Bigfoot myth or monster?

[georgerm]

6 minutes ago, Incorrigible1 said:

VERY WELL PUT

[Backdoc]

On 8/26/2026 at 10:43 AM, georgerm said:

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?

 

 

I will say I am skeptical of reports like Jacko and always have been.  We do know there have been documented and proven cases of lost boys raised by wolves or apes.   It doesn't happen every day but there are at least a few cases of this out there.  Is Jacko some blurred story version of such a thing, a real creature, or a hoax?    

 

Stories used to appear in newspapers about Cowboys shooting, cooking, and eating flying dinosaurs.  Stories like this would common back in the 1800s.

 

 

 

Sir Arthur Connon Doyl believed in Fairies and photos of such which were seemingly groundbreaking at the time.  Now we know they are proven to be hoaxes.  We can identify today just looking at them they are obvious hoaxes to us but to the people at the time, not so much.

 

 

 

Stories originating in the 1880s to me have a 1) a shaky witness pool and chain of custody of fact 2) a mood of willing to print sensationalism.

 

We need to ask How do we know what we think we know.  Often when we look at the source it can be suspect.  More importantly when we investigate, we often find what we thought was proven fact might be based on some really weak foundation.  

 

  

The PGF and footprints are about the most solid evidence we have at this time for consideration.  If they are not accepted by many, I doubt a story from the 1800's will carry any weight.  Are we really to believe no one took Photos of Jacko if the story was real?  If we asked that Q we might quickly avoid falling for a hoax.  We know Civil war leaders have multiple pics available of them and the battlefield in very clear black and white images.  Yet no one is Canada owned a camera it seems.  Thus, no photo of Jacko.

 

 

Asking for more solid evidence of Bigfoot is reasonable.   Why is it in over 50 years there hasn't' been another PGF-level encounter.   Why is it with millions of cameras and cell phones and so on there isn't another pic or video of Bigfoot to rival the PGF?  That is a reasonable Q.  Even though I think Bigfoot would be near extinct SOMEONE by now should have got as lucky as Roger and Bob and caught Bigfoot on a cell.  There are some promising videos out there but just not on that same level.   

 

The internet tells me there are over 300 million people in America who use a cell phone.  That is a pretty big search party or a lot of eyes for any accidental encounter. 

 

 

 

 

 

[xspider1]

On 8/26/2026 at 1:47 PM, MIB said:

We do not have proof of bigfoot.   We have evidence for the existence of bigfoot.  

 

MIB, quick question (actually, 2 questions):  If I recall correctly, you have reported two 'close encounters' with critters that align with thousands of other reports of what we describe as Bigfoot, correct? 

 

I get the concept of Scientific, peer-reviewed proof, a body or significant body part on a slab and, perhaps a DNA analysis indicating expected differences that would distinguish Bigfoot and allow them to be Scientifically classified as a new Species.  And, I understand how that would convince most people.  (This is irrelevant: but in this day and age, I bet there would still be doubters, just as there are for ghosts (which many people have reported and even captured thousands of pictures that have no other logical explanation, aliens, etc. etc.)  

 

So, the question I really want to ask (and you may say it doesn't matter, although I think it absolutely does), Scientific acceptance aside (in case that never happens), were your encounters proof enough for you?

[georgerm]

1 hour ago, MIB said:

 

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.

 

 

Can you name one animal species that was accepted as a new species, yet a living or deceased specimens was never produced?  I really don't know the answer to this question. This is the point that I have repeated for your benefit. Try to comprehend this concept even though you probably don't have an advanced degree in primatology or have posted to primate journals. The use of abrasive language does not further our knowledge of the primate that we call bigfoot. We are all trying to advance our knowledge of bigfoot in a civil and respectful manner without using inciteful speech which only reduces effective written communication. 

[georgerm]

54 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

 

 

I will say I am skeptical of reports like Jacko and always have been.  We do know there have been documented and proven cases of lost boys raised by wolves or apes.   It doesn't happen every day but there are at least a few cases of this out there.  Is Jacko some blurred story version of such a thing, a real creature, or a hoax?    

 

Stories used to appear in newspapers about Cowboys shooting, cooking, and eating flying dinosaurs.  Stories like this would common back in the 1800s.

 

 

 

Sir Arthur Connon Doyl believed in Fairies and photos of such which were seemingly groundbreaking at the time.  Now we know they are proven to be hoaxes.  We can identify today just looking at them they are obvious hoaxes to us but to the people at the time, not so much.

 

 

 

Stories originating in the 1880s to me have a 1) a shaky witness pool and chain of custody of fact 2) a mood of willing to print sensationalism.

 

We need to ask How do we know what we think we know.  Often when we look at the source it can be suspect.  More importantly when we investigate, we often find what we thought was proven fact might be based on some really weak foundation.  

 

  

The PGF and footprints are about the most solid evidence we have at this time for consideration.  If they are not accepted by many, I doubt a story from the 1800's will carry any weight.  Are we really to believe no one took Photos of Jacko if the story was real?  If we asked that Q we might quickly avoid falling for a hoax.  We know Civil war leaders have multiple pics available of them and the battlefield in very clear black and white images.  Yet no one is Canada owned a camera it seems.  Thus, no photo of Jacko.

 

 

Asking for more solid evidence of Bigfoot is reasonable.   Why is it in over 50 years there hasn't' been another PGF-level encounter.   Why is it with millions of cameras and cell phones and so on there isn't another pic or video of Bigfoot to rival the PGF?  That is a reasonable Q.  Even though I think Bigfoot would be near extinct SOMEONE by now should have got as lucky as Roger and Bob and caught Bigfoot on a cell.  There are some promising videos out there but just not on that same level.   

 

The internet tells me there are over 300 million people in America who use a cell phone.  That is a pretty big search party or a lot of eyes for any accidental encounter. 

 

 

 

 

 

You make some very good points in regard to Jacko and if correct the story was repeated in some newspaper. I will do some research to find out what newspaper. If it was written about, there is a chance that the author created a fantastical story about a supposed ape. There is also a 50% chance that the story is true and some unidentified primate was found on the railroad tracks and captured. I will do some research to find more information on Jacko. Let's not throw the report in the trash can yet. Let's allow a chance that the story is true. By the way your post is very informative, well written, and an interesting read.

[georgerm]

47 minutes ago, georgerm said:

You make some very good points in regard to Jacko and if correct the story was repeated in some newspaper. I will do some research to find out what newspaper. If it was written about, there is a chance that the author created a fantastical story about a supposed ape. There is also a 50% chance that the story is true and some unidentified primate was found on the railroad tracks and captured. I will do some research to find more information on Jacko. Let's not throw the report in the trash can yet. Let's allow a chance that the story is true. By the way your post is very informative, well written, and an interesting read.

After some research, here is what I found out about Jacko, the juvenile bigfoot found in Canada.

Nov 18

The story of Jacko

The story of Jacko – that of a small, apelike, young Sasquatch said to have been captured alive in the 1800s – is a piece of folklore that refuses to die, despite a superb investigative article published in 1975, co-authored by John Green and Sabina W. Sanderson.

The investigation into the Jacko story did not began until decades later. During the 1950s, a news reporter named Brian McKelvie became interested in the then-current stories of the Sasquatch being carried by his local British Columbian papers. McKelvie searched for older reports. What he found was the Daily British Colonist July 4, 1884, article about Jacko. The account detailed the sighting of a smallish hairy creature (“something of the gorilla type”) supposedly seen and captured near Yale, British Columbia, on June 30, 1884, and housed in a local jail.

McKelvie shared the Jacko account with researchers John Green and René Dahinden. MeKelvie told them this was the only record of the event due to a fire that had destroyed other area newspapers of the time.

In 1958 John Green found and interviewed a man (August Castle) who remembered the Jacko talk of the time, but he said his parents did not take him to the jail to see the beast. Other senior citizens remembered the talk of the creature, but no one could produce any truly good evidence for or eyewitness accounts (other than the British Colonist story) of Jacko.

The story’s appearance in Ivan T. Sanderson’s 1961 Abominable Snowmen: Legend Come to Life propelled the Jacko incident into history. Other authors, including John Green, René Dahinden/Don Hunter, Grover Krantz, and John Napier, would follow. The story was repeated again and again.

[MIB]

5 hours ago, xspider1 said:

So, the question I really want to ask (and you may say it doesn't matter, although I think it absolutely does), Scientific acceptance aside (in case that never happens), were your encounters proof enough for you?

 

That is an insightful question.   

 

I saw what I saw, I know what I know.   Though convincing to me, because I was there observing, not merely hearing the account afterwards, I would be disappointed if anyone looked at my sighting accounts as anything other than "just another anecdote" so far as "proof" goes.   I don't even have a picture to back them up with.    That makes them, frankly, pretty weak sauce so far as proving anything at all.    I hope that for someone already convinced by some other body of evidence, they are interesting and maybe educational, maybe fill in some gaps.    

 

At least for a couple of the tracks I do have pictures.   They are open to interpretation.    For interested individuals, they might well be interesting / educational, but I have no delusions that those constitute proof either.   They'd barely make the grade as serious evidence.   Same for the audio.    All are most useful as interesting data points for those who are interested.   They should never be thought of as proof or even as strong evidence.

 

Does this make sense?  I hope so, hope it gives some context for how I see my own meager "offerings."

[RedHawk454]

The older I get the more and more i fall into the belief that Sasquatch is likely a myth

 

I'm still open to Sasquatch being a real flesh and blood creature that the US government is covering up their existence

 

 

[MIB]

37 minutes ago, RedHawk454 said:

The older I get the more and more i fall into the belief that Sasquatch is likely a myth

 

I'm not there .. because of what I've seen first hand .. but I am becoming jaded regarding the notion we're going to get "proof", regarding the idea that bigfoot will someday be something in the biology text rather than in the mythology text.    It is almost as if there is something "funny" going on.   Even if the goal is merely to understand better rather than to prove,  the options seem to be a) give up or b) plow forward despite lack of hope.

 

I think maybe this is why some of the old researchers eventually turned down the woo rabbit hole .. because they know something and can't prove it, why Todd Standing seemingly tried to create evidence when he could not find it, why .. etc.

[Backdoc]

3 hours ago, RedHawk454 said:

The older I get the more and more i fall into the belief that Sasquatch is likely a myth

 

 

Could be.  I’d say the older I get the longer I go without seeing a debunking of the PGF.   Could be a hoax. But the longer I go without seeing a strong hoax case being made the more it suggests Roger and Bob may have really “got the sucker”

 

3 hours ago, RedHawk454 said:

I'm still open to Sasquatch being a real flesh and blood creature that the US government is covering up their existence

 

 

 

One can be real but the Government involvement is not required.   

[xspider1]

3 hours ago, MIB said:

It is almost as if there is something "funny" going on. 

 

That hits the nail on the head.  (And, thank-you for summarizing the affects that your encounters have had for you.  Much appreciated.)

 

Something funny is going on!  Of that, I am 99.9% sure.  There is just no way that an otherwise 'normal' biological creature of the reported sizes can exist and, remain unclassified after all these years, without something(s) 'funny' going on.  This is a good thread, in my opinion.  We can be civil here and honestly explore what may be the cause(s) for the lack of Scientific acceptance/classification.

 

When I joined the BFF, it was stated that the official stance of the BBF was basically that Bigfoot are a biological animal, similar to Gorillas, Humans, etc. except in perhaps their size and elusiveness.  And, as time went by, I never really understood why so many people categorically reject the idea that there may be (and most likely are) characteristics of Bigfoot that are beyond the current Scientific paradigms.  In fact, if you accept that many witnesses are seeing something(s) matching the criteria, it seems undeniable that they must defy our current understandings.

 

As a side note:

 

I live in the middle of a big city, on a busy road.  Yet, my backyard is interesting because it becomes almost rural when you step out the back door.  And (not to imply too much into how this may affect this current discussion), I have seen unusual wildlife out there.  One night about 15 years ago when it was just about to get fully dark, I saw the silhouette of some kind of gigantic bird fly by.  We have barred owls and some hawks and a few eagles, but this thing had like a 6-7 foot wing-span and it flew right by me!  I imagine that any Ornithologist would probably say 'No, you must be mistaken, there are no birds of that size anywhere around there' but, I know what I saw.  Point being: no one really knows anything, until they know.

Edited 14 minutes ago by xspider1