Bigfoot myth or monster?

[georgerm]

What proof do we have of the existence of bigfoot other than the Patterson Gimlin film, foot prints, hair samples, or reports of bigfoots being seen around UFOs. There is a report from Canada that I will try and find of a bigfoot shot by a hunter outside of a small Canadian town in one of the middle providences. All of these reports play a role in nailing down the existence of bigfoot but a live bigfoot is needed or the sad proof of a bigfoot being shot and brought in by a hunter. There is another report of a live infant bigfoot named Jacko who was found along railroad tracks in Canada? Read a report about Jacko below.

 

“The Jacko hoax was a Canadian newspaper story about a gorilla supposedly caught near Yale, British Columbia in 1884. The story, titled "What is it?, A strange creature captured above Yale. A British Columbia Gorilla", appeared in the British Columbia newspaper the Daily Colonist on July 4, 1884. The original newspaper article describes "Jacko" as a gorilla and not a Sasquatch. However, the "Jacko" story has been used by Bigfoot advocates as evidence for the existence of Sasquatch.”

 

Why are we having so much trouble in proving the existence of bigfoot by producing a live specimen or a deceased bigfoot that was old and died or shot by a hunter? We have evidence of practically every animal living on planet Earth but not bigfoot? What's it going to take?

[MIB]

2 hours ago, georgerm said:

What proof do we have of the existence of bigfoot other than t

 

We do not have proof of bigfoot.   We have evidence for the existence of bigfoot.    The difference matters greatly.    The absolute and unavoidable "math" is this: we will not have PROOF of bigfoot until modern science accepts the existence of bigfoot.   These are exactly identical.   

 

We have some pretty cool evidence.   Some is easy enough to dismiss even if it is incorrect to do so, some is pretty hard to rationally dismiss even if a scoftic would do so.   

[xspider1]

Whereas we cannot say that Bigfoot have been scientifically proven to exist, there are many adamant eye-witnesses to something that aligns with thousands of reports of Bigfoot.  And many, if not most of those eyewitnesses, have all the proof they need.

 

We have a lot of evidence of Bigfoot, a plethora of which is documented on this very forum.  I try to be careful taking it as a given that almost every other animal on earth except Bigfoot is already scientifically classified because there is probably no way that we could ever know that. 

Edited Friday at 05:53 AM by xspider1

[Huntster]

On 8/26/2026 at 10:47 AM, MIB said:

..........The absolute and unavoidable "math" is this: we will not have PROOF of bigfoot until modern science accepts the existence of bigfoot.   These are exactly identical...........   

 

In the folklore of the Caucasus, Pamir, and Altai mountains, an almas (also called an almasty) is a legendary hominid cryptid. Stories describe it as a human-like creature covered in reddish-brown hair, standing 5 to 6.5 feet tall, and resembling modern reconstructions of Neanderthals rather than large apes.

 

Zana fit that physical description perfectly. She was called an Almas during and after her lifetime.

 

Recently, Science dug her body up along with that of her son and analyzed the DNA of other descendants. She has been scientifically identified as Homo sapiens.

 

She was both, and there is no reason why she could not be both.

[georgerm]

On 8/26/2026 at 11:47 AM, MIB said:

 

We do not have proof of bigfoot.   We have evidence for the existence of bigfoot.    The difference matters greatly.    The absolute and unavoidable "math" is this: we will not have PROOF of bigfoot until modern science accepts the existence of bigfoot.   These are exactly identical.   

 

We have some pretty cool evidence.   Some is easy enough to dismiss even if it is incorrect to do so, some is pretty hard to rationally dismiss even if a scoftic would do so.   

When will there be enough evidence before we call it proof?

[georgerm]

On 8/27/2026 at 10:26 PM, xspider1 said:

Whereas we cannot say that Bigfoot have been scientifically proven to exist, there are many adamant eye-witnesses to something that aligns with thousands of reports of Bigfoot.  And many, if not most of those eyewitnesses, have all the proof they need.

 

We have a lot of evidence of Bigfoot, a plethora of which is documented on this very forum.  I try to be careful taking it as a given that almost every other animal on earth except Bigfoot is already scientifically classified because there is probably no way that we could ever know that. 

Could we conclude that for every bigfoot eyewitness plus 10, this would count as evidence and would simply be eyewitness proof for the observer? Now multiply by a 1000 an each eyewitness is a PHD biologist. Is this proof? What do we need for proof?

[georgerm]

On 8/28/2026 at 8:29 AM, Huntster said:

 

In the folklore of the Caucasus, Pamir, and Altai mountains, an almas (also called an almasty) is a legendary hominid cryptid. Stories describe it as a human-like creature covered in reddish-brown hair, standing 5 to 6.5 feet tall, and resembling modern reconstructions of Neanderthals rather than large apes.

 

Zana fit that physical description perfectly. She was called an Almas during and after her lifetime.

 

Recently, Science dug her body up along with that of her son and analyzed the DNA of other descendants. She has been scientifically identified as Homo sapiens.

 

She was both, and there is no reason why she could not be both.

"Zana was named by Russian researchers after her discovery and capture in the Ochamchir region of Abkhazia, south of Russia in the 1850’s. She was said to have been living in the wilderness, naked, but covered in a thick auburn fur, and appearing to be a cross between a human and primate."  

 

I think a DNA test was done on Zana's corpse and maybe someone can post what was discovered.

[Doug]

Huntstir posted the DNA results. 

Homo sapien.

 

[MIB]

8 hours ago, georgerm said:

When will there be enough evidence before we call it proof?

 

We can't honestly, with any integrity, call it proof until mainstream science accepts existence of bigfoot.   That is what PROOF means.   There is no real proof but scientific proof, any lesser proof is not proof, "proof" is the wrong word for that whether it is used from ignorance, illiteracy, or just stubborn malice.    There is no way around this.

8 hours ago, georgerm said:

Could we conclude that for every bigfoot eyewitness plus 10, this would count as evidence and would simply be eyewitness proof for the observer? Now multiply by a 1000 an each eyewitness is a PHD biologist. Is this proof? What do we need for proof?

 

You seem to not understand what "proof" means.   You're trying to change the definition / refusing to use the existing definition.    Best of luck convincing anyone but yourself with that.

[xspider1]

10 hours ago, georgerm said:

Could we conclude that for every bigfoot eyewitness plus 10, this would count as evidence and would simply be eyewitness proof for the observer? Now multiply by a 1000 an each eyewitness is a PHD biologist. Is this proof? What do we need for proof?

 

That is actually a very good question/point.  Although I am not a witness to Bigfoot, I contend that there are many witnesses who have their own undeniable proof.   It is a fantastical subject to convince anyone else of, but I would venture to say that there are Bigfoot witnesses who are more convinced by their own experience than they would otherwise be by any Scientific, peer-reviewed paper.  They know what they saw and what they experienced!  Most of us have probably read that a (personally) indisputable Bigfoot experience can be life changing.

 

However, and to the point, Google AI sums up the situation clearly, in my opinion:

 

"Bigfoot could be scientifically proven only by providing a verifiable type specimen, such as an intact physical body or clear tissue sample, that undergoes independent, peer-reviewed analysis."  

 

Unfortunately, testimony, video, footprints, structures, audio, etc. etc. will not suffice.  In the warmer (hot) months, I see a bug almost every week that I have never seen before.  My dad told me that it's the same where he lives, 900 miles away.  It very well could be that some of those bugs are not yet scientifically classified and, I don't think that most people would deny that as a possibility.  With Bigfoot, things are entirely different.  It is a radical subject which probably 99.999% of people in the world have no personal experience.  So, the easiest default opinion is to simply deny the possibility.

[georgerm]

19 hours ago, Doug said:

Huntstir posted the DNA results. 

Homo sapien.

 

OK, thanks Doug. Even with DNA results I don't know if all primate biologist are in agreement that bigfoot should be classified as a new species. The DNA results should be enough to add bigfoot as a scientifically accepted new species much like other animals such as Grizzly Bears, Black Bears, Polar Bears and more.

 

[georgerm]

13 hours ago, MIB said:

 

We can't honestly, with any integrity, call it proof until mainstream science accepts existence of bigfoot.   That is what PROOF means.   There is no real proof but scientific proof, any lesser proof is not proof, "proof" is the wrong word for that whether it is used from ignorance, illiteracy, or just stubborn malice.    There is no way around this.

 

You seem to not understand what "proof" means.   You're trying to change the definition / refusing to use the existing definition.    Best of luck convincing anyone but yourself with that.

Can't agree with your abrasive comments but good scientific reasoning will do as a new challenge for you. I have a good gasp of proof. Can you tell us how 1000 advanced degreed primate biologist finally agree that bigfoot should be classified as a new species? Be to the point and don't be lowly and use sarcasm. How is this done? Do all of them meet in a giant ballroom and vote? 

[Incorrigible1]

[georgerm]

XSPIDER ONE,  a very comprehensive reply and totally agree with you. Thanks for addding to this topic and will reply to each of your discussion points. I WILL REPLY IN ALL CAPITALS. 

 

That is actually a very good question/point.  Although I am not a witness to Bigfoot, I contend that there are many witnesses who have their own undeniable proof.   It is a fantastical subject to convince anyone else of, but I would venture to say that there are Bigfoot witnesses who are more convinced by their own experience than they would otherwise be by any Scientific, peer-reviewed paper.  They know what they saw and what they experienced!  Most of us have probably read that a (personally) indisputable Bigfoot experience can be life changing. VERY WELL PUT AND WE NEED MORE SCIENTIST WHO HAVE ADVANCED DEGREES IN PRIMATE STUDIES WHO ARE ALSO EYEWITNESSES SO THE SUBJECT OF PROOF CAN BE MOVED FORWARD.

 

However, and to the point, Google AI sums up the situation clearly, in my opinion:

 

"Bigfoot could be scientifically proven only by providing a verifiable type specimen, such as an intact physical body or clear tissue sample, that undergoes independent, peer-reviewed analysis."  I READ AN EYE WITNESS REPORT FROM A CANADIAN WHO LIVED IN A SMALL VILLAGE, AND WAS DEER OR ELK HUNTINS, SAW A BIGFOOT, AND ENDED ITS LIFE TRAGICALLY. HOW MANY CASES LIKE THIS THAT HAVE FAILED TO PROVIDE PROOF ?

 

Unfortunately, testimony, video, footprints, structures, audio, etc. etc. will not suffice.  In the warmer (hot) months, I see a bug almost every week that I have never seen before.  My dad told me that it's the same where he lives, 900 miles away.  It very well could be that some of those bugs are not yet scientifically classified and, I don't think that most people would deny that as a possibility.  With Bigfoot, things are entirely different.  It is a radical subject which probably 99.999% of people in the world have no personal experience.  So, the easiest default opinion is to simply deny the possibility. THERE ARE PROBABLY MANY PRIMATE ADVANCED DEGREES BIOLOGIST WHO AGREE WITH BIGFOOT EVIDENCE BUT WILL NEVER COMMENT SINCE THE TOPIC IS A CAREER DETRACTOR. ONLY THE RISK TAKERS DARE SPEAK IN FAVOR OF BIGFOOTS EXISTENCE.

[MIB]

15 minutes ago, georgerm said:

Can't agree with your abrasive comments but good scientific reasoning will do as a new challenge for you. I have a good gasp of proof. Can you tell us how 1000 advanced degreed primate biologist finally agree that bigfoot should be classified as a new species? Be to the point and don't be lowly and use sarcasm. How is this done? Do all of them meet in a giant ballroom and vote? 

 

I do not think you have any grasp of "proof" based on what you write over and over.   If you do, you hide it very well.   You're repeatedly saying false things and expecting them to be taken as fact.   Scientific illiteracy, repeated endlessly, does not become fact.   If you find that abrasive, maybe you need to be .. abraded .. a bit.   

 

How is it done?   "Giant ballroom" .. is actually closer than you imagine.   A virtual giant ballroom anyway.    It is done the same way real science is always done.   Gather evidence, analyze, write it up, and publish in an established journal.   The journal is, in virtual terms, that ballroom.   If your evidence is solid, if it is repeatable by other scientists, and if your analysis is correct, your claim will be substantiated.   It will be scrutinized, probably painfully, in detail, questions will be asked probably via responses in other papers / journals, and you'll have to be able to address them.    This is not for intellectual babies with easily hurt feelings, the processes are brutal .. ask Ketchum, ask J. Harlan Bretz, etc.     Ketchum was refuted and ridiculed because her science was garbage.   Bretz' work was rejected for decades but finally accepted and now is the mainstream understanding.   If your work is good, it stands, if it is crap, it falls, and that is how it should be.

 

There is no shortcut.    If you're not going through the established processes you're not going to be accepted by the establishment.   Until that happens, you do not have proof regardless of what you wish to believe.