Top 10 Reasons Why Bigfoot/Sasquatch May Exist

page: 1
16
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
I'm not saying that Sasquatches exist, because there is no proof yet. However, I see more reasons to believe than to disbelieve. Here is why:

1) There are thousands of eyewitnesses from all walks of life from around the globe. These are credible people (outdoor enthusiasts, park rangers, hunters, soldiers, police officers, Aboriginals, etc.). Some eyewitnesses have converted from being skeptics to believers. Many sightings have taken place in broad daylight with a clear view and, they are highly consistent. These people are not trying to gain fame or money and are often scared to speak out due to possible ridicule.

2) The Patterson Film has baffled scientists and experts for decades. Muscles can be seen moving under the skin and no one has been able to replicate the film. John Chambers was regarded as the best makeup artist at the time, and he denied involvement. None of the supposed person in the suit came out with convincing evidence. I also find it odd that a hoaxer would even add a pair of breasts to a costume. Why make it a female? Roger Patterson did not have the capability or money to achieve a convincing hoax, and Bob Gimlin never claimed a hoax ever after Patterson died.

3) There is plenty of food and places to live and hide. This may be strange to some people who live in urban areas, but in North America, one only needs to travel to Washington, Oregon, Northern California, or British Columbia (where I live) to get a feel for the vast, unexplored regions.

4) Bodies can decompose extremely quickly in the wild and bones can be scattered over a wide area. Even bear bones are seldom found. Also, why would someone come across a bone, examine it, and bring it back because it might be a Sasquatch bone?

5) A lack of a fossil record can be explained if Bigfoot is a descendant of some creature that is already known like Gigantopithecus or Homo heidelbergensis. They may have crossed into North America across the Bering land bridge just like we did long time ago. Perhaps, Sasquatch fossils just haven't been found yet. The fossils of Homo floresiensis was only discovered in 2003.

6) By many accounts, Sasquatches are very smart. They may wait for all cars to pass before crossing a highway and, they try hard to avoid humans. In the wild, they may sense you long before you sense them. This is why they are so hard to spot, let alone catch.

7) There are large human-like tracks all over the world. Some are definitely hoaxes, but some have features like dermal ridges and other anatomical traits that would be hard for the average person to fake. The Cripple Foot tracks were enough to convince physical anthropologist Grover Krantz. You have to ask yourself: Why would multiple people spend hundreds of years faking tracks in very remote regions where people may never find them?

8) Some have had the chance to shoot a Sasquatch but didn't, because they felt that this creature was too human. There are a few reports where some Sasquatches have been shot, but maybe the wounds were either non-fatal or the Sasquatches ran off deep into the bush before dying. It is important to note that some counties prohibit killing of a Sasquatch.

9) There are audio recordings and reports of unknown ape-like calls throughout North America. There is this intriguing case that occurred in 1988 to eleven Army Special Forces members www.bfro.net.... Even survival expert Les Stroud has had one incident in Alaska.


10) Occam's Razor states that a simpler explanation is more preferable than a more complex explanation. In this case, I think it's better to believe that people are seeing a real, unknown creature than to believe that every sighting or report can be attributed to hoaxes, lies, misidentifications, hallucinations, etc.

I am open to respectful discussions/debates. I only wish that people can be more open-minded towards unexplained mysteries. Ridicule should not be a part of science and investigations.
edit on 31-12-2012 by Supernatural because: Better video link.
edit on 31-12-2012 by Supernatural because: Grammar and general paragraph editing.




posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Why not take a different approach.

Assume scientifically that bigfoot exists.

What are the top 10 reason why, unlike any other creature that exists, there is no physical evidence confirming it's existence?



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by sconner755
 


Did you read my post?



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
As someone who has experienced a siting first hand with my Father I have always been a believer and always will be, despite my reputation being constantly damaged by it! Very good points



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
I generally neither believe or disbelieve in a possible existence of bigfoot, but I have to say this was a good, well written read. Probably one of the best arguments in favor of bigfoot that doesn't sound crazy I've ever seen on this site. S&F.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Great thread!


And I truly believe Les when he says he heard an Ape. I can't wait until he goes out this Spring to try to find these Primates.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Supernatural
 


Yes, the whole thing, every word.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

When I was a kid I was fascinated by Bigfoot. There was an incident about a mile from my house that made the news.

I always wondered this:

This is a paradox in the number of sightings and the lack of evidence. I think the answer is that since the Patterson film, there have been many hoaxers that muddy the waters.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Supernatural
 





3) There is plenty of food and places to live and hide. This may be strange to some people who live in urban areas, but in North America, one only needs to travel to Washington, Oregon, Northern California, or British Columbia (where I live) to get a feel for the vast, unexplored regions.


i would say this is the number one reason, city folk only see pavement and computer screens, they dont understand the depth of the forrest



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by DocHolidaze
 


Valentine, I am right there with you. Seeing this thing changed my whole world view. I also feel that my reputation was damaged by telling the story, but the truth needs to be known whether it effects me to the negative or not. The thing I saw was HUGE and I am coming to believe that there is indeed some sort of, and I hate to use this word, but coverup going on.

After seeing it I read every sighting I could find on the net, and there are some that sould like utter BS, but the vast majority of these tales have a tone that rings true in the telling. Reading them all was therapeutic to me, as I was feeling like I must be losing my mind. If I hallucinated this thing, then there are a LOT of others out there that are mistaken as well, and I find that to be the harder thing to believe...



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Well I AM saying bigfoot exists.

Remember scientists didn't have concrete evidence dark matter existed until 1932.

Just because we don't have a handful of evidence to prove something, or because we can't see something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The evidence will come.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Thanks for the feedback everyone.

Some people may explain away the lack of hard physical evidence by attributing special powers to Sasquatches, but I think this is one reason why this topic is ridiculed.

I like using the plural form of Sasquatch, because some people might get the idea that Bigfoot/Sasquatch is just one creature! I might get some flak for this, but it is my opinion that there are tens of thousands of individuals spread out over almost every U.S. state and Canadian province/territory.

I'm looking forward to see if Les Stroud can find some evidence. Maybe Discovery will make it a series with Stroud going to different regions. That would be fun to see.

I always wonder if a group of expert trackers and hunters could bag a specimen somehow, although I'm currently on the side of the no-kill policy. Even HD video or DNA evidence can go a long way in proving the creature's existence.

If Sasquatches are proven to exist, not only will the textbooks change, but people's attitudes towards mysteries in general will change. This mystery is worthy of serious attention and investigation.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by six67seven
Well I AM saying bigfoot exists.

Remember scientists didn't have concrete evidence dark matter existed until 1932.

Just because we don't have a handful of evidence to prove something, or because we can't see something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The evidence will come.


Gobi Bear, estimated population= 15 to 30.
Saola, estimated population = unknown (only 11 individuals photographed since 1992)
Blue Bear, estimated population= unknown (no individual ever captured on film or camera or killed since the past 200 years).
Barbary Lion, estimated population =unknown (probably extinct by now).


The Tibetan Blue Bear is one of the best candidates to proof that the yeti and Sasquatch are real creatures. This animal was discovered 260 years ago and since then no scientist found a living Tibetan Blue Bear. The only indication of that species is a pelt found and sightings. The only reason they didn't declared it extinct is because they are often related to yeti sightings.

So, there's a huge possibility that the Sasquatch is real. But the scientists forgot their main goal: Search evidence and proof. They are way to proud of themselfs.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by six67seven
Well I AM saying bigfoot exists.


Great. Let's see the evidence.


Remember scientists didn't have concrete evidence dark matter existed until 1932.


It was once thought the Earth was flat, therefore Bigfoot exists. Poor logic. Poor argument.


Just because we don't have a handful of evidence to prove something, or because we can't see something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


And we can't say it does exist. With a lack of evidence you're free to believe and have faith but it can't be taken seriously.


The evidence will come.

And when it does you can then say Bigfoot exists and I'll eat my hat.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by openmindfreethinker

Originally posted by six67seven
Well I AM saying bigfoot exists.


Great. Let's see the evidence.


Remember scientists didn't have concrete evidence dark matter existed until 1932.


It was once thought the Earth was flat, therefore Bigfoot exists. Poor logic. Poor argument.


Just because we don't have a handful of evidence to prove something, or because we can't see something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


And we can't say it does exist. With a lack of evidence you're free to believe and have faith but it can't be taken seriously.


The evidence will come.

And when it does you can then say Bigfoot exists and I'll eat my hat.


One of the reasons i never disbelif people account unless they show me otherwise, is because one day I may see the same these people saw and regret what i said.

Yes, there are lack of evidence on the Sasquatch and other cryptids. But there's "evidence". You said "lack". Not "there's none". Anyway, any endagered animals are extremely rare to come by. Even for people who live in New Zeland for decades, it's extremely hard to come by with some tips of birds. Many New Zelanders probably never heard on the Kakapo. These animals are there for century's with hardly people coming seeing them. But they see them, because they are there. They are just endagered and rare.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by openmindfreethinker
 


In my opinion, that way of thinking is flawed. Not everyone is going to have a camera on them at all times, or audio recorder to capture things. Granted,you dont have to believe what they said, but saying it isnt true, cause YOU havent had proof is wrong. Ive personally seen something of a bigfoot nature, but cause I cant show you what Ive seen its not real? Come on. science cant prove EVERYTHING that happens, so you should really keep an open mind like your name. Im sure in your life you've had a instant thought where you shouldnt do something, you didnt, and you either saved yourself from being hurt, or doing something stupid. Science cant prove what that was, but you know it actually happened to you. Right?



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Computron
reply to post by openmindfreethinker
 


In my opinion, that way of thinking is flawed. Not everyone is going to have a camera on them at all times, or audio recorder to capture things. Granted,you dont have to believe what they said, but saying it isnt true, cause YOU havent had proof is wrong. Ive personally seen something of a bigfoot nature, but cause I cant show you what Ive seen its not real? Come on. science cant prove EVERYTHING that happens, so you should really keep an open mind like your name. Im sure in your life you've had a instant thought where you shouldnt do something, you didnt, and you either saved yourself from being hurt, or doing something stupid. Science cant prove what that was, but you know it actually happened to you. Right?


Yup. For example. 10.000 thousand people see Godzilla raising from the beach and then disapearing as quickly as he appeard. People will know what they saw, it was real. Whomever, the rest of the world didn't. And they will mock these 10.000 people saying it's non-sense, it isn't possible.

The world is probably just afraid. Or the scients are too lazy to rewrite the books. Well, Franklin didn't had problems when rewriting the bull# ;"Zeus is who makes the lighting" or "The lighting is a divine punishiment..



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   
1) the hair sample which was analyzed and determined to be from an "unkown primate"

everything else is weak and over shardowed by the breeding population issue



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Frocharocha
 


Godzilla is a little extreme, but I get your point
.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Computron
reply to post by Frocharocha
 


Godzilla is a little extreme, but I get your point
.


Who doesn't like Godzilla? xD


1) the hair sample which was analyzed and determined to be from an "unkown primate"

everything else is weak and over shardowed by the breeding population issue


What you mean by the "breeding population issue"?
edit on 1-1-2013 by Frocharocha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by openmindfreethinker

Originally posted by six67seven
Well I AM saying bigfoot exists.


Great. Let's see the evidence.


Remember scientists didn't have concrete evidence dark matter existed until 1932.


It was once thought the Earth was flat, therefore Bigfoot exists. Poor logic. Poor argument.


Just because we don't have a handful of evidence to prove something, or because we can't see something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


And we can't say it does exist. With a lack of evidence you're free to believe and have faith but it can't be taken seriously.


The evidence will come.

And when it does you can then say Bigfoot exists and I'll eat my hat.


perhaps you should update your handle.

maybe you should spend some time researching the topic. there is plenty of evidence. perhaps you'd like to be spoonfed where this evidence is... well too bad... i'm not out to convince YOU bigfoot exists...

and you obviously missed the point behind my analogy.
edit on 1-1-2013 by six67seven because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
16
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join