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.


Why I don't think Bigfoot exists...

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 02:04 AM
Hi, I'm new to this board. I stumbled upon it while searching for information about The Loch Ness Monster. I have always been interested in this sort of thing. I used to really believe in Bigfoot and The Loch Ness Monster, but in the last few months I started to believe otherwise.

Really, the whole thing right now is riding on the Patterson movie. If that were to be proved fake, I think there would be little doubt anymore that this whole thing has been a hoax.

I believe that the movie is clearly a fake. I think that all the analysts that keep examining it are being fooled by a great costume by a great special effects man adding to his resume, old film, and the lighting conditions.

I also think that in looking at the movie, people seem to want to believe that it's real, instead of looking at the obvious things that make it a fake.

1) The man went out looking for the beast after hearing of a sighting in that area.

2) After renting the camera (which we later find out he never paid for) and traveling out there he decides to shoot trees and water, conveniently using up all but a few seconds of his film, which he then uses to shoot the bigfoot footage.

3) This creature which has eluded people for so many years is sitting there in broad daylight, then after spooking a horse, gets up and strolls across the area, then turns and looks at the camera (which again conveniently becomes very still just for that moment).

4) Patterson was suffering from cancer and he supposedly knew this years before making the bigfoot film. This would give him motive, maybe to just get paid, or maybe to leave his legacy.

Then you have to consider that in all these years, noone has found a skeleton, fossil, corpse, nothing but footprints and some hair.

There are also a lot of eye witness reports by hunters who claim that they have seen bears and other large animals, so they know that this was something different.

I believe that most hunters would have taken down a sasquatch. Even though there are laws against it now, how could anyone prove that this creature didn't try to attack them? You also figure that with such a huge discovery, whatever jail time the person would do would be more than recouped when they got out.

They never have, which leads me to believe that they never really saw the creature to begin with.

posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 02:13 AM
While the very existence of Bigfoot is debatable I would just like to point one thing out.

Then you have to consider that in all these years, no one has found a skeleton, fossil, corpse, nothing but footprints and some hair.

The problem I have when this is brought up is that the same fact goes for other animals. You can try and try but its not that often you will find say, a bear skeleton in the forest.

Yet they are very common, and we know that. Often Bigfoot footprints are fakes. I like to believe in the creature but most "evidence" is usually fake.

As far as I know, all samples of "bigfoot hair" have been confirmed to come from known species, etc.

posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 02:13 AM
Excellent first post... im relatively new here too.

I tend to agree with you about the video being fake, but I am not totally against the fact these things don't exist... there are many many unexplored areas up in canada.. lots of wilderness for things like this to hide.. im also a big believer in the fact that if you go out of your way to look for something like this, you are more than likely going to try to fake a sighting when in reality you probably saw nothing.

posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 07:31 AM
Yeah I read about how they rarely find a bear skeleton because scavengers get to it first.

That would most certainly mean if the creature did exist, it's new to earth, alien or some scientist created it. So it couldn't really be "the missing link."

So, true not finding a fossil or bones doesn't in itself mean that it doesn't exist, but it sure doesn't aid in proof that it does.

McGuirk, another thing that puzzles me is why some billionaire doesn't drop a couple of million to send some of the best hunters and trackers out to find one of these things.

Like, you see these guys on the discovery channel all the time finding rare poisoness snakes and finding ways to capture Lions and Tigers playing, so you would figure they would be able to find a sasquatch.

posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 11:16 AM
Wasn't there a recent documentary on Sasquatch that showed muscles flexing as the creature walked?
It would be hard to duplicate that with a costume.

Sasquatch plays a part in tales told by Indian tribes as well as reports from the 1800's.
Kinda hard to discount all of that.

Still though, it would be interesting to equip a helicopter with infrared and fly some of the forest areas where Sasquatch is reputed to have been.

I think a well financed expedition/operation to find and or film one of these would put an end to the tales if the films were of good quality.
With all the video-cams out there, it seems we should have some good quality video's as well as digi-cam pics.

That some of the creatures can exist and still remain a mystery, look for the recent post here on ATS about the sightings of humanoid type apes living in swampy areas near gorilla habitat.
I don't think they were the same creatures in the link below - couldn't find the link.
They walked very upright, about 6' tall, 200#, preferred to sleep in the same nest on the ground every night instead of sleeping in the trees like Chimps do and moving to a new nest/bed every day like Gorilla's do.

These creatures seen by two scientific researchers, one a a part of the Jane Goodal group and I'm not sure about the other.

Anyway, what it does point out is that there are shy and retiring creatures out there that are in effect undiscovered.

Possible Chimp/Gorilla hybrid

posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 04:35 PM
That's one thing I have wondered as well, why no one has found a skeleton, a corpse, or anything like that of Bigfoot. The point about other animals skeletons not being found is a valid one as well, and that makes sense.

For someone going out and hunting to find a Bigfoot, I think in the US there are certain seasons during specific times of the year when you can carry around say a high powered rifle. Anything outside of those seasons and I would think you could get in some trouble.

posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 05:56 PM

Wasn't there a recent documentary on Sasquatch that showed muscles flexing as the creature walked?
It would be hard to duplicate that with a costume

Yes it was called Bigfoot Where Legend Meets Science...

Some shoulder blade movement...

And muscle flex in the leg...

Yes I think it would be very diffucult to build a suit such as that, not to mention enough imagination to add female breasts to the suit...

[edit on 26-10-2005 by Jedi_Master]

posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 06:05 PM
First off, the sightings have always been reported around mountainous/forest regions, I know for a fact that those regions have not been explored in depth as of today, so that could explain the lack of skeletal remains being found.

Also Native Americans did have folklore on the creature, hence the name "Sasquatch", which is derived from the Salishan language, not quite sure though.

One last comment, why would anyone want to kill the creature if we could learn so much from it being alive? The lack of knowledge of it's behavior is disappointing, but from "THE VIDEO", it appears to be scared of the camera man rather than posing a threat.

[edit on 26-10-2005 by douglas2k4]

posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 08:32 PM
As far as the Patty film being real or not there is no doubt in my mind after viewing the recent research done by M.K. Davis and others. Check It Out There have been over 2500 eye wittness sightings in the U.S. along over the recent years by folks who took time to say in writing what they have wittnessed even though they were subject to ridicule. What about the ones that probably said nothing? Could all these be hoaxes? What if only one was true?
If you ever run into one of these who have just ask them to tell you thier story. I have, and believe me you can see the truth in thier eyes and emotion as recalling the sighting. I think it will only be a matter of time before this discovery will be proven but for some only seeing is believing.

[edit on 26-10-2005 by Harry55]

posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 08:42 PM
I don't blame you for being a skeptic, I think thats a perequisite for being on this board.

I beleive Bigfoot does exist, but only because i've seen one with my own eyes. Driving down the highway one night in the Ozark national Forest I saw one. It wasn't a bear or a dear or anything else you might want to explain it away as, It was a Bigfoot.

People I tell the story to say they would have pulled the car over and offered it fruit or try to approach it, but they have never seen one. Primal fear that goes all the way to the bone was what I felt. I hit the gas and didn't slow down till I got to the next town.

Bigfoot does exist, I have seen one.

I hope some day you do too.

Love and light,


posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 08:53 PM
First I want to start out by stating that I definitely do believe in bigfoot. Why is it so hard to believe that some sort of primate lives in North America? Mountain gorillas were only just discovered in the mid 1900's, not that long ago, and before that people did not think they existed, thought they were just myths.

As for the Patterson footage, I think it's real, but I am interested in knowing one thing. Female gorillas, do they have hair completely covering breasts, or is it bare like a female humans?

One argument that I thought you would state for sure but didn't is the most compelling I feel for the non-existence of bigfoot. In order for bigfoot to exist, as in the east coast, west coast, and canada, there would have to be a pretty large breeding population of these creatures. With that many creatures alive to sustain the current population, there should have been more evidence found by now. This having been said, since there is so little evidence, I think they are slowly dying off. I think that hunters "do" kill them, and they die just like anything else, but there are so few that they're just going extinct.

Tell me, if you're nothing more than a hunter living off the land in a remote part of Canada, eating what you kill and not much access to the general public, how would you show that you killed bigfoot. I'm sorry, but bigfoot is probably a good 600 lbs+ EASILY. Some random lonely hunter up in Canada kills one, how is he going to take it anywhere if he's miles away from his home with no transportation? He wouldn't even have an incentive to. Think about it. By the time he actually found a way to take it away it would be rotting, eaten, etc. Why would he want to even touch it anymore. If you were just a subsistence liver you wouldn't care about showing it to the nation. You wouldn't even know that it's worth money. Some people living in remote areas don't even know much about the government itself, why would they know that bigfoot is this rare thing, if they've never seen tv or used the internet. Some people like this do exist, even in the U.S. Think about it people.

Again, I do think bigfoot exists, but is slowly dying off. Hopefully some more evidence emerges soon.

posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 08:55 PM

I believe that most hunters would have taken down a sasquatch. Even though there are laws against it now, how could anyone prove that this creature didn't try to attack them? You also figure that with such a huge discovery, whatever jail time the person would do would be more than recouped when they got out.

There's a law saying you can't kill a Bigfoot? I've never heard of such a thing. But assuming that there is a law, shouldn't that alone lend credibility to the idea that Bigfoots exist? Why would the federal government take the time and effort (and face ridicule by even sponsoring such a bill) to make this law if there's no such thing as Bigfoot? It's like all of the laws and Executive Orders regarding contact with EBE's and UFO's. Why even make such legislation if they aren't real.

Personally I've never heard of such a Bigfoot law and I find it highly unlikely. If anyone knows of such a law, I would love to see it.

Regardless, I believe that Bigfoot exists. I believe in all the variations as well.. the Abominable (I know my spelling is an abomination!!!) Snowman, Yetti, Sasquasch, etc. I also believe that some kind of as-yet-undiscovered creature, or an extremely large or unusual known creature, lurks in Loch Ness and other lakes/seas/oceans around the world. And while I'm at it, aliens are real too! lol Not that I've ever personally encountered any of the above. And just so you don't think I'm insane, I'm a New Jersey native and current resident, and I don't believe in the Jersey Devil!!

posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 11:34 PM

Originally posted by Rasputin13

There's a law saying you can't kill a Bigfoot? I've never heard of such a thing. But assuming that there is a law, shouldn't that alone lend credibility to the idea that Bigfoots exist?
Personally I've never heard of such a Bigfoot law and I find it highly unlikely. If anyone knows of such a law, I would love to see it...

State Game Laws list the species it is legal to hunt. If a species is not listed it is not legal to hunt. So Bigfoot hunting is illegal through a backdoor ban.

A few counties in Washington State passed ordinances that specifically banned the hunting of Sasquatch, but those laws were enacted to protect the hoaxers in gorilla suits from the 'bigfoot hunters' with guns.

As to the claim about never seeing bear, elk, or deer remains in the woods -- I don't know how much time those people spend outdoors but I see remains frequently. Some wildlife ethologists that specialize in primate behavior have speculated that Sasquatch bury or otherwise dispose of their dead. A few reported anecdotal sightings support that hypothesis, but no hard evidence has yet surfaced.

posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 07:12 PM
I think skepticism is healthy and i wouldn't want to discourage that, especially since there have been proven hoaxes in 'bigfootology'.

However, i have seen bigfoot with my own eyes on two seperate occasions (once as a child and once as an adult) and i have friends and family who have also seen it once or twice. I am an avid hunter (hunting season can feed my family for months) and I have lived in northern California (off and on) my entire life and i have (with my own eyes) only seen a wild bear three times and a mountain lion (couger, puma etc) once. I have never come across the bones or carcass of any predator, ever.

Whether the patterson footage is real or a fake i don't know (personally, i tend to believe its real) but i do know that there is nothing anyone can do or say to make me believe that bigfoot doesn't exist. I suppose its possible that i didnt see what i think i saw (but i know what i saw was something i rarely see) and i could have been fooled (possible, but unlikely).

Again, i applaud the skepticism however, there is nothing anyone can do or say to change my mind about bigfoot. Just like there is nothing anyone can do or say that will change your mind about bigfoot as well. The only thing that can do that is bigfoot itself.

posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 12:31 AM
link applause to ALL fo you for a very good discussion. This thread is one one the best I have seen in some time.

Now, someone mentioned using infrared cameras and helecopters and such. I actually wrote a post about it on another thread here quite awhile back, but I will quote myself here.

Originally posted by RavenX
Why can't one of the research groups get a few helicopters and thermal cameras and section off part of the wilderness in north canada and do flybys looking for bigfoot?

It has been done in Washington State.

Rick Noll of Edmonds, Wash., told the audience of an expedition in September 2000 to try to collect Bigfoot evidence. Armed with audio recordings meant to simulate calls, fruit to serve as bait, a thermal imaging camera and "very, very gross-smelling" pheremone chips developed from gorilla and human bacteria, Noll's team tried to lure a Bigfoot out toward them. They didn't see one, but they succeeded in making a cast of an impression that Noll believes to be of the torso of a prone Sasquatch.Noll said some counties have passed ordinances prohibiting the hunting of Bigfoot and, in one case, attempting to declare it an endangered species.

As for Northern Canada? Well, lets just take British Columbia is 364,764 sq. miles in size. California is 163,707 square miles, Oregon is 98,386 square miles, and then add a Wyoming 97,818 square miles and you still have room. Texas is 268,601 square miles leaving room for Michigan (96,810 square miles) or just about any other state to fit.

For you non-Americans, United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland is 94,525 sq miles which means that ONE province is more than three times the size.

Population is 3,907,738 for British Columbia (2001). Los Angeles is close to 10 million. London is just over 7 million.

Now, you think the hunt would be that easy? Consider that the almost 4 million people are almost all at the southern edge (American border) and that everything else is quite remote. Now add Alaska (586,412 square miles) which is 1/5th the size of the entire United States. Add the Yukon Territories (186,660 sq. mi.), Northwest Territories (519,734 sq mi), and Territories of Nunavut (350,000 sq mi).

Also there are the northern Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Quebec areas to consider. Searching all of the land area is highly improbable. Now consider that in recent years, new animals have been discovered in much smaller countries, that were completely unknown until the last 4-5 years. Doesn't make things so impossible that a creature with a slightly higher intellect, could not be found easily.

Why is it so hard to find bigfoot?

Also, many animal skeletons (such as bears) are not found in the wild. Absolutely correct on that one.

Now look at the area I talk about above. If you can even IMAGINE the size there. Vast. Now look at these new animals found (some recently) in much smaller areas.

New Deer Species
Dozens of new frogs, crabs and snails
Scientist find a new Indian Monkey

Anyway...very interesting stuff. This is going to be a subject in my podcast in the next couple days.

posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 05:59 AM
bear carcasses not found ? these are just PUBLISHED cases :



the issie of the legality of hunting for bigfoot has been raised in various posts , first - IMHO a hunter who bagged a genuime crypto zoological creature in the USA would make far more from his exploit than the penalties [ what is the fines for hunting a proscribed animal ? ]

legitimate hunters manage to find every single legally hunted creture in the USA - on a regular basis

tragically they even find each other without realizing it from time too time and occasionally shoot regardless

but STILL no big foot ???????????

the discovery of the new deer species in SEA is IMHO a straw man - it wasnt " discovered " only correctly claasified according to western taxonomy - the differences bettween the new species and known ones was quite small - thus dead or skined - it would have often been miss identified - and bones would have been hardewr to classify

the hmong etc will have been putting it in thier pots for years , as they dont care what western science calls it - only how much eddible meat it yeilds etc

bottom line - if there is a big foot population in the USA - they would need to be of a sufficient siize [ numbers ] to have survived the perils of nature

they would need a sufficient range to hunt - as they have no agriculture

i reckon that using the demographics of orangutang or mountain gorrilla populations - it would be possible to proguce a good SWAG of whatt sort of numbers and terretory size these big foot would require

all in all - i am unconvinced

my last word on legality POACHERS - they are prepared to risk the penalties of illegal hunting

posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 06:15 AM
well we all have our beliefs i doubt it alot to i watched a doc on lochness monster the other day,they sonared the whole lake and there 100% sure there was no lochness but big foot no one has really done much about it,i used to call my old teacher big foot hehehe she was very hairy,side burns and everything ^^

posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 06:48 AM
To start off, I'm not sure if I 'believe in BigFoot' or rather believe in the 'possibility' that BigFoot could exist.

With new animal discoveries still occurring, anything is possible. Although the subject of BF lacks credible evidence. From what I have read and learned, other then eye witness accounts or stories re-told from the earliest sightings, the only conclusive/un-conclusive evidence would be the Patterson film.

Most of the pro-debate on the film as centered on the muscle movement, claiming that it would not be possible to replicate that paticular movement of the shoulder blades or calf muscles, in short , due to the lack of technology at the time of the footage.

My point or possibillity for the muscle movement is this.... could the appearent movement be accidental on the behalf of the supposed hoaxer?

If someone were going to put on a costume to look like BF, they would take everything reported about the animal available and work with that to acheive their goal, one of the key descriptions that I have seen in most reported sightings of BF have been BROAD SHOULDERS. If you see a person with broad shoulders, it doesn't really make it one of the most distiquishing features of that person, but in the case of BF sightings this is almost always mentioned.

What if ( Devils Advocate )... the muscle movement was due to padding of some sort, I'm thinking Hockey gear such as shoulder pads and possilbly knee pads for the sake of being easlily obtainable and would fill out a suit/costume quite nicely, thus giving the perposed illusion of a larger body mass as well as broad shoulders.
The padding being used to 'fill out' the costume would have to extend the characteristics of the area being covered as well as cause movement of some type, giving the appearance of actual conformed muscle movement.

This may have been brought up before on one of the BF threads, but I still believe it holds merit as a possilbe explanation to one of the key selling points of the film.

As I stated above, my belief of BF is on the plus+ side, but I can't help but
think of how low the odds are of actually seeing and filming BigFoot with a camera proportedly rented for the sole purpose of doing just that... filming BF.
I believe alot of planning as well as dry runs would have to have been a factor in hoaxing such an event as the Patterson Film, but I still feel it could have been done. Its not known, (proven) that Patterson hadn't been to Bluff Creek prior to this, setting the scene, doing the dry runs, getting the best angles with the best light, etc,etc,etc.

I wish someone would come up with actual hard evidence that allows no room for speculation.

posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 09:10 AM

Originally posted by Dulcimer
While the very existence of Bigfoot is debatable I would just like to point one thing out.

Then you have to consider that in all these years, no one has found a skeleton, fossil, corpse, nothing but footprints and some hair.

The problem I have when this is brought up is that the same fact goes for other animals. You can try and try but its not that often you will find say, a bear skeleton in the forest.

Not quite true, actually. I've done a little bit of archaeological fieldwork and you'd be surprised how many bones we come across when we're just walking around. You probably wouldn't identify that "lump O Stuff" as bone, but we would (and would take it back to the labs to find out.)

Which does bring up an interesting point, though: There's a ton of archaeological sites around where we find all sorts of bones (Indians killed a great many things, and after they left, lots of scavengers came to their campsites.) We haven't found any strange primates at any dig or any site.

(sites, by the way, can be several acres in size. The Fitch-Dahlen site that I worked on for a bit was fairly large, and the San Saba site (that I also worked at briefly) was again a very large area. So it's not like we're focusing on one 10'x10' area when we look and dig.)

posted on Oct, 28 2005 @ 12:18 PM
I believe in bigfoot because I am a christian so I don't think we came from apes but science has proved they evolved(someone help me with this spelling) into something so that means one thing to me...bigfoot. Also about the patterson film's supposed suit. Someone pointed out to me that the patterson film was made about the same time that planet of the apes came out. How did patterson get better lookin suits then they had in hollywood. The planet of the ape suits where the best money could buy at the time.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in