Bigfoot yay or nay ?

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


In an 8 foot tall hairy creature that for hundreds of years evaded detection and proof of it's existence? From where I hail from, that is called an "Urban Legend", a myth so to speak.

But, I could live in a world where a race of creatures are actually inter-dimensional aliens with technology that includes mind-control devices to repel the natives from their habitats. At least, that will keep our forests safe, and prevent humans from destroying more precious natural resources.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


So explain to me what I saw. It was 6'+, hairy, huge, stunk like hell, and ran on 2 legs. And don't tell me it was someone in a costume. Because the depth of the foot prints were way deeper than ours. So what is it Einstein?

reply to post by Druid42

hat evidence? Grainy footage? Blurry pictures? A Bona Fide corpse?

You seem to be damn near misinformed.
There's nothing grainy or blurry about the
Paterrson film that has been digitally analyzed.

In an 8 foot tall hairy creature that for hundreds of years evaded detection

And quite obviously it hasn't eveaded detection.

Originally posted by dudeman351
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

So explain to me what I saw. It was 6'+, hairy, huge, stunk like hell, and ran on 2 legs. And don't tell me it was someone in a costume. Because the depth of the foot prints were way deeper than ours. So what is it Einstein?

That could have been me. I used to live in Portland.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


Well I'm in Florida. And thats where it happened. You can't admit that there are things out there that you don't understand. This is why people don't mention the things they see. I'll bet somewhere out there someone has the smoking gun of evidence but won't come off with it because of people like you.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

That could have been me. I used to live in Portland.

Well then ewe for you !

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Druid42

 

hat evidence? Grainy footage? Blurry pictures? A Bona Fide corpse?

You seem to be damn near misinformed.
There's nothing grainy or blurry about the
Paterrson film that has been digitally analyzed.

In an 8 foot tall hairy creature that for hundreds of years evaded detection

And quite obviously it hasn't eveaded detection.

edit on 30-6-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

The Paterson film that was digitally analyzed wasn't an original, only a copy (I assumed you are referring to the digitzation done for the History Channel, because I know of no other digital analysis), and as such, isn't all that conclusive or reliable. If the original film was analyzed, it would be a better piece of evidence.

Originally posted by dudeman351
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Well I'm in Florida. And thats where it happened. You can't admit that there are things out there that you don't understand. This is why people don't mention the things they see. I'll bet somewhere out there someone has the smoking gun of evidence but won't come off with it because of people like you.

AH! I mistook you for the gentleman that said Oregon.

There are -mountains- of things on this planet that I don't understand. There are also lot's of things I do understand. Don't you misunderstand. If someone had smoking gun evidence, I would be the LOUDEST supporter and avid researcher. I have been interested in primatology my entire life, and the idea of a North American hominid is the closest thing to a religious experience I could ever really imagine.

However, with that study of primates comes the cold truth in my mind. There simply aren't any here.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


Well, then you might should come to Florida and look around. They are here. We even have wild chimps that live in the green swamp that are descendants of escapees from the old road side attractions.


Here's a link: www.chimpanzeeinformation.blogspot.com...

reply to post by dudeman351


As to the ones in the video having shorter arms, there are several different types documented. The one I saw was huge even by sasquatch standards and was incredibly powerful looking with arms that came down to at least his knees too, and he looked like he could easily go down on all four legs and really cover some ground.
I believe the one in the video I posted a link to was a female and would be built differently.

Mikemacabee, man I can see the argument. Before I saw it I was in your camp, but after seeing it I too got no explanation for how it has eluded detection. That makes the interdimensional or alien theory more possible just because indeed all of those things must be in collusion for it to remain in the shadows.

My gut instinct tells me that they do indeed know about it. Saw a Army field manual from this area in another thread that listed it in the local flora and fauna right along with elk and black bears and cougars. Talked to a Soldier stationed here who said oh yah it is out there, and the consensus is it you come across it turn and go the other direction.

I almost didn't tell anyone, even my wife and we have seen plenty of strange stuff in our lives that this should be nothing, but I felt like a fool to even say the words. Upon sharing my story with friends at work and locals, almost all of them had a story of their own. Just shocked me to put a face on the weird howls and noises we have heard here locally. Suddenly it all fit and I ain't been in the woods much at all since and nervous when I have been.

Personally I don't care if you don't believe it or not, but please refrain from saying someone may have been mistaken who has had an experience different from your own. You may find yourself on the other side of that fence some day What I saw could have been nothing but, because nothing else fits the bill.

reply to post by randyvs

I'm a YAY! :

I grew up in the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains. When I was around 10 years old there was a very tall creature of some kind that walked past our bathroom window. It had to be at least 8 or 9 feet tall to be seen in that window because it was very high off the ground.

My teenage sister was in the bathroom curling her hair when she heard something and looked over at the window just in time to see this creature walk by. It was just turning dusk, but still light enough for her to see it.
She screamed bloody murder!

We all heard something hollering in the woods for months before, and after that. The sound wasn't like the long, low howl they give on the "Finding Bigfoot" show, but it was a high-pitched squeal; sounded more like one of those large flying prehistoric birds like you hear on t.v.! All the "old-timers" that lived in the area said they had never heard anything like it!

My mother wouldn't let me go outside to play all year because everyone around was terrified of this thing!

One of our neighbors that lived about 2 miles up the road found his pig ripped open on it's belly, but the only thing taken was the liver. He said it was a very clean cut; looked like it could have been done with a knife. He found long white hairs caught on the barbed wire fence close by. This was back in 1967.

One day the screams in the woods just stopped, and we never heard it again.

I've always wondered what that thing was! Possibly a Big Foot?

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

The Paterson film that was digitally analyzed wasn't an original, only a copy (I assumed you are referring to the digitzation done for the History Channel, because I know of no other digital analysis), and as such, isn't all that conclusive or reliable. If the original film was analyzed, it would be a better piece of evidence.

Of course I'm speaking of the digitization analyzation. And seeing nothing was faked about or around any of it, as documented, you can guess I stick by statement.

reply to post by sled735


I love all the testimony.

reply to post by sled735

She screamed bloody murder!

Bet she scared the crap out of that thang!!

and everybody in the house!

Good story! Thanks!

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by HomeBrew

I have researched the Bigfoot/Sasquatch topic as much as anybody save for devote experts and sadly I can not hold up a single beacon of truth with regards to proof.

let me introduce to you Mr. Bill Munns:

there are languages from around the world that have a name for this same thing.

that is not a suit, so what are we looking at?

macaphee, have you watched this bill mumms piece on youtube? it is very clear and concise, he uses pics of real people and explains how big foot suits were made back then, the way the patterson big foot moves is not someone in a suit, he did various tests and it is very plain to see .

I would like your take after watching it.

reply to post by Druid42


Wouldn't undetected mean no one knows anything about it? Native tribes all over north america have legends of the "hairy men of the woods". The stories among the white settlers started almost from day one, or certainly during that time period.

Tracks. Sightings. Hair samples of an unknown primate. This amounts to rather a large amount of smoke.

Here are some names used by both the native Americans, and the later European settlers.

Names.

reply to post by seagull


Wow! that's a lot of names for the big guy! I like "Loo poo oi’yes", that one is pretty good.

I liked the two books David Paulides did, "The Hoopa project and "Tribal Bigfoot", lots on native American stories and such.

Good info

"Loo-poo-oi'-yes the Rock Giant of Tamalpais" link : www.yosemite.ca.us...

reply to post by Minus


That's another good point. I've watched the show "finding big foot" a couple of times, and it's really rather boring. They're supposedly tracking big foot, but in the end, it's just noises in the dark. I find it ridiculous when one of the trackers hears some noise and immediately says "that's a squatch." With all the high tech tracking devices we have, you would think they would have trapped one by now.

reply to post by randyvs


Politely, I'm a non believer. I don't think a creature this size could exist without having come into contact with humans, intentionally or unintentionally...and there would have to be a viable population, making their discovery all the more likely ?

reply to post by seagull

Wouldn't undetected mean no one knows anything about it? Native tribes all over north america have legends of the "hairy men of the woods". The stories among the white settlers started almost from day one, or certainly during that time period.

Sorry to deceive you and randy about my definition of "undetected". Let me clarify. I was referring to a social structure, of which every other creature that is intelligent has. The "community".

Wolves live in packs. Birds, in flocks. Geese, in gaggles. Animals, including us, realize the importance of numbers, and tend to vie their social life accordingly.

Every hominid on this planet since over 500,000 years ago has recognized it's own kind, and stayed within a "breeding zone" (although for BF there are mostly individual sightings), near to the females of it's species. Procreation is the only means by which a species remains viable, so in effect, any creature wishing to produce offspring remains relatively close to it's reproductive counterpart.

You'll have to admit that we are very close genetic relatives to chimps, and apes. BF would be a cousin, in theory. Most newborn mammals are able to survive on their own soon after birth, with feedings from mother during the first few weeks of life, then they are on their own.

Hominids have a problem with that sort of ontogeny, and newborns are dependant upon their mother for their first 4-5 years of life. This holds true in the chimpanzee community, as well as orangutans. The trade-off for increased cranial capacity is a lengthy adolescence, and technically, hominids are born prematurely in order to fit the cranial mass through the birth canal. As a hominid, BF would endure the same sort of difficulty. The mama BF would need to care for the junior BF for a period of 4-5 years, and in doing so, some sort of social structure, or "campsite" would be evidenced.

C'mon, for all the sightings, there are BFs doin whoopee behind the scenes, and apparently there is a viable population of such creatures. I would suppose that mama BF would nurse for a similar period, say 2 years minimal, then junior would be left to forage. Since they are reclusive, mama would need to watch junior for say, the next ten years, teaching him the ropes of not being seen.

Chimpanzees and Apes both have solid social regiments. So do humans. I would think BF would follow suite, being a similar hominid. Such communities have remained undetected, and once biology is factored in, you begin to realize that there should be "communities" of BFs, the young in various stages of development, and some sort of loosely knit social structure.

Intelligence is a derivative of sharing ideas, and a single BF would be nothing if it didn't learn anything from it's parent. Or parents. It's safe to say that the parent BFs would necessarily teach their offspring to stay away from humans, but then again, maybe the BF sightings are adolescent members. The curious ones.

Honestly, without evidence of community, you'll have to explain a hominid population that doesn't use socialization as a means of advancement. It doesn't fit with the way the rest of nature works.

reply to post by Druid42


You know Druid, you were doing so well until the point I had to just blow you off completely.

Most newborn mammals are able to survive on their own soon after birth,

This isn't even close to true. I don't know where or why or how I. Nevermind.