees ran from the Ohio river south to the Cumberland river in what is now Tennessee, and from the Mississippi river in the west to the New and Kanawha rivers in Virginia and West Virgina of today.

I note that the footprint in question was on the Kanawha river, but the giants were supposed to have been exterminated long before white people came. Could be a relict that they missed, or the legends could have originated from bigfoot sightings, but I sort of doubt the latter, since the Shawnees, like most of the other tribes, had legends of a big, hairy, Guardian of the Woods that better fit the description of a bigfoot. It too was alleged to help animals in distress, and prevented over-hunting by the tribes. I would think the Guardian and the red-haired giants were different, but who knows? The stories could have gotten mixed up and re-separated in antiquity.

Originally posted by pajoly

Yes, they exist very clearly are most who believe accept the likelihood that australopithicus did not die out after all, but moved to very remote areas in small populations. Just like it is now commonly accepted than neaderthal man existed side by side with homo sapiens (a concept considered scientific heresy just a few years ago). These are real animals, not goofy magic shape-shifters or other way out fantasies.

Myra Shackley wrote a book on that subject, linking the Asian Almas to surviving Neanderthals, called "Still Living?: Yeti, Sasquatch and the Neanderthal Enigma".

Amazon listing

I wish I could put everyone at ease, but I know everyone (well not anyone) here know me personally. I can tell you all that BF is real! Exactly what it is, I can only speculate.

While in the Army, stationed in Alaska's interior, we (myself and two other soldiers) were returning from a ski exercise in a hummer. We were on the military post driving a dirt road that we run on every morning, it was very familiar too us. Actually this dirt road travelled from the front gate to post, all the way back by our barracks and actually just about surrounds the entire post. It's a good 20 miles in diameter if I remember.

Now for a good distance, this dirt road runs parallel with the posts main paved road, I think it was named Airport way and was a four lane road, our main road. This dirt road was only separated from the main road in stretches by a thin line of trees about 10 meters wide.

Getting back to the incident:

I'm in the back and the two other soldiers up front chatting and trying to get us back to the barracks as soon as possible because we were off duty soon as we could check in gear and change. I'm slightly dozing in the rear. All of a sudden the driver slams on brakes, my eyes snap open and I see what they saw, the last seconds as a large, hairy "man" crosses the road. All you hear are primeval "SSSHHHHH******TTTTT!" in unison.

There's a odd silence after that and we all look at each other to confirm we weren't crazy. Talking about hair standing on your back.

This thing BF looked us directly in the face as it crossed the road in a couple of huge strides. They wanted to get out and check for prints, I told them to get me the fluk outta there! We didn't have live ammo of course.

That encounter has haunted me everyday of my life since, and that was in 1996. That encounter did answer one of my questions of is it closer to man or animal. I can say that it basically is a man. You can see the intelligence in the eyes. I wouldn't be surprised if the things speak English.

I think this is the problem with finding proof of BF, many people think they are looking for a animal. No, BF is a man, some type of man, with man's intelligence.

I was never into crypto and all that stuff to seriously, but after this I called the Alaskan Fish and Wildlife and reported the incident. They took the location, date, events, etc and then told me something that rocked my world. The guy told me that they've BEEN known about the BF's and around our parts of Alaska they are called "Wildman". That they are shy but peaceful and won't hurt you. The guy said all this so matter factly and asked for the location so he could search for evidence for records.

My speculation on BF of the years leads me to believe there are at least two avenues for BF.

a. BF is as native americans say, are basically a creation of man that is older than ours. That they have been here long before us, and will probably be here after us. We think they live primitive, but they may perhaps actually be MORE advanced than us. They may have some form of telepathy.

B. BF may be some inter-dimensional being.

Those are the two avenues I come up with.

Imagine if we ever accidentally caught a BF and placed it in a lab and our top scientists were trying to study it by giving it tests they would give gorillas, and this being shocked them by speaking perfect english and telling their dumb arse to let him go before he tells them their true origins on this planet. Because BF may have the answers WE want to our bastardization.

I won't say they are being intentionally covered up, but it reminds me of the big black cat denial in N. America. But people are clearly seeing a black panther. Just last week, my neighbor while out chatting with me said he saw one down the road in Orlando, FL. Says he saw it plain as day and he did the walk the big cats do. Said the tail was just amazing.

Now if you call Florida Fish and Wildlife they will tell you there's no such thing. Same as the guy earlier in the thread with the bear thing.

I believe we (humanity) must live in our own, created reality. That our reality forms a bubble around us. Our mind power is just that strong. We basically have created our own universe and things that don't fit, don't usually register to us. There may be all sorts of things happening outside our reality that we don't want to accept. This may explain ufo's, aliens, demons, trolls, etc. These things can't usually penetrate our bubble of reality.

If this were an alien thread, I would have to say I am more or less on the fence, not sure what I believe, however, when it comes to BF I have always been a believer that the sightings reported were real. Perhaps 95% sure.

That changed the minute I viewed this thread. This is some of the best footage I have ever seen. To claim this is a hoax, or this film would not be considered evidence amounts to nothing more than people whom do NOT want to know the truth. People whom have the preconceived notion that Bigfoot could never exist.

There is no way that what we are looking at is merely "a man in a monkey suit". If you look at the pure physiology of the movement of the shoulders as the creature walks, The laticimus dorsi is tremendous. It moves in perfect connection with the rest of the body. The forearms extend quite beyond the natural length of a human. The stride is powerful and precise. The eyes speak of intelligence and emotion far beyond that of a primate. Now to really confuse things, factor in the breasts. Rumor has it that it was a male in a monkey suit. Why all of sudden does this footage appear and the creature have breasts. Who on this forum ever remembers stories of a female in a monkey suit? It doesn't add up.

The audio is more evidence. What is that? I cannot say that is what a Bigfoot sounds like for I have never heard one before. However, that is no animal!! If no animal and I think most would agree to that, then what is making that primal sound?

Such an excellent find Slay, and rock solid research. S&F!

Pax

reply to post by SLAYER69


Good thread Slayer!

All I can add is an encounter I read about in one of my favourite books I have ever read-The book is called "The Long Walk,"and is a fascinating true story of how a small group of folks escaped from the Gulag in WW2,and walked all the way from Siberia to India to escape!

Now near the end of the book,the writer describes an encounter with two large "yeti" type creatures in the Himalayas.
They watch him and his companions,while the author watches back-he describes them as intelligent looking,and very tall,covered in fine white hair.
(Its only a paragraph,but I cannot see why the author would lie about such an encounter,in the context of the story.)

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1286207212&sr=8-1

I would reccomend this book to everyone,as its a testament to the incredible human spirit which we all posess IMO.

And for the record,I believe in Yetis,having talked to a group of folks from Bhutan(high up in the Himalayas),They sort of convinced me,having witnessed them themselves,along with many other folks from their country.

Again,these folks had no reason to lie about such a thing,and they all seemed totally sincere about the creatures existence.

I know Yetis differ from bigfoot due to where they are supposedly found,but I would not rule out the existence of either.

Also, if BF was just a primate this mystery would have been solved already. A animal with the intelligence and diet of a primate would have by now, been caught in someones trash.

reply to post by DZAG Wright


Maybe these creatures have worked out that if Humans find out about them they will get the same treatment as all the other species we know about-They will get eaten or enslaved,or turned into shoes and handbags.

An intelligent species may decide that hiding in the shadows/forests/mountains is the best bet for their survival-and they could be right IMO.

This is one of the best recent videos I have seen.The rowers say they didn't notice the movement on the river bank. Understandably, they were focused on running the rapids, and the cameraman was focused on keeping the other boat in frame.

Does everyone know that it is illegal to shoot a BF in many states?

I'm leaning toward scientists and the government are aware of BF's and chose not to divulge it to the public. I believe BF is superior to us in intelligence. How on earth could you ever capture a man that is built like a mountain and knows the terrain, and is at least equal to us in intelligence? You can't.

On the other hand there's something else I can't quite place a finger on that makes me believe there's something other dimensional about them.

I can tell you for a fact that big foot is real because I have personally seen one.

I damn near hit the thing with my car one night on a logging road on the north part of the island.

reply to post by flyingfish


Thats very interesting.

1:39 onward into the vid. On the left bank for those that are curious.

It seems to take one step foward into frame then one step to its right and out of frame.

I personally don't believe in "Bigfoot". Then again, I likely wouldn't have believed the stories coming out of China (like most people at the time) in the mid 1800's about an herbivorous, black and white bear. How long since the first reports in America of the Panda until one was killed and put on display? I think it was in 1920 by Teddy Roosevelt's son.

Originally posted by Doc Holiday
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

i'm all for anything sasquatch related....

I have a tough time following the Patterson film...I like it...yes its compelling but was an admitted hoax...but as others have said its almost too perfect..even for a fake...I am hesitant..or on the fence on that one.

There is allways a chance that an admitted hoax is not a hoax at all. There are many stories about people that have accidentally discovered something, only to be ridiculed and attacked for the rest of their lives. If they admit it's a hoax they might be laughed at at the moment, but they are free from the constant attacks that will follow them as long as they live. Remember the swedish farmer that found the Kensington rune stone? Both he and his entire family was ridiculed, laughed at, and attacked for decades as hoaxers. It's an understandable thing that people will try to avoid such a destiny. To simply declare it was a hoax will relieve any eyewitnesses to strange things from years of constant pain.

In this regards, I'm not totally convinced that the Paterson film is a hoax at all, even if it was admitted as such...