What Evidence Makes You Believe That Bigfoot Exists ?

[Guest Wendigo]

I can't say I'm a believer, because I've never seen one myself. I'm intrigued by BF because of the history dating back hundreds of years in the U.S., and the numerous sightings reported every year. Seeing Sasquatch isn't something like seeing an Angel/Jesus/God or some figure you're taught as a Westerner, is 'real' from childhood. It's a "reality anomaly". It oftentimes seems to blow people's minds when they have the encounter.

So what are the options?

1. They are lying.

2. They have been hoaxed.

3. They are clinically insane or hallucinating.

4. They have misidentified another creature/human as BF.

5. They actually saw Bigfoot.

With the massive number of sightings, many by outdoorsmen, law enforcement, military or other people who are risking their occupational stability by making a report - I'm not willing to assume the majority of the sightings are reported by liars, schizophrenics, and people who've been duped. I can understand misidentification taking up a large portion of the sightings though. However, there are enough sightings throughout history to make me think there is some phenomenon that does not fall into categories 1-4.

[Guest]

Many things, in order;

1.) Historical evidence; sightings, stories, the similarities of these reports.

2.) Footprints, a large portion can be set off as hoaxed or misidentification but there are a large amount of prints are measured and the lengths and sizes are found to be proportionate with each other.

3.) The sightings, too many sighting from all around the world have the same characteristics and similarities to one another.

4.) Media, photos and videos. Many are known to be hoaxed but there are large amounts of media have not been disproven and everything 'checks out' with them.

[BobbyO]

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.

Was that in Washington or Florida too ??

I'm confused, well i'm not really because i know the answer, but i'd love to see what yours is ??

[Sunflower]

My own.

[Guest tracker]

Because I've seen them, and that's enough for me. Everyone needs their own encounter before jumping down from the fence I guess. Some even refuse to believe even after they have seen them. " It's not a BF it's some sort of huge bearman or cross breed" OPP constable.

"Some people don't want to be unpluged, the mind has trouble letting go" ? one guess only.

[Guest]

I like what Wendigo said.

Edited November 12, 2010 by treeknocker

[Guest]

However, there are enough sightings throughout history to make me think there is some phenomenon that does not fall into categories 1-4.

But the first four are real and known, the fifth is not. That gives the first four a lot more weight, no?

[Guest Cervelo]

To answer the question

personal experience leaves me open to the possibility they could be out there

[Guest tracker]

Speaking of evidence, what does everybody have? Maybe we should start trading pic's like we use to trade sports cards? or you show me yours and I'll show you mine. lol.

[southernyahoo]

But the first four are real and known, the fifth is not. That gives the first four a lot more weight, no?

I don't work that way, and neither does a criminal investigation, atleast in dealing with evidence. You are required to match evidence positively to knowns to have a solid conclusion. When there is no match, probability and likelyhoods are no better than the presumption that the eyewitness acounts could very well be accurate.

[Guest RayG]

You are required to match evidence positively to knowns to have a solid conclusion.

Therefore, when it comes to bigfoot, we have no solid conclusions. No disagreement with me on that.

RayG

[Guest]

If find no Bigfoot evidence compelling. If not for my personal experience, I would not be involved. It's not Bigfoot I doubt, it's Bigfooters.

[MagniAesir]

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

Some of their totems showed mystical beings such as Thunderbird.

Some people can't hunt bear because they find it looks too much like a person when skinned.

If you can imagine a bird big enough to catch and carry a whale, then you can imagine a person with hair all over them or a bear looking more like a man.

For numerous cultures all over the world, people used our lack of fur to indicate how we were special or different from the animal world. We placed furs on ourselves to represent various animal spirits AND depicted men with fur as being "WILD".

[MagniAesir]

I don't believe that sasquatch exists however there is enough supposed evidence that I don't have an answer for.

It is precisely because I don't know that I continue to look.

[Guest]

But the first four are real and known, the fifth is not. That gives the first four a lot more weight, no?

No. Because "science" has been proven wrong too many times when it said something was that wasn't, or wasn't that was.