• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

- Scientific evidence for Bigfoot's existence

As a natural historian with lots of experience with great apes I think that the yeti is a real animal. It makes perfect sense as one. If there is no such thing as the yeti then what were all the people from the tribes in the Garo Hills seeing. I spoke to many witnesses with no axe to grind who all described seeing an animal like a huge, upright gorilla. None of them ascribed anything spiritual or supernatural to them. One guy said he had heard the stories of them but scoffed at them till he saw one.
And its not a ruddy bear either.
 
Not trolling. My bad for sharing my clearly unpopular opinion. Please show me one shred of realistic evidence that bigfoot exists. Seriously. I love david paulides and i believe certain things outside the normal exist. But my god how can a huge ape exist in the forests of north america or the himalayas and not have ever been shot, hunted, documented, fossilized? Its just outside the realms of realistic thinking. Cmon man.
 
Hmm this seems suspect. Maybe Melba can peer review for him?
 
var1ant said:
Not trolling. My bad for sharing my clearly unpopular opinion. Please show me one shred of realistic evidence that bigfoot exists. Seriously. I love david paulides and i believe certain things outside the normal exist. But my god how can a huge ape exist in the forests of north america or the himalayas and not have ever been shot, hunted, documented, fossilized? Its just outside the realms of realistic thinking. Cmon man.
Click to expand...

We have documentation in the form of reliable first-hand witness reports and footprint casts.

I think there's a combination of things happening here

1. The public inherently disbelieves in it, so people who DO see them are immediately rejected. This leads to many not coming forward with encounter stories.

2. They are highly intelligent and self-aware. They know nothing good will happen from interacting more with humans,m so a major component of their lives is concealment. They are also massive creatures and likely sit around most of the day to conserve energy, so sightings are limited to the times when they move from place to place or hunt.

3. I think that the government is aware of them. Right now our culture's viewpoint on 'Big Foot' is exactly what they want. They want it to be a joke so that serious inquisition can't take place. They also want to protect several outdoor-based industries that would crumble if an endangered species were to be declared.
 
lordmongrove said:
As a natural historian with lots of experience with great apes I think that the yeti is a real animal. It makes perfect sense as one. If there is no such thing as the yeti then what were all the people from the tribes in the Garo Hills seeing. I spoke to many witnesses with no axe to grind who all described seeing an animal like a huge, upright gorilla. None of them ascribed anything spiritual or supernatural to them. One guy said he had heard the stories of them but scoffed at them till he saw one.
And its not a ruddy bear either.
Click to expand...

I was convinced that the Yeti was mistaken identity of an upright bear with features emphasized by altitude hallucinations. But I've been reading more and more local stories that go like this. I think I've changed my mind.
 
Dunbaraj said:
We have documentation in the form of reliable first-hand witness reports and footprint casts.
Click to expand...

When did we get those? Eye witness accounts aren't enough on their own. And how are we verifying how valid they are?

I think one of the biggest problems with the eyewitness accounts is the sheer amount of them. As I think has been said here before. If there really were that many animals out there, to generate that many reports, how could they remain hidden?

Many of these reports come from areas where concealment is highly unlikely if not impossible. So, to me this seems to undermine their veracity. Unless, it could be shown that reports from a specific area, the forests of the Pacific North West for example, are significantly consistent and different to the others. Then I think they all fall.

And, while there are loads of footprint casts, I'm not aware that any of them have stood up to scrutiny. The dermal ridge evidence has fallen, as has the Skookum body cast.

If there is evidence, I'd be pleased to hear about it.
 
Last edited:
I started out very skeptical of the existence of Bigfoot and his international family. But the more I read from credible, as opposed to overly excited nut cases, the more convinced I am that there is something, as yet, undiscovered out there. I am certain that many reports come from misinterpretations and out right hoaxes; however, there are reports and possible photographs from highly reliable witnesses. Russia is so certain the beast exists they have declared it an endangered animal.
I live within walking distance of a large state park. When that park was being established a park employee reported sighting a "bigfoot" who was actually looking in a window of the newly built office. The employee was so startled he turned and ran his arm through the glass window, causing himself bloody damage. The report was (possibly still is) in the county sheriffs office. Big foot has been reported several times by campers since and the powers that be have told employees that such reports are to be ignored or, if possible, relegated to misleading wildlife such as bears (which are extremely rare here). Anyway such reports are to be covered up in some fashion.
Such beasts have been hunted down since before recorded history so, of course, this beast is very wary of humans. In their place; wouldn't you be?
 
In his book Nature of the Beast, Professor Brian Sykes say that when he started his project he thought that these things probably did not exist. By the end of the book he thought that they probably did.
 
Bears do occassionly wonder into the wilds of our state parks. But in the almost 40 years that I have lived here, bears in the park have been reported only twice. Yet people persist in "seeing" a man like beast 6 to 8 ft tall and covered with hair. Are they hallucinating? Drunk? Hoaxsters? Probably not. Most persons reporting Big Foot here are well aquainted with local wild life and of a rather serious nature. Yet this part of the country is pretty much settled. Yes there are tracks of wilderness; but are they large enough to hide a population of Sasquatch? That is the question. There is a large chapter of Bigfoot researchers. I use to go to their meetings frequently and I found them to be level headed, curious, serious, and prone to insists on evidence. They are definitely not the wild eyed, lunatics that are expected in such groups. Of the local group only about half will definitely tell you they believe the local Sasquatch actually exist; the rest maintain a "Lets see" attitude. Curious, but not certain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top