Bigfoot: Does It Exist? Or Not?

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

It's a shame the entire database isn't available. There's a lot of reports that involve a connection to another phenomenon, but they never get published. Publishing only 1/16 of the reports that you get can really mislead researchers. 

[daveedoe]

There are forums, Youtube channels, movies, books and TV shows all dedicated to Bigfoot.

 

Bigfoot does exist in these arenas figuratively but not physically.

 

Now does a creature 7 ft to 9 ft hairy biped living in our forested regions exist?

 

Maybe. 

[Guest DWA]

Yep.  Pretty dang obvious, to anyone interested.

 

(Right.  You are reading a pile of posts from people who aren't interested.  But they Sure.Are.Interesting.Aren't.They.)

[Terry]

I don't think so.  Maybe!  But I don't think so.

 

t.

[1980squatch]

Bigfoot as an undiscovered real creature seems ridiculous and impossible. However, they are actually out there.

[Guest DWA]

Actually, what seems ridiculous and impossible is the bend-over-till-back-breaks denial - right up to and including continuing to spout as fact long-discredited stuff - of an animal the fossil record (never mind primatology and wildlife biology and ecology) tell us *we should expect.*

[Guest]

I'm going to say yes it does.  Because regardless of how many stupid hoaxes there are, there have been many reputable people who have seen one.  I've even been told of someone in my family who witnessed a couple of adults and one was carrying a baby.  These people have no reason to lie or to make up a story like that.  They're getting no gain from it. 

 

Also the fact that the creature has been mentioned many times in Native American stories and folklore.  It has to be based on something. 

[Guest Crowlogic]

 They exist.             You really want a knockdown drag out you need a contender with WOOO written on both gloves : ) . 

Shadowborn , you did'nt mention on what caused the said "split" .

 

I will not create a macro so you will have to come here and reread this line :0  Everyone of the reports cannot be fake,hoax, misidentification.  currently there are 4836 reports on the BFRO and that does not include the ones they keep private. I have read a lot of them and there are more than several that are from what anyone should call reputable people, people that reporting a Sasquatch sighting could possibly have 

And exactly why can't all the reports be misidentifications, lies, hoaxes and deliriums?  If we had a record of fairy sightings, dragon sightings, and Griffon sightings we could very very reliably call them misidentification, hoaxes and deliriums.  Just because bigfoot takes place in our present does not entitle it to be any different from the  monsters of old.   The foundation bigfoot is built upon is fragmented and as it was gaining the public's interest the one's promoting it were not exactly pillars of science and integrity.

[Guest]

It's a shame the entire database isn't available. There's a lot of reports that involve a connection to another phenomenon, but they never get published. Publishing only 1/16 of the reports that you get can really mislead researchers.

So 48000 Sightings is only 1/16, that means there are 768000 reports plus the ones that go unreported. Upwards of a million sightings and still not one scrap of physical evidence. Why is that?

You can't win a fight by punching yourself in the face.

[Old Dog]

evidence

 

[ev-i-duh ns] 

Spell Syllables

noun

1.

that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief;proof.

2.

something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:

 

3.

Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue andwhich may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, orobjects.

 

 

By definition, there appears to be quite a bit of evidence.  Now figuring out what left that evidence is the adventure.  

 

“It does take great maturity to understand that the opinion we are arguing for is merely the hypothesis we favor, necessarily imperfect, probably transitory, which only very limited minds can declare to be a certainty or a truth.†
― Milan Kundera

 

“One’s opinion should only be as strong as one’s knowledge on the matter.†
― Eric Herzel

Edited August 29, 2015 by Old Dog

[Guest]

 

It's a shame the entire database isn't available. There's a lot of reports that involve a connection to another phenomenon, but they never get published. Publishing only 1/16 of the reports that you get can really mislead researchers.

So 48000 Sightings is only 1/16, that means there are 768000 reports plus the ones that go unreported. Upwards of a million sightings and still not one scrap of physical evidence. Why is that?

You can't win a fight by punching yourself in the face.

 

 

I'm confused, I counted just over 5000 reports posted on BFRO for North America. Are there other reports I can't see? Thanks for any help.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

There's 48616 reports in total. 5197 of them are published and available to the public, so I guess that's about 1/9. 

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

So 48000 Sightings is only 1/16, that means there are 768000 reports plus the ones that go unreported. Upwards of a million sightings and still not one scrap of physical evidence. Why is that?

 

There's nowhere near that many reports in their database. 48000 is roughly the total. 

[Guest]

^ Ok, my previously asked question has been downsized.

[chelefoot]

Answer to OP:

 

Possibly.

 

I do believe BobbyO, 1980, Sal and a few others who say they have seen a BF, but I still find the whole idea of there being a 7 foot hairy creature running around in the woods undiscovered... hard to believe.

 

I guess that makes me a skeptical proponent