What Evidence Makes You Believe That Bigfoot Exists ?

[Guest Spazmo]

It's not Bigfoot I doubt, it's Bigfooters.

Brilliant.

Sig line worthy...

[Guest Lesmore]

I'm of the opinion that First Nations stories about BF culture focuses on spiritual entities.

Many people of European background that came to settle in North America misinterpreted First Nations views about BF as being about actual beings, not spiritual entities...IMO.

I was watching a television program about auctions and one of the items auctioned was something known as a "Vampire Kit'. It was hand made, had wooden spikes in it. bottles of silver nitrate and other objects that were believed to ward off Vampires.

Apparently even up to the 1800's, some individuals in parts of Europe, would carry these kits in their horse drawn carriages if they were traveling through certain areas in Europe.

Beliefs and superstitions or.....

Les

Edited November 14, 2010 by Lesmore

[Guest]

I'm of the opinion that First Nations stories about BF culture focuses on spiritual entities.

Many people of European background that came to settle in North America misinterpreted First Nations views about BF as being about actual beings, not spiritual entities...IMO.

Then you ignore what the First Nations people themselves have said about the subject, as has been well documented.

I was watching a television program about auctions and one of the items auctioned was something known as a "Vampire Kit'. It was hand made, had wooden spikes in it. bottles of silver nitrate and other objects that were believed to ward off Vampires.

Apparently even up to the 1800's, some individuals in parts of Europe, would carry these kits in their horse drawn carriages if they were traveling through certain areas in Europe.

Beliefs and superstitions or.....

Les

Utterly irrelevant, and a not so thinly disguised argumentum ad ridicule.

[Guest Lesmore]

Then you ignore what the First Nations people themselves have said about the subject, as has been well documented.

Utterly irrelevant, and a not so thinly disguised argumentum ad ridicule.

Mulder,

A few suggestions.

An 'attack' approach will not sway reasonable individuals.

In order to be convincing, it's important to lay out your views, reinforce views with evidence and then support arguments with evidence.

Stating unfounded responses, does not bolster arguments.

It's important to recognize that views, are merely opinion, not fact. It's important not to state opinion as if it were fact.

If someone wishes to talk about information they understand to be the case and are not necessarily advancing an argument, than it's not necessary to prepare a thorough case.

It can be a casual discussion, which is fine. Which is basically what my previous post, which seems to be a concern to you...was all about.

Edited November 14, 2010 by Lesmore

[southernyahoo]

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

RayG

Of coarse there is the problem of discovering a new species where it's bodily scraps won't be a known. That doesn't mean science can't figure out what it comes from. Once that happens, we will have a known and mundane explanation for a great deal of the other evidence. So when we find those large tracks out there, the best conclusion would be no different than if they were bear tracks.

[Guest tracker]

Research the name Bob(action) Jackson and YNP, you'll get some answers. He's a retired 30 year deep back country park ranger and university trained wildlife expert. How's that for credibility?

[Guest]

For me, the evidence is the trackway I found in Colorado back in '03, the P-G Film (it still endures for me especially in conjunction with the tracks at the site), the large array of eye-witness reports, the long term historical accounts, and the large variety of track casts (especially those which indicated age differences, injury and deformity).

Misidentification of acknowledged animals can only account for a portion of these, and deliberate hoaxing cannot account for all of the remainder, so to me there logically must be a flesh and blood animal somewhere in the mix. I think they are fairly rare, have enormous living ranges, and avoid us at every possible opportunity.

Also, if you look at the character and experience of most of the early investigators/researchers like Rene Dahinden, Peter Byrne, John Green, Grover Krantz, their benefactors like Tom Slick, and some of the later investigators/researchers like Jeff Meldrum you find men who risked careers, reputations, fortunes, and even their lives occasionally in search of hard proof of these animals. That speaks volumes to me.

I also find that there are enough examples of science being wrong or at least late to the party with respect to accepting the existence of certain animals, as well as the continued discovery of new species both large and small around the world, to suggest there could still be unknown large animals out there.

[CMBigfoot]

What evidence makes you believe that Bigfoot exists?

 

 

For me, besides having my own sighting with multiple people at the same time. And all the people that had a sighting before and after me at the same location with the same descriptions.

 

I would say possibly the fresh large barefooted tracks I found at high elevation on the first day it snowed. Or the very powerful vocalizations I've heard that so far haven't been matched to any known animal. Or the large limb or log thrown uphill at my direction after I did some tree knocks. Or the 2 foot long x 4 inch diameter turd I've seen. Or watching the reactions of four dogs shaking from fear after a group of us were looking at fresh large barefooted tracks in a meadow. Then something started screaming from the timber at us. If it was a cougar or coyote the four dogs would have went after it. Or all the people that I've personally talked to over the years that have had a bigfoot sighting.

 

Just this past Saturday I talked to an OSP officer and he said he had a sighting of two BF's in the early 1990's. It scared him bad enough he quit hunting in Oregon. He would go to Washington to hunt. But last year was the first year he hunted in Oregon. Eastern Oregon not Western Oregon.

 

So this is some of the evidence I've seen and experienced personally that makes me believe that bigfoot exists, if I hadn't seen a bigfoot with my own two eyes.

[Guest possessed]

My personal experiences.

[Guest Crowlogic]

I was once a believer in bigfoot.  During the decades I was it was possible to by into the vastness of the wilderness where a rare animal could remain undetected.  That all changed when bigfoot began showing up in backyards all over the country.  I realized that there was something wrong with the picture.  I eventually stopped exploring new "exciting and excellent evidence" and waited to see how the evidence played out.  After a perfect run of hoaxes it became clear that there wasn't going to be a defining set of proofs.  Bigfoot culture grew in size but the collection of that elusive proof never happened.  However the number of hoaxes grew quite nicely with the curve.  The issue finds itself today with ever more fantastic traits given to the bigfoot and ever more excuses why it can't be found or shouldn't be found.

 

In order to accept witness testimony as real one has to accept that indeed bigfoot is almost every where yet it can't be everywhere and avoid the terminal bullet, train, truck or automobile finishing one off where it ends up in the lab.  I would love to say that people are basically honest and trustworthy about this thing but I can't.  Bigfoot is too ingrained in our culture now and anyone with the desire can read a few reports or watch a few documentaries and create a credible sighting.  Whether or not folks want to admit it it is fun to create whoppers and stories.  It is fun to gain membership in an exclusive club.  Conversely it is profitable to create something people will spend money on.  Write a book, make a video, do the circuit and have a ball doing it.  I't OK to believe it's like Linus and the Great Pumpkin.  Its better for him to believe so he does.  It

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Compelling for me:

 

The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Geographical Patterns that are seen across sightings

The sheer number of reports

Credibility of certain witnesses

[Guest diana swampbooger]

DNA

 

Perhaps in a few years after the fighting calms amongst the expert interpreters of said DNA of the various contributions... blahblahblah

[Patterson-Gimlin]

I am still waiting for it, but not really. It has became quite obvious that they do not exist. I wish they did.

[Guest DWA]

These two guys sum it up best for me:

 

For me, I find the congruency of all the available data to be the most compelling thing to support the reality of the species. The inferred structure of the foot based on footprint evidence is congruent with what can be observed in the PGF. The anatomy and behavior noted in historical newspaper accounts coincides perfectly with what people continue to report to the present day. The hand and foot impressions on record seem to be morphologically similar whether from WA, KY, MI, or elsewhere. Congruencies abound, and in fact seem to be the norm. If this was all made up, there should be some notable discrepancies, but there really aren't. I find that impressive. - Cliff Barackman

 

What I often tell people is that if you immerse yourself in the field, you'd be blown away by the amount of evidence.  They just get pieces of the puzzle. There's a literal ton of eyewitness accounts, foot casts, hair samples and the like. It's a situation where from a mathematical standpoint, it's highly probable that these creatures exist in North America, but it's also statistically impossible that nothing is out there. It's a weird juxtaposition of highly unlikely realities, but one of them has to be right. - Ken Gerhard

 

How I sum it up?  Well, I'm gonna let Stan Norton's Mum do it below (signature).

[Guest DWA]

I'm of the opinion that First Nations stories about BF culture focuses on spiritual entities.

Many people of European background that came to settle in North America misinterpreted First Nations views about BF as being about actual beings, not spiritual entities...IMO.

 

Not if you've read what Native people say about this topic.  They insist on the reality of the animals; the misinterpretation was actually Europeans presuming fantasy in Native accounts.  Natives treat this animal exactly the way they do every one we accept as real.

I was once a believer in bigfoot.  

 

That's a problem, right there.   I am where I am on this for one reason:  evidence.   Going from belief to non-belief is, in every case in which I have seen it, not based on evidence but on impatience and unwillingness to think stuff through.

 

In order to accept witness testimony as real one has to accept that indeed bigfoot is almost every where yet it can't be everywhere and avoid the terminal bullet, train, truck or automobile finishing one off where it ends up in the lab.

 

Nope.  One has only to know about animals, primates in particular.  The evidence says that the ubiquity you are talking about is not in fact happening; sightings are invariably in or on the edges of large tracts of habitat or plausible corridors used by many other species.    There are accounts of them being shot and hit by train, truck and automobile.  Presuming at least some of these accounts likely authentic is a far more plausible mental exercise that that presuming all of this a false positive.  There's no precedent in our known universe for anything with this pattern of evidence being anything other than what the evidence says it is.

 

 I would love to say that people are basically honest and trustworthy about this thing but I can't.  Bigfoot is too ingrained in our culture now and anyone with the desire can read a few reports or watch a few documentaries and create a credible sighting.  

 

Which means nothing.  It is the consistency of thousands that counts, not whether someone can make up one.  As WSA likes to say and he's right:  we just ain't that good.  We aren't.

 

Whether or not folks want to admit it it is fun to create whoppers and stories.

 

Not when they will get one laughed at; fired; ostracized; or any of the other things that "whoppers" have done to people who refused - consequences be damned - to pretend they didn't see what they saw.  That's an assumption with zero to back it up.

 

 It is fun to gain membership in an exclusive club.  

 

Of nutty people shunned by most if not all who know them including SOs and spouses.  Um, precisely no.

 

Conversely it is profitable to create something people will spend money on.  

 

No one is getting money off of this.  Not money they're living on, they aren't.