It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Bigfoot can not exist today I am sorry but science cannot support it.

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 02:00 AM

Originally posted by dayve
Bigfoot is an experiment gone wrong.... IMO

Haha yeah I've thought of that myself at times.
Like what if Bigfoot was some top secret experiment the american government were working on and abandoned and released in these real remote areas thinking nobody would come across it. Either that or it escaped and maybe mated with a human and spread.

But then at the same time how could that be true if there are reports of bigfoot all around the world.

Still a cool thought though

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 12:11 AM
You are simply displaying your ignorance of the subject by creating this thread. How are you going to tell me that bigfoot does not currently exist, when I have seen it with my own two eyes? And I am not the only one. The question now isn't IF they exist, but HOW they exist.

If you really want to get "scientific" that is fine, but educate yourself first. There is quite a bit of PHYSICAL evidence to support the existence of bigfoot. Just because you do not know it exists does not change the fact that it does. Many hair samples have been scientifically analyzed by those qualified in the field, and the results have shown that they do not belong to any known animal in the world.

Very soon the world will know the truth, and the scientific community will embrace the idea of bigfoot as a reality. This is because the most in-depth scientific study ever attempted on the subject is currently being conducted. Science hasn't accepted bigfoot because science isn't looking for bigfoot.

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 01:08 AM
If Bigfoot exists, then there is a very legitimate reason that scientists would (and should) cover this fact up. The reason is simple. There is a very good chance that a discovered Bigfoot might become target practice for rednecks, a market for conversion by earnest religious devotees, or else "traditional Chinese Medicine." I think that anyone who values the life of these creatures, and the privacy of their souls, would cover up their existence if they be real.

Perhaps some Homo Erectus female hybridized with a Gigantopithecus and could reproduce. I am not suggesting that this happened, but that such a seemingly improbable mating is more and more likely given modern evolutionary biology and "synthesis" theory (Margulis). Or, maybe it is imaginary. Perhaps there is some third possibility. Whatever the case may be, if you see one, just shut up about it. They did not hurt you. By your carelessness you might hurt them.

posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 02:25 PM
Nice to see the OP never returned to their own thread....ROFL!! Guessing it can't be that important to them.

posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 02:37 PM
reply to post by theindependentjournal

I agree, I used to believe in Big Foot but yeah its pretty crazy how apparently these giant ape things are all over america and nobody seems to be able to find any REAL evidence. How is it that scientists can find proof of super rare fish at the bottom of the ocean but nobody can even find some monkey bones in the woods in our own backyard. So ive come to 2 conclusions 1. they are as intelligent as humans and have somehow hidden EVERY big foot that has died, or 2. They dont exist.

posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 11:16 PM
reply to post by eyesontheskies

If they exist then they are smart to avoid humans. Looking at our history we are a disgrace to the hominid tree.

If they do not exist then I am sad. It means that we, the chimps, the orangutans and the gorillas are all that is left of the Great Apes.

Either way, whether Bigfoot exists or not, we must preserve this planet. If they do exist, then they are a sign we must preserve habitat for them. If the Gigantopithecus is extinct, as scientists will have us believe, then it is a pressing reminder the extinction is forever. Failure to do so means either extinction or a future dependent entirely upon corporations and governments even for our air. (Yeah, just like "Lorax"...)

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 06:49 PM
reply to post by EarthEvolves

I dont think we are a disgrace. We are the most intelligent things on this planet as far as we know and we somehow found a way to be at the top of the food chain without having razor sharp teeth and claws. Orangutans cant say that. How many gorillas do you know that can operate a laptop? I think we should be more proud of who we are instead of acting like we are just monsters, which we clearly are not. And what do you think animal reservations are for? We (humans) protect habitats for animals.
edit on 27-3-2012 by eyesontheskies because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 08:19 PM
reply to post by eyesontheskies

A lot has been done that is positive. But, the negative is outweighing the positive. I am sorry, but too many animals are going extinct for me to praise humanity.

It is precisely because we could do so much better that I am upset.

posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 08:25 PM
reply to post by theindependentjournal

A bit late but I'd like to chime in.

It's at least possible. For instance, the land in the northwest US (where Bigfoot sightings are often reported) has thousands upon thousands of undeveloped acres.

Also, mountain gorillas have only been known about and were 'discovered' approximately 100 years ago. Before their existence was officially confirmed, the descriptions of such beats were often chalked up to folklore. But they were real.

So I think a Bigfoot could be out there somewhere.

posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 09:06 PM

Originally posted by jimbo999
Ever hear of ? Many serious researchers believe that this is exactly what Sasquatch/Bigfoot is.

Well I wouldn't go that far..........some researchers have speculated that it might be Gigantopithecus, but "many" serious researcher don't come to that conclusion.

Originally posted by jimbo999
3: Hunters & Wilderness?
Many hunters have actually reported having BFs in their sights and scopes - but have either been too scared to shoot, too shocked by it's appearance to shoot, or have shot - but merely enraged it by doing so...

Many hunters report this........I must have missed those claims!

Originally posted by jimbo999
4: Sightings (video).
Check out the Patterson footage - still the best and it has never been successfully debunked. I think there are several other amazing videos out there that remain un-debunked after, in some cases, many decades of attempts.

The Patterson footage

I thought that it was pretty much widely accepted as a fake.........especially now that Bob Heironimus has come out and admitted that Patterson got him to dress up in a modified ape suit.

It also has come to light that Patterson was a known con man, looking for funds to film a documentary on Bigfoot, he even wrote a book on bigfoot with bigfoot drawings with breasts..... a year or 2 before his "sighting".......just by chance Patterson stumbles on the elusive Big Foot with breasts!

Did you also know that Patterson got some guy to pretend to be his pal and fellow big foot "witness" Robert Gimlin when they went on a promotional tour to speak about what they had encountered that day?

There are other tell tell signs that strongly suggest a hoax, by or even perhaps played on Patterson himself......but for now I thinks this is sufficient to cast more than enough doubt about the authenticity of the Patterson footage.

edit on 28-3-2012 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 09:34 PM

Originally posted by jimbo999
3: Hunters & Wilderness?
There are vast areas of wilderness available for these animals - most of it north of the US border in Canada and of course in Alaska. BC alone is bigger than Western Europe and largely uninhabited wilderness. Alaska is a fair sized place too. Hunters? Many hunters have actually reported having BFs in their sights and scopes - but have either been too scared to shoot, too shocked by it's appearance to shoot, or have shot - but merely enraged it by doing so...

The very first eyewitness story that I heard, which got me started in my interest in this topic, was by the famous "bugs" to Art Bell, years ago. His account was one of shooting a bigfoot, and he specified that it looked so human that he was afraid to report it because he thought it might be a wild person. The books written by NABS David Paulides, accompanied by the forensic sketches from the several witnesses, back up that concept, that Bigfoot has a very human facial appearance.

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 03:24 PM
I've seen him with my own two, I know he exists.

The reason there's no proof of BF is because it isn't a simple animal. It's closer to being human and depending upon who you talk too, maybe even MORE human! (This line goes that WE were created from them and they are the TRUE Earth humans)

BF isn't scarce, there are plenty of them however they are masters of the wilderness. Think of John Rambo, only 8 ft tall and built like a gorilla. Couple that with their intelligence.

They bury their dead and live in clans. Basically, I would say they are Native Americans, execpt they are big and hairy.

Certain agencies within our government are WELL aware of them! When I called Fish and Wildlife in Alaska to report my sighting, they weren't surprised at all. Only asked for the location and if we collected any proof. Said they were well aware of BF and called them "Wildman".

Science are supposed to be leaders in our innovation and yet laymen commonly have to light a fire under their arse to go investigate something! Why is that? Many place so much faith in our science, yet we've had people reporting for years such things as BF, with science saying no they don't exist...what will you think of science when it's proven later this year that they DO exist?

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:03 PM
In Jewish mysticism there is the tradition of the Adnei Hasadeh. He is the "Master of the Fields." Some have connected him with the Orangutan, interestingly enough, but he seems more human.

I would say that if Mr. Foot exists then keep it mum. Protect him from hunters, celebrity New Agers, and National Geographic Hosts.

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:05 PM
reply to post by theindependentjournal

The depths of the Sea,hold creatures no one has seen.

Science doesnt know half of what exists down there.

Care to explain that?

posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 10:03 PM
reply to post by sonnny1

Even as someone open to the possibility of Bigfoot, I have to say that this argument does not quite work because the forest is more explored than the sea. Generally speaking we would expect to find Bigfoot by now.

UNLESS there is a conscious effort to cover up Bigfoot, perhaps with benevolent motives. That is my conjecture, that scientists do know he exists and are not saying so for his own protection.

I would not tell anyone if I ever say him. No way. No how. Let him live in peace.

posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 10:26 PM
Just because we haven't found evidence, it doesn't mean Bigfoot doesn't exist. The lack of evidence only means there is no evidence. There is a lot of areas in Canada and in the states of the old Soviet Union that man has not visited. Do you think these creatures are dumb? Don't you think they could hide from man? I could go live in the woods around here for years without being seen. An infrared scanner would show them like a man with a jacket and pants on. I would never say they don't exist.

As far as Dragons, the Chinese eat dragon bones, maybe the tradition stems from eating the bones of dragons long ago. It was probably some sort of dinosaur bird that survived. I'm pretty sure they are extinct today, hunted out by all the ancient cultures. Eating the heart of a dragon was supposed to make a person immortal. If a dragon came around here in the UP during hunting season, everyone would be feasting on BBQ dragon. I wonder what kind of sauce to use? white wine or red wine? Would it need to be cooked to 160 or 180 degrees internal temp?
edit on 5-4-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 10:55 PM
I thought there was plenty of evidence Bigfoot/Yeti exists.
People's eyewitness account, plastercasts of both BF and the "Abominable Snowman" foot prints AND the Yowie of Australia, Sounds in forests, etc.
These creatures are hunters and gatherers, well adapted to their surroundings. If they didnt want to be found, you would have a hard time finding them (as happens). They could blend right into the bush, you could walk straight past them. Obviously other animals would know them and avoid, as they mostly do with humans. The bears would keep out of their way.etc etc. They probably live in caves, and if some unfortunate human was a threat, they may disappear.... 1000s of people disappear every year.
There were probably 100s of thousands of Neanderthal man born in the 300,000 years or so they are "Thought" to be around....So where are all the Skeletons?? I believe they have found only around a handful or so, complete Neanderthal skeletons, in a burial ground, ...the Neanderthal people buried their dead in ceremonial sites.
Probably the BF is smart enough to also have burial sites, deep in caverns etc. It is quite possible why a skeleton may never be found.
Some scientist say there are no such things as Aliens...Some scientist (Stanton Friedman) say there is??
Some scientist say there is no fusion...some say there is???
etc etc...dont believe EVERYTHING scientists tell you.

Nobody on this site, knows what I look like, or indeed if Im male or female, or a computer program or even human.
BUT....I exist, and am alive.......

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 11:09 AM
reply to post by gort51

I honestly believe in Bigfoot/Sasquatch or whatever you want to call it. I believe there is a TON of evidence to support that there is something out there in the North American woods that we don't understand.

Now to the bones or skeletons, all this chat about people not finding a bigfoot skeleton or bones as obvious evidence to its non existence. These people must not be avid outdoorsman/women.

Why can i say that you ask? Well if you go out in the woods today and walk around I would bet money on the fact that it would take you possibly 50 years or more to find a wild Bear's skeleton or bones. So does this mean Bears don't exist. These animals are smart and they will go to the deepest and darkest places to lay down and die because they are vulnerable. If these animals go to places to die where other animals who live in the woods cant find them then how the hell are we suppose to find them.

Second the patterson film shows much evidence of it not being a person in a suit and more of a living creature. Like the muscle on its upper leg that has a bulge which would be considered a rupture of some sort. M.K. Davis just posted a youtube video that shows the neck is independent from the shoulders and moves on its own. So that is proof of everyone who said they were in a suit and it was them to be lying.

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 09:38 PM

Originally posted by jimbo999
reply to post by theindependentjournal

Ever hear of Gigantopithecus? Many serious researchers believe that this is exactly what Sasquatch/Bigfoot is. It is established in the fossil record, and fits the eyewitness/photographic/video evidence quite nicely,

Gigantopithecus was first proposed to account for the Yeti, due to the footprints seeming vaguely ape like/transitional and because the fossil record in that region can support the idea. Somehow it became the explanation for bigfoot through wishful thinking. Despite palaeontologists documenting the fossil record in every mainland US state, for over 100 years, yet nothing of Gigantopithecus or any bigfoot type of creature...There is no valid reason to think Gigantopithecus ever existed in North America.

Actually North America is one of the least likely places for a creature like this to exist, compared to claimed creatures like Orang pendek.

If you look at Krantz (who, from memory, championed the Bigfoot/Gigantopithecus idea) reconstruction of a Gigantopithecus skull (reconstructed from the jawbone alone) and look at the creature in the PG film, it becomes obvious "Patty" doesn't have the face of a large creature closely related to the Orangutan but instead has a modern Human face. Krantz seemed to believe Patty to be the "real deal", yet Patty and Gigantopithecus as portrayed by Krantz, cannot be the same thing.

Originally posted by Regenstorm
I miss your explanation for the famous Patterson footage.

The usual claim that this has not been debunked is misleading. It would be more accurate to say that nothing has ever turned up ...anywhere...ever...that would genuinely support this piece of footage being authentic. It isn't good enough quality to debunk, this is likely to be what saves it and is also one of the reasons it has no scientific value.

Though some basic observations can be made. Patty has modern Human facial characteristics, yet cranial characteristics of a Gorilla. Similar contradictions were observed (human-orangutan) in the greatest palaeontology hoax of the 20th century "Piltdown Man". The sagital crest is usually considered a male characteristic, yet is accompanied by breasts. A large ape/human with fatty breasts covered in thick hair/fur also seems contradictory.

The notion it cannot be a man in a suit due the "compliant gait" was laughable at the time. Though credit to Meldrum who has now dismissed this nonsense via experiment (IIRC). It would make you wonder why an experiment was even thought necessary though...

The circumstances alone surrounding the creation of this footage are enough for many to doubt its authenticity.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Also, mountain gorillas have only been known about and were 'discovered' approximately 100 years ago.

The wilds of central Africa in mid 19th/ turn of 20th century are a slightly more remote and different proposition to 21st century USA. Still, Gorilla's were known from a skull given to a missionary by natives. Some time later people went out and brought back specimens. When the mountain Gorilla subspecies was found, specimens were simply shot. Where are the bigfoot skulls or specimens taken by explorers/ hunters?

There is no lack of evidence for Bigfoot, the problem is that none of the evidence is any good (scientifically). The OP is correct, regarding science. Yet it's hard to discount all of the reports not only from the USA, but worldwide. I agree with the poster who mentioned a third possibility. It doesn't physically exist, yet people still encounter it. Something is happening, it seems that we might not be able to understand exactly what that something is, as of yet.

edit on 7-4-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.

posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 03:07 AM
You are free to believe or disbelieve, but I seriously doubt you have come to your conclusions doing fieldwork in areas where such creatures could exist.

Where I live in near the cascades there are many areas that don't see many humans except for loggers every 70 years, tree counters & road builders. There are large private areas that I could exist in without allowing anyone to see me just by becoming aware of my surroundings enough that I would know when visitors were around and avoid them. Many of the areas are unreachable by normal humans most of the year and the rest of the time they are too dangerous with little rewards for doing so - no recreational hikers or climbers.

Come on out - go in by yourself without weapons, good intentions and you could change your tune, instead of reading others studies and statistics.
edit on 8-4-2012 by verylowfrequency because: (no reason given)

new topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in