Guest Lesmore

What Evidence Makes You Believe That Bigfoot Exists ?

280 posts in this topic

If you believe, truly believe that Bigfoot exists....what evidence do you point to that confirms this belief ?

Or is there no evidence....your view that BF exists is just that...a belief, not encumbered by any concrete evidence.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is gonna be one of those threads where someone answers with what THEY believe in, & others absolutely pulverise them, i can feel it.. :D

Quote this Post when it happens, i'll go for after Post 12, maximum... ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a witness is what makes me believe. It certainly is not any of the evidence collected in the last 40 years.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seeing one, if not then it was a big tall guy in a fur coat with a pointed fur hood and hairy face and really hairy legs walking through the woods on a hot july day.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm officially on the fence, lol. I am open to the possibility, but not holding my breath that it will ever be proven. I find the entire phenomenon very interesting in that so many people claim to see things that are fairly similar and there have been sightings going back for a long time, yet the "evidence" is sorely lacking. In short, I just find it interesting.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that sticks out in my mind as far as evidence is this, The Indians of the Pacific Northwest and Canada have been making Totum poles and other forms of religious totums for hundreds of years, There are Totum poles that were carved well over 200 years ago that depict animals that are indigenous to the Indians area that they lived in, On these Totum poles are animals such as Bears, Wolves, Eagles, Coyotes and such, and in some instances an APE. The Indians of that time would not have known anything about Apes since there is no monkey or ape that is native to their area. They would only ahve known the animals that they were use to seeing. To me these is real evidence that they do in fact exist. The Idians of that time didn't carve these Totums for fun. They carved them for spiritual reasons, to show respect to the animals that were in the area.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that sticks out in my mind as far as evidence is this, The Indians of the Pacific Northwest and Canada have been making Totum poles and other forms of religious totums for hundreds of years, There are Totum poles that were carved well over 200 years ago that depict animals that are indigenous to the Indians area that they lived in, On these Totum poles are animals such as Bears, Wolves, Eagles, Coyotes and such, and in some instances an APE. The Indians of that time would not have known anything about Apes since there is no monkey or ape that is native to their area. They would only ahve known the animals that they were use to seeing. To me these is real evidence that they do in fact exist. The Idians of that time didn't carve these Totums for fun. They carved them for spiritual reasons, to show respect to the animals that were in the area.

Good point. Never heard that argument before. I have no explanation.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expert fingerprint analyst Jimmy Chicuttt's dermal ridge findings on various foot casts from all over the U.S. is prime evidence for me. Plus I saw a bigfoot as a kid and just this past year the yellow eyeglow (NOT eyeshine)of three Bigfoot in a pitch black ravine.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read many many reports, by 'apparently' sane, sober individuals, who all report the same animal description. Not some fanciful monster, boogy man, hoaxed creature, which I tend to think of when I read 'creature from the black lagoon' type critters, or moth men, but real animals all described the same way.

These people, some of which I have personally interviewed, do not quote some scripted description of a known image, like they all watched the Patterson movie and are simply describing the object in that movie, they note small details, they provide more detail as you press them, they keep to their story.

I have not seen a long set of tracks, I have found 14 inch tracks with toe indentations in the snow. I don't know of any large footed people who go walking in snow in bare feet...

Some of these tracks are hoaxed, sure. Others go on for miles, over incredibly difficult terrain, in locations few could expect to see them for hoaxing purposes. The effort required to hoax that boggles the mind.

OTOH, you can just have an open mind, open to possibilities that are incredible but possible, and you accept it all might be real. You either have the capacity to have that open mind or you don't. Some people have this shut-down mind that refuses to accept possibilities outside their little box they live in. They believe everything they are told by the media, they want to be told how to think, and what their box looks like. They grow angry and insulting to anyone who dares question their box, their view of the world. I feel sorry for those people, and I understand them less than I do the sasquatch.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm rather open-minded on the subject. I've never seen one, or seen evidence of one that absolutely couldn't have been hoaxed or otherwise made by humans. So for myself, I don't know that they're out there. I think that they are. I try to weigh-in both sides and I've heard some pretty fantastic arguments from both proponents and detractors and both sides have made some fine points.

Right now I lean more toward a flesh-and-blood creature as being the solution to the mystery, but I'm not sold yet because I haven't seen one yet. Right now, if some one could demonstrate a reasonable explanation to the things I've seen or that others have, I would like to think I could believe it. But as it stands, I've talked to people that, to my face, will swear what they saw was real. That some of the tracks/footprints are real. I've seen a few 5-toed tracks in the wild. They were big, yes, but not absolutely beyond human capacity. I saw a track once, fairly small, that seemed to show a very broad fore pad or ball and a very narrow heel. It could only have been made by hoaxing, an extremely deformed and small human being, or by what I personally imagine, a juvenile sasquatch print might look like. I ruled out #2 due to their being only one clear print and a few impressions in line with the trackway and a human with that misshapen bare feet would most likely create more drag marks or walk with a limp, which this trackway did not show. I can not, ever really, exclude hoaxing. Only that the most likely hoaxer, by far, didn't find the tracks or put them in a place for me to find them. He was actually walking out of the area without them being discovered. Some brilliant men may have the patience to create an elaborate hoax and have it remain undiscovered. But that almost defeats the entire point of the hoax, would it not?

Anyway, that was rambling. My point is that I think there's compelling evidence both ways. Proponents have some excellent tracks and some pretty convincing eyewitness reports. Detractors have many of the phenomenon being able to be explained by other means. Owls creating eyeshine, bears leaving double-tracks or being mis-ID'ed as sasquatches. Sounds like the Chehalis (sp?) recordings being proven to be made by coyotes producing a before un-documented call. Correct me if I have my facts confused there. I also read a report not that long ago where a man heard wood knocks 20-30 yards away and walked towards them. As he continued, he approached within 5 feet of the sound without hearing anything. As he stood at the spot where he thought the sound was coming from, the source shifted to 50+ feet in the air where the tops of the pine trees were rubbing together. His theory being the knocking/rubbing sends the sound down the trunk of the tree and then outward along the ground, sounding like loud knocks coming from ground level.

Are all strange howls coyotes or all knocks just trees? Maybe not. But I'm constantly surprised at how many seemingly unnatural occurrences do, in fact, have normal explanations. Something to keep in mind as we look for sasquatch evidence.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expert fingerprint analyst Jimmy Chicuttt's dermal ridge findings on various foot casts from all over the U.S. is prime evidence for me.

The dermal ridges in footprints are something that invites interest. My understanding is that dermal ridges would be hard to fake.

I would say that dermal ridges in a footprint, certainly would lead to the idea that the footprint was left by some kind of animal. I'm not ruling out a Bigfoot type of animal, but I do question if it necessarily was left by a Bigfoot .

I realize that the only other animal in North America that might have similar sized feet would be a bear. I also am aware that many will argue that the footprint of a bear could never be mistaken for the footprint of a BF....which some claim to be similar to that of a human...only larger.

So, do we employ the process of deduction and assume that the large footprint must therefore, be that of a Bigfoot ?

It may seem a small step :D to go to that assumption.....but I still don't think it's completely convincing proof...not yet, anyways.

You may ask...what more do I want ? An actual Bigfoot, living, breathing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm rather open-minded on the subject. I've never seen one, or seen evidence of one that absolutely couldn't have been hoaxed or otherwise made by humans. So for myself, I don't know that they're out there. I think that they are. I try to weigh-in both sides and I've heard some pretty fantastic arguments from both proponents and detractors and both sides have made some fine points.weigh the evidence....I agree that this is the best course of action .

Right now I lean more toward a flesh-and-blood creature as being the solution to the mystery, but I'm not sold yet because I haven't seen one yet. Right now, if some one could demonstrate a reasonable explanation to the things I've seen or that others have, I would like to think I could believe it. But as it stands, I've talked to people that, to my face, will swear what they saw was real. That some of the tracks/footprints are real. I've seen a few 5-toed tracks in the wild. They were big, yes, but not absolutely beyond human capacity. I saw a track once, fairly small, that seemed to show a very broad fore pad or ball and a very narrow heel. It could only have been made by hoaxing, an extremely deformed and small human being, or by what I personally imagine, a juvenile sasquatch print might look like. I ruled out #2 due to their being only one clear print and a few impressions in line with the trackway and a human with that misshapen bare feet would most likely create more drag marks or walk with a limp, which this trackway did not show. I can not, ever really, exclude hoaxing. Only that the most likely hoaxer, by far, didn't find the tracks or put them in a place for me to find them. He was actually walking out of the area without them being discovered. Some brilliant men may have the patience to create an elaborate hoax and have it remain undiscovered. But that almost defeats the entire point of the hoax, would it not?

Anyway, that was rambling. Well, if it was rambling...it was good rambling, well thought out rambling. I would call it reasoned discussion. My point is that I think there's compelling evidence both ways. Proponents have some excellent tracks and some pretty convincing eyewitness reports. Detractors have many of the phenomenon being able to be explained by other means. Owls creating eyeshine, bears leaving double-tracks or being mis-ID'ed as sasquatches. Sounds like the Chehalis (sp?) recordings being proven to be made by coyotes producing a before un-documented call. Correct me if I have my facts confused there. I also read a report not that long ago where a man heard wood knocks 20-30 yards away and walked towards them. As he continued, he approached within 5 feet of the sound without hearing anything. As he stood at the spot where he thought the sound was coming from, the source shifted to 50+ feet in the air where the tops of the pine trees were rubbing together. His theory being the knocking/rubbing sends the sound down the trunk of the tree and then outward along the ground, sounding like loud knocks coming from ground level.There are a lot of strange noises, many people are unfamiliar with coming from forests. The first time I heard the booming of a Pileated Woodpecker, I was quite astounded when I realized it was from a crow sized bird. When one is alone in the woods...especially when there is little light...a lot of sounds can be misinterpreted. Again I agree with what you say.

Are all strange howls coyotes or all knocks just trees? Maybe not. But I'm constantly surprised at how many seemingly unnatural occurrences do, in fact, have normal explanations. Something to keep in mind as we look for sasquatch evidence.

To quote from your post:

"But I'm constantly surprised at how many seemingly unnatural occurrences do, in fact, have normal explanations."

So true and I think at the root of many people identifying noises unfamiliar to them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To quote from your post:

"But I'm constantly surprised at how many seemingly unnatural occurrences do, in fact, have normal explanations."

So true and I think at the root of many people identifying noises unfamiliar to them.

That's just the difference between sasquatch researchers who see a tree arch and say: "hmmmm. I've heard some people think those are related to sasquatch activity. Cool. Next."

And those that say:

"OMG!!! IT'S A SASQUATCH ARCH!!! CLEARLY!!! THIS MUST BE THE SECRET GATE TO SASQUATCH COUNTRY!!!"

I really have no time for the latter, and do not enjoy going on expeditions with them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen 2 in the last 27 years... So seeing with my own eyes is proof for me....

Edited by TooRisky
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's just the difference between sasquatch researchers who see a tree arch and say: "hmmmm. I've heard some people think those are related to sasquatch activity. Cool. Next."

And those that say:

"OMG!!! IT'S A SASQUATCH ARCH!!! CLEARLY!!! THIS MUST BE THE SECRET GATE TO SASQUATCH COUNTRY!!!"

I really have no time for the latter, and do not enjoy going on expeditions with them.

I have to agree, I would say that I am more of a skeptic of the people that say they have seen them than I am a skeptic of the animal itself, In the years that I have been educating myself about Bigfoot I have read thousands of individual accounts of people that genuinely think they saw one, I have always been an outdoors type person, I remember the first time I ever went Bear hunting in Montana, I was glassing across the canyon when I saw a big black furry animal standing on its hind legs, To someone that din't have a spotting scope this indeed looked like a bi-ped. as I watched this animala it went down on all fours and began to walk away, That was the first time I ever saw a Bear in the wild. I realize that there are people out there that will say whatever just to make people think that they saw one, There are also the people that see a Bear and automatically think its a Bigfoot. So I take the accounts that I read with a grain of salt, My wife and I had an incident occur back in 1988 that made me a believer, I wasn't a believer at all until then. I am now. I just think that you need to weed through the bulk of the sightings to get to the real substance.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites