Are There Any Existing Animals Similar To Bigfoot, In N.a.

[Guest Lesmore]

Are there any other animals...similar to Bigfoot.... in North America that like Bigfoot, are:

• Uncommonly rare....so rare that there are no skeletons, dead examples on exhibit (taxidermist), live examples. In fact to my knowledge....not even a vestige of evidence that Bigfoot exists or has existed ? What I'm saying is...can you even toss (Science) a bone or a hair sample...that has been unarguably confirmed to be of Bigfoot ?
  
• Occasionally photographed....but the picture never seem to be clear enough to confirm what actually for sure, is in the picture ? I've been an avid (amateur) photographer for years and I'm amazed at not so much the poor quality of photograph, but amazed at the what seems to be almost 100 % consistency of poor photography of pictures/films purporting to be Bigfoot. How can this be ? If someone could enlighten me, in valid manner in regards to how can the examples of photography that claim to be Bigfoot be so consistently poor ?
  
• Rare, although some believe Bigfoot to be quite large...larger in physical stature than a typical North American human (male).
  
• Subject of many stories that are difficult to confirm.
  

I am not aware of any other animal in North America, particularly one of the alleged size, one that lives on land, not in the deep sea, or underground...but shares Terra Firma....with people....but is so rare that many believe BF is a myth.

Edited October 22, 2010 by Lesmore

[Guest]

Not just North America Lesmore, bigfoot is unprecedented anywhere on the globe. There are no other examples - anywhere - of large, terrestrial animals (50 kg +, let's say) that occupy an enormous distribution (multiple continents - or even continent-wide in one land mass), occur in multiple habitats, and have been encountered for centuries but for which not a scrap of physical evidence can be confirmed. Mountain gorilla, okapi, Vietnamese antelopes - these all fail the distribution test when used as bigfoot analogies. Yes, they were described recently, but all are restricted in range to relatively inaccessible areas where, once Western scientists got to them, it was relatively easy to obtain physical specimens. Bigfoot is not like that at all - it is purported to occur in areas where humans live and work every day in addition to areas that are true wilderness. Bigfoot - or things like it - are also purported to occur in Australia, Indonesia, Asia, and North America.

Yes, bigfoot is described as generally interested in avoiding humans, and adept at doing so. But it is believed to range over a huge area, occupy multiple habitats from the boreal forest to the tropics, and occur in landscapes that are not wilderness by even the most liberal interpretations of that word. So it is unprecedented - there are no good analogies for something like a bigfoot, despite the assertions of many to the contrary. Unprecedented does not mean that bigfoot cannot exist, just that there's nothing else like it if it does.

[Guest]

I know what you mean, not so much about the skeletal remains, but regarding the photography. Most are blurry and those that are clear are deemed hoaxes. If they can't prove it was altered in some way then the explanation I hear is that it was someone in a suit. The other issue is that the creature is photographed a good distance away most of the time. So are the ones that are clear people in suits? I guess it depends on how many clear photos are circulating around that weren't proven to be altered. Anyone know?

Another issue with the photographs, if you get a clear one that hasn't been altered in some way is there corroborating evidence like prints, multiple witnesses, that kind of thing? I think you have to look at all of the evidence in any given situation, rather than focusing on a few aspects, to lend any credibility to anything that might be reported.

You may also be dealing with something that isn't human, but isn't exactly an ape either, so it is hard to hunt for something without a true frame of reference for behavior. You can't anticipate their needs or how they will react with any great certainty to know where to look, obviously, or they would have been found by now. Another piece of the puzzle is the resistance people have in believing what they are seeing, how many Bigfeet have been mistaken for bears, elk, or even other people? We don't know, so it's hard to say how rare they really are. Mis-identification can work both ways.

It's more than just the obvious lack of evidence, which if people continue to report seeing these things, then that is significant to me. That means we aren't looking for something that falls into a known category. You have to consider the human psyche and political motivations for why there is no evidence. Chances are there is evidence, just none we know about or that has been made public. It could be we have pieces of skeletal remains sitting in the basement of some universities that has yet to be identified. If they did examine it, would they know what they have? Not necessarily,unless it was too fresh to fit in any of the categories. Since it doesn't fit a category it would probably be politically safer, as far as the academic world is concerned, just to put the skeletal pieces back in a box up on that shelf.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

The Florida Black Bear, Louisiana Black Bear, Key Deer, Caribu-Gaspe Peninsula, Mountain Caribu, Sonoran Pronghorn, Wood Bison, Peninsular Bighorn Sheep, and the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep are or were very rare NA animals (some have had their numbers bounce back). Some of them like the Key Deer totaled very low numbers (around 2 dozen). But all have them have something else beside low numbers in common. All of them are still hit by cars.

[Guest Lesmore]

The Florida Black Bear, Louisiana Black Bear, Key Deer, Caribu-Gaspe Peninsula, Mountain Caribu, Sonoran Pronghorn, Wood Bison, Peninsular Bighorn Sheep, and the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep are or were very rare NA animals (some have had their numbers bounce back). Some of them like the Key Deer totaled very low numbers (around 2 dozen). But all have them have something else beside low numbers in common. All of them are still hit by cars.

And I would say another thing these animals you list, is there are clear pictures of many of these beasts.

[Guest]

Obviously there are no other large mammals that are still with us in N.A. that fit the criteria put forward in the first post.

What are the commonalities between asiatic bears and N.A. bears? There is a chinese species of alligator. There are many examples of similarities between various Asian and American species of animals and plants. Perhaps instead of asking the question with a North American focus, maybe we should really ask with an Asian focus. Perhaps rather than focusing on North American research, we should all be more interested in asian research into wild-men.

We know that most scientists don't look for things that they don't think exist. Why would they look, if they are predisposed, for the most part, to believe that what they seek is imaginary. So mainstream science has not taken the phenomenon seriously. Another question is, should they?

The bigger question in my mind is, what evidence may exist for many of these creatures in the uncatalogued caches of remains the exist around the continent and around the world?

The issue of the Minaret skull comes to mind...

Yes, the whole phenonmenon is hard to swallow, considering what we think we know.

As for the quaetion of why we can't get a good picture, the answer seems two-fold: a. the creatures, if they exist, are very aware of their surroundings and don't want to be seen or photographed,possibly indicating high intelligence; and b. most encounters where they are photographed or videoed are chance encounters, meaning that the photog/videographer (even one that is seeking bigfoot) has walked up on a previously unknown very large animal, is probably excited and or frightened, and may not be in the frame of mind that is most conducive to effective filming. Remember: the wildlife footage that we see on documentaries, so clear and real, is mostly STAGED. Even footage of wild primates is usually of a known and previously tracked group. Just thoughts and my two cents.

Edited October 23, 2010 by notgiganto

[Guest Lesmore]

I know what you mean, not so much about the skeletal remains, but regarding the photography. Most are blurry and those that are clear are deemed hoaxes. If they can't prove it was altered in some way then the explanation I hear is that it was someone in a suit. The other issue is that the creature is photographed a good distance away most of the time. So are the ones that are clear people in suits? I guess it depends on how many clear photos are circulating around that weren't proven to be altered. Anyone know?

Another issue with the photographs, if you get a clear one that hasn't been altered in some way is there corroborating evidence like prints, multiple witnesses, that kind of thing? I think you have to look at all of the evidence in any given situation, rather than focusing on a few aspects, to lend any credibility to anything that might be reported.

You may also be dealing with something that isn't human, but isn't exactly an ape either, so it is hard to hunt for something without a true frame of reference for behavior. You can't anticipate their needs or how they will react with any great certainty to know where to look, obviously, or they would have been found by now. Another piece of the puzzle is the resistance people have in believing what they are seeing, how many Bigfeet have been mistaken for bears, elk, or even other people? We don't know, so it's hard to say how rare they really are. Mis-identification can work both ways.

It's more than just the obvious lack of evidence, which if people continue to report seeing these things, then that is significant to me. That means we aren't looking for something that falls into a known category. You have to consider the human psyche and political motivations for why there is no evidence. Chances are there is evidence, just none we know about or that has been made public. It could be we have pieces of skeletal remains sitting in the basement of some universities that has yet to be identified. If they did examine it, would they know what they have? Not necessarily,unless it was too fresh to fit in any of the categories. Since it doesn't fit a category it would probably be politically safer, as far as the academic world is concerned, just to put the skeletal pieces back in a box up on that shelf.

Good food for analytical thought.

[Guest parnassus]

the creatures, if they exist, are very aware of their surroundings and don't want to be seen or photographed,possibly indicating high intelligence.

what experience could they have had to make them, all of them around the world, not want to be photographed, considering they haven't been photographed?

The fact that some wildlife films have been staged cannot be used as a reason why bigfoot has not been filmed at all, any more than scientists can be blamed or government can be blamed for the fact that no physical specimens have been appeared. (Meldrum does not consider footprints to be physical evidence).

Is there any evidence that a bigfoot has ever been mistakenly identified as a bear? any shot by mistake?

Edited October 23, 2010 by parnassus

[Guest Cervelo]

Ok your right we're all wrong, delusinal, lying whatever next This baiting path of questioning has been beat to death in so many other threads here. I'm a skeptic myself. But unless we need practice typing why keep going down this same predictable path. Sorry to vent on you but I feel better and that appears all this fourm is for:)

[Guest]

Are there any other animals...similar to Bigfoot.... in North America that like Bigfoot, are:

• Uncommonly rare....so rare that there are no skeletons, dead examples on exhibit (taxidermist), live examples. In fact to my knowledge....not even a vestige of evidence that Bigfoot exists or has existed ? What I'm saying is...can you even toss (Science) a bone or a hair sample...that has been unarguably confirmed to be of Bigfoot ?
  
• Occasionally photographed....but the picture never seem to be clear enough to confirm what actually for sure, is in the picture ? I've been an avid (amateur) photographer for years and I'm amazed at not so much the poor quality of photograph, but amazed at the what seems to be almost 100 % consistency of poor photography of pictures/films purporting to be Bigfoot. How can this be ? If someone could enlighten me, in valid manner in regards to how can the examples of photography that claim to be Bigfoot be so consistently poor ?
  
• Rare, although some believe Bigfoot to be quite large...larger in physical stature than a typical North American human (male).
  
• Subject of many stories that are difficult to confirm.
  

I am not aware of any other animal in North America, particularly one of the alleged size, one that lives on land, not in the deep sea, or underground...but shares Terra Firma....with people....but is so rare that many believe BF is a myth.

Would we know about it if it was that rare? If there were a larger animal than bigfoot, but more rare, would we be aware of it?

[Guest Lesmore]

Would we know about it if it was that rare? If there were a larger animal than bigfoot, but more rare, would we be aware of it?

No I don't think there are any animals, larger or as large as BF, more rare than BF, existing in N.A.

But by the same token, if there are no other animals as rare, or rarer than Bigfoot and given that we feel we know that to be true, based on the fact that we have no real evidence to confirm otherwise...than how do we explain that BF can possibly exist, when we have about the same amount of evidence...or lack thereof.... to indicate that BF exists.

Edited October 23, 2010 by Lesmore

[Guest]

My point though was if there were animals, bigger or smaller, but more rare how would we know. You're not going to see an animal more rare than bigfoot. How many bones or whatever have we found of an animal more rare than bigfoot? Probably none.

I think that lack of knowledge, that there is something more rare than bigfoot just goes to prove bigfoot must be real. Don't you?

[Guest DaveBeaty]

Are there any other animals...similar to Bigfoot.... in North America that like Bigfoot, are:

• Uncommonly rare....so rare that there are no skeletons, dead examples on exhibit (taxidermist), live examples. In fact to my knowledge....not even a vestige of evidence that Bigfoot exists or has existed ? What I'm saying is...can you even toss (Science) a bone or a hair sample...that has been unarguably confirmed to be of Bigfoot ?
  
• Occasionally photographed....but the picture never seem to be clear enough to confirm what actually for sure, is in the picture ? I've been an avid (amateur) photographer for years and I'm amazed at not so much the poor quality of photograph, but amazed at the what seems to be almost 100 % consistency of poor photography of pictures/films purporting to be Bigfoot. How can this be ? If someone could enlighten me, in valid manner in regards to how can the examples of photography that claim to be Bigfoot be so consistently poor ?
  
• Rare, although some believe Bigfoot to be quite large...larger in physical stature than a typical North American human (male).
  
• Subject of many stories that are difficult to confirm.
  

I am not aware of any other animal in North America, particularly one of the alleged size, one that lives on land, not in the deep sea, or underground...but shares Terra Firma....with people....but is so rare that many believe BF is a myth.

These examples might fit your requirements...

1) The Jersey Devil. Outrageously rare, never photographed, approximately the weight of a light human (S.W.A.Guesstimate of 80-150 lbs, my mother is in that weight range). A lot of people believe it is a myth.

2) Melanistic (black) cougars. Seldom photographed (never a good one), no bodies, a couple of hair samples, same weight range as a regular cougar - 115 to 198 lbs. Biologists will tell you that cougars don't come in black and the photos are of out-of-scale domestic cats.

My personal sasquatch is the American pine marten. I first learned about them in my hunter safety course in Wyoming. I've never seen one (same for bigfoot), never met anyone who has seen one (I have met people who have claimed to see a bigfoot), never seen one in a zoo, never seen the corpse or pelt of one, and I have seen more photos of sasquatch than photos of American pine martens. I would like to see a pine marten more than I would like to see a sasquatch, as pine martens can't tear my arms out of their sockets.

There is no evidence that sasquatch are real, until you see one for yourself. That is why I look.

[Guest JimF]

[*]Occasionally photographed....but the picture never seem to be clear enough to confirm what actually for sure, is in the picture ? I've been an avid (amateur) photographer for years and I'm amazed at not so much the poor quality of photograph, but amazed at the what seems to be almost 100 % consistency of poor photography of pictures/films purporting to be Bigfoot. How can this be ? If someone could enlighten me, in valid manner in regards to how can the examples of photography that claim to be Bigfoot be so consistently poor ?

One of the possible reasons.

http://www.sasquatchonline.com.whsites.net/content/view/42/29/

There are several others.

Edited October 23, 2010 by JimF

[Guest notrace]

My point though was if there were animals, bigger or smaller, but more rare how would we know. You're not going to see an animal more rare than bigfoot. How many bones or whatever have we found of an animal more rare than bigfoot? Probably none.

I think that lack of knowledge, that there is something more rare than bigfoot just goes to prove bigfoot must be real. Don't you?

umm no