Does Bigfoot Exist?

[Guest]

You mean like Roger Patterson did in 1967?  

The sasquatch was a pretty well known phenomena by 1967, and it was already a scientific taboo by the time Patterson's film was taken.

 

 

Good point. We are all learning, aren't we?

 

?

[chelefoot]

The sasquatch was a pretty well known phenomena by 1967, and it was already a scientific taboo by the time Patterson's film was taken.

 Really? Not sure I would agree with that. "Known" maybe, "well known" not so much.

[Guest]

It depends on where you live. In British Columbia, stories of the sasquatch have been known by native peoples for hundreds of years and by the white man since the 1920s.

[Terry]

It depends on where you live. In British Columbia, stories of the sasquatch have been known by native peoples for hundreds of years and by the white man since the 1920s.

 

Don't get the impression that everyone in B.C. thinks there is such a thing as a sasquatch.  I know people who work in the forest industry in that province and my friend's wife was raised in a tiny forest community there.  None of them have bf stories or have heard any locally.  And I always ask them.

 

t.

[Guest]

^^

I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying. The legend of the sasquatch has been well known by people of all colours throughout the province since the 1920s when J.W. Burns coined the term 'sasquatch'. Stories of these creatures, at the time described as giant hairy Indians, were published in various Canadian magazines during the '20s and '30s. The sasquatch is a cultural icon of British Columbia, it was even a mascot for the 2010 Winter Olympics held in Vancouver.

[hiflier]

 Hello dmaker,
 

Clear and well defined tracks are easily faked. And they still have never lead to an actual Bigfoot. Just like alleged Bigfoot hair is never anything but bear, raccoon, dog, possum, carpet, human, horse... etc.

 

I think "human" is an ok result.

[Guest]

So you agree then that there are currently no photos of a Sasquatch? You are not a supporter of the PGF as genuine?

 

I disagree on the body thing. DNA would be very useful. I could even be personally swayed by convincing video under the right circumstances.

No. The PGF is likely to be real, though it did not prove the existence of bigfoot at the time because the public already had it in their heads that the whole matter was merely an Indian legend.

 

If DNA could prove the species is real, thus far no analyzed piece of alleged sasquatch DNA is genuine, as all samples have come back either bear, human, or synthetic.

 

The only even remotely convincing piece of visual evidence to date is the Patterson-Gimlin film. The time will come when we'll know we have another convincing piece of footage.

[coffee2go]

This thread has made two things very clear to me about the people who participate by posting here.  

It doesn't matter what you say to a skeptic.  They will not change their mind until they have the proof they are looking for.  

Likewise, you cannot convince someone who has seen a bigfoot that it was really a bear they saw.

 

I try to keep an open mind about most things.  The existence of bigfoot is one of them. 

 

 

[Incorrigible1]

Like that's a bad thing. That is, desiring one can prove something claimed.

[Guest DWA]

Well, in the real world people usually accept that work is going on, evidence being gathered and proof forthcoming, and one doesn't insist it happen on one's personal schedule.

 

It would be like me getting all over you for that big bird.  PROOF PROOF PROOFPROOF PROOF PROOFPROOF PROOF PROOFPROOF PROOF PROOFPROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOF PROOFPROOF PROOF PROOFPROOF PROOF PROOF!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

 

Show people the same deference, particularly when they are at least trying to prove it.

[Guest Cervelo]

This thread has made two things very clear to me about the people who participate by posting here.

It doesn't matter what you say to a skeptic. They will not change their mind until they have the proof they are looking for.

Likewise, you cannot convince someone who has seen a bigfoot that it was really a bear they saw.

I try to keep an open mind about most things. The existence of bigfoot is one of them.

So your a skeptic?

[Guest]

Hello BadVooDoo,

I know what you mean. Kinda like a dream come true isn't it? I mean how pure can a thread possibly be? It should be limited to one word answers IYAM.

 

Why should the answers be limited to one word?  Do you not find value in digging a little further?  You seem to be overly concerned with staying on topic and having answers supplied in a succinct manner.  Sometimes what some may call off topic can be good as long as it doesn't derail the thread because it can introduce new ideas - which in my opinion is always a good thing.  I've asked plenty of questions on this forum that have gone unanswered - and that's OK too. 

[JDL]

At the age of 14, I might have stated:  "Very large, hair-covered, aboriginal humans do exist.  You say they're called bigfoot?"

[Branco]

Tracks are not verifiable evidence.

 

If someone writes a paper about a Bigfoot foot print in the ground, another scientist can not go and look at the foot that made it and see if it is from an actual Bigfoot.

Science: An orderly arrangement of what at the moment seem to be facts. - Quoted in Research Viewpoint. Any scientist would be faced with the overwhelming fact that all he/she "knows" comes from the text books studied and from the mouths of his/her professors, and neither mentioned "Bigfoot". What scientists as a whole "know", changes on a daily basis. 

[JDL]

Any wise scientist also understands that as each new layer of knowledge is revealed, an even broader set of unknowns is disclosed.  The accomplishment of discovery should always be humbled by the revelation of new unknowns.