Bigfoot myth or monster?

[xspider1]

10 hours ago, norseman said:

Only high school for me for biology. But I do have an Associate Arts degree...

 oic

Did you notice where your AI bubble asked if you wanted to discuss 'non-lethal naming rules'?  Several posts back, you said "No. Extinct species get a pass. Entire species are recognized by just a few bones. But not extant ones. They require two complete skeletons. One male and one female."  <I bolded that last part for clarity>  So, I took that to mean that you think proof of Sasquatch requires a complete Male and a complete Female skeleton.  Personally, I don't like the idea of even implying that.  You have somewhat of an authoritative persona here so, there might be a few people who would take that and run with it which could be very unfortunate, in my opinion.  I just think that there must be a better way.

 

"I am still waiting for an adequate explanation on your part as to why a “majestic animal” is exempt from scientific study?"  I never said anything like that.  I said: "Unless there is no other viable option, Bigfoot, Black Widows and many other creatures are just too magnificent to kill, in my opinion."  Now, if anyone wants to go out and kill a few billion mosquitoes for Science, I'm all for it.    

[georgerm]

Wow, xspider1 and Norseman. What a debate that has been civil and neither party has backed down even during the most intense language at proving bigfoot is a real monster. It seems both of you have proved bigfoot is a monster. Seems like most of the audience has backed off while you two have carried on a debate that would heat metal to the bending point. One of the main points that is still not clear is does it take a deceased bigfoot male and female body to prove the existence of bigfoot? Do we agree bigfoot is a real living animal and a new species? Does DNA make the distinction between myth and real living monster? Presently what is the status of bigfoot ............................. myth or monster? Has enough evidence been brought forth for proof of the bigfoot with its own species name? What is the present status of bigfoot? Some claim bigfoot is a myth that can disappear and is abducted by aliens and delivered to Earth's forest. 

 

[norseman]

8 hours ago, georgerm said:

Wow, xspider1 and Norseman. What a debate that has been civil and neither party has backed down even during the most intense language at proving bigfoot is a real monster. It seems both of you have proved bigfoot is a monster. Seems like most of the audience has backed off while you two have carried on a debate that would heat metal to the bending point. One of the main points that is still not clear is does it take a deceased bigfoot male and female body to prove the existence of bigfoot? Do we agree bigfoot is a real living animal and a new species? Does DNA make the distinction between myth and real living monster? Presently what is the status of bigfoot ............................. myth or monster? Has enough evidence been brought forth for proof of the bigfoot with its own species name? What is the present status of bigfoot? Some claim bigfoot is a myth that can disappear and is abducted by aliens and delivered to Earth's forest. 

 

I have been on my feet for about 18 hours. Very tired. But just some quick thoughts.

 

I feel super strongly that Bigfoot doesn’t deserve to be a mythological monster. It deserves to be a scientific classified species recognized by everyone.

 

It does not take a deceased male and female Bigfoot to prove the species exists. Albeit that would be a slam dunk example. But a Holotype and Allotype will be taken AFTER discovery. Science isn't going to be happy with a pinky bone or a tooth with a living, breathing species.

 

How science comes into possession of type specimens typically is through several different means.

The type specimens are already in the museum collection.

 

Type specimens are found in the bush meat trade.

 

Type specimens are found in remote regions of Earth.

 

And rarely type specimens are found in our back yards.

 

 

 

[xspider1]

9 hours ago, georgerm said:

Wow, xspider1 and Norseman. What a debate that has been civil and neither party has backed down even during the most intense language at proving bigfoot is a real monster.. 

 

 

Thanks, georgerm.  I do try to be civil and Norse has a great deal of pertinent, real life experience and knowledge regarding Science and primate biology.  We just have a fundamental difference: kill vs no-kill.  (That's been going on for decades.  lol)  I never meant to hi-jack your thread and I think it's a really good one!  I will only add that Monsters, by definition, are imaginary or mythical.  I don't really agree with that definition because I think there are definitely Monsters on Earth, but we do need a standard of Semantics (as Norse pointed out) that we can either agree on, or that we are forced to accept either way.  

 

Bigfoot are scary, no doubt about that.  Humans are very scary too, we are The Alpha predator.  We can (and probably should) kill anything that threatens us without cause.  But, given a choice not to kill Bigfoot just in order to convince Science (and to convince people who know everything already anyway) seems like the best approach to me.

[RedHawk454]

On 9/9/2026 at 1:53 PM, norseman said:

We have evidence. Yes. John Mioncynski talks about Elk with broken necks. The Bauman story the trapper had a broken neck. The Nahanni headless valley. The Indian stories of Sasquatch being a giant cannibal.
 

The Yeti is known as a Yak killer as well.
 

How is a 800 lbs primate gonna feed itself in snowy mountains six months out of the year?🤷🏻‍♂️ DO THE MATH.

 

ITS NOT A NOTION. Its called science. Its been happening for 100s of years. And don't shoot the messenger! I didn't write the rules.

 

I hunt in Grizzly country and I cannot fathom a more terrifying scenario than having my cabin bombarded by giant rocks from a group of giants that are working in a organized attack.

 

Animals don't do that. They don't throw projectiles and they don't conduct warfare on a human scale. Evidently Sasquatch do. That is terrifying. Port Chatham AK? Same story.

 

If you want to be more terrified of spiders in your attic and think of Sasquatch as a gentle giant? Thats your prerogative to do so.

 

Thank you.  Whenever I start doubting the existence of Sasquatch I remember these stories.  They can't easily be explained by known phenomena 

[georgerm]

On 9/14/2026 at 10:49 PM, xspider1 said:

 

 READ ON FOR MY REPLIES TO XSPIDER1:

 

Thanks, georgerm. HERE ARE MY RESPONSES SO READ ON. I do try to be civil and Norse has a great deal of pertinent, real life experience and knowledge regarding Science and primate biology.  We just have a fundamental difference: kill vs no-kill.  OUT OF TEN BIGFOOT BELIEFS, JUST HAVING ONE DISAGREEMENT ON KILL NO KILL IS NOT A REASON FOR COMMUNICATION TENSENESS SINCE YOU BOTH BRING LOTS TO THE TABLE. (That's been going on for decades.  lol)  I never meant to hi-jack your thread and I think it's a really good one!  INTENSE DISCUSSIONS SOMETIMES ARE A NORMAL AND PART OF THE BIGFOOT TOPIC WHICH HELPS EXPAND THE TOPIC INTO NEW AREAS. I DON'T SEE THIS AS HI-JACKING BUT INDEBTH CIVIL DISCUSSION I will only add that Monsters, by definition, are imaginary or mythical. MAYBE MONSTER IS NOT THE BEST TERM FOR DESCRIBING BIGFOOT. I don't really agree with that definition because I think there are definitely Monsters on Earth, but we do need a standard of Semantics (as Norse pointed out) that we can either agree on, or that we are forced to accept either way.  

 

Bigfoot are scary, no doubt about that.  Humans are very scary too, we are The Alpha predator.  We can (and probably should) kill anything that threatens us without cause.  But, given a choice not to kill Bigfoot just in order to convince Science (and to convince people who know everything already anyway) seems like the best approach to me. I WIOULD RATHER CAPTURE BIGFOOT WITH TEAMS OF DART GUN PACKING TROOPS SINCE I BELIEVE THE CREATURE DESERVES THIS METHOD OF STUDY. THIS WOULD TAKE A GOVERNMENT SPONSORED HUNT AND CAPTURE PROGRAM. WE PROBABLY HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF BIGFOOT WITHOUT A LIVE SPECIMEN. MIB MADE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN EVIDENCE AND PROOF THAT MAKES SENSE.

 

Edited 1 hour ago by georgerm

[Backdoc]

16 hours ago, RedHawk454 said:

 

Thank you.  Whenever I start doubting the existence of Sasquatch I remember these stories.  They can't easily be explained by known phenomena 

 

 

I believe 90%-95%+ of the Bigfoot eyewitness reports are seeing something real with only about 1-5% being outright liars and hoaxers.   

 

What I struggle with is not being sure what they saw.  Is it a bear?  Is it some other misidentification?   That part of my brain I will call the BAD COP

 

Then the GOOD COP part of my brain tells me, "Do you really think ALL of these people- every single one is wrong?  Are they all mistaken?!"

 

The GOOD COP part of me understands there only needs to be one of these reports to be real for Bigfoot to be real.  Just one single report.

 

For those who have had an encounter please forgive my struggle between the GOOD COP and BAD COP.   I have never had such an encounter and honestly would never want to until Bigfoot in the public is a well-establish universal fact.