Its definitly getting harder to believe that an animal like bigfoot exists

[Guest prob2236]

 

I’m a new member of the site so I’m sorry if this conversation has been beat to death in past discussions.

 

I’ve been a bigfoot enthusiast for a long time and have really enjoyed reading some of the discussions posted on this site, in just the short time I’ve been around.  Like a lot of you, my interest in bigfoot goes all the way back to childhood and has stuck with me through much of my adult life.  While a younger me was, without a doubt, convinced that Sasquatch existed and that it was only a matter of time before science revealed them as fact.  As I’ve gotten older I’ve become much more of a skeptic.  At this point in my life, I’m still hopeful that somehow this animal might be found, however, I find the lack of supporting evidence and logic against bigfoot to be so over powering. 

 

I admit, I’m mostly an amateur when it comes to bigfoot info and breaking news.  What I know about sasquatch is what I read and what I’ve watch on shows, that I’ve grown to despise, like Finding Bigfoot.  For 30 years it seems like it’s been the same old same in terms of evidence for this creature, grainy photos, vocalizations, footprints and eye witness accounts.  Science as a whole seems to find no reason to entertain the possibility of finding this animal and even in cases where science has stepped out and tried to give its two cents, results have not been favorable.   Take for example the DNA testing of reported “bigfoot hairs” done by Oxford geneticist Bryan Sykes in 2014.   Doors where opened for samples to be sent in for testing from around the world and while I believe the results did find evidence of a hybrid polar bear, all other samples were identified as being common, well known animals like bear, raccoon, horse and I think even human.  We seem to think that science should be taking the wheel in our attempt to find bigfoot but science seems to be waiting for us to give them a good reason as to why something like that would be worth their time.

 

Beyond the limited data; time, logic and reasoning just seem to lead right down the same road, to the same unfortunate conclusion.   Really, how is it possible that with 500 million people living in North America, most of whom now have instant access to a high def. camera with their cell phones, we can’t get more convincing images of this animal a live.  Trail cameras can pick up hundreds of thousands of clear images of every other form of wildlife but not one single photo is out there that isn’t highly debatable.  Anyone off the street can now purchase drones with cameras on them that can be flown miles into the woods, documenting the whole time.  People claim that they’ve had these animals run across roads right in front of them but no one has ever accidently hit on of these things?  Statistically isn’t that just so unlikely?  Thousands of hunters in North America everyday but no one has ever shot one of these things, even on accident?  People go hiking, hunting and trekking through the woods all over the place and year round but no one has accidently happened upon a dead body? 

 

I think the moment where all this really cemented for me and the real odds of all those coincidences coming together at the same time sunk in was when I was ready about the re-discovery of the Coelacanth in 1938.  This fish that was presumed extinct for 65 million years being caught in a fishing net by chance.  Now you can log on to youtube and watch multiple videos of divers swimming up to these things and interacting with them.  We found a 5 foot extinct fish in the largest, most unexplored location on our planet but we can’t find an 8 foot tall humanoid walking around the continent of North America.  Doesn’t that just scream impossible?

 

I’m not looking for you guys to convince me that bigfoot exists and like, I said, I would love to be and hope that I’m wrong about everything I’ve said.  I just don’t see how all roads aren’t pointing to this creature being a total legend.  I guess what I’d like to know is what reason you guys have optimism when it comes to believing in this creature?  Despite all the information we have that I’ve talked about, why do you continue to be convinced that this animal is waiting to be found?  Maybe you just have to have experience this animal face to face to know that it exists… 

 

Sorry again if this is a redundant post.  I’m looking for a jumping off point for discussion on this forum and decided to start with my own personal observations.  I’d love to have this become a fruitful discussion.

 

Respectfully, Patrick in New Hampshire

Edited November 16, 2018 by prob2236

[hiflier]

Hi Patrick, there is no such thing as a redundant post when it comes to someone sincerely asking the right questions. OOPS, forgot, Welcome to the BFF  Many of must have grown up and ended up here after being exposed to Bigfoot at a young age. It's a mystery that is kinda hard to let go of. Seems there is just enough info and trace evidence to keep the door to possible existence propped open or even just slightly ajar. I got here 5 years ago after over 40 years of just living life and I was exposed to the subject in my early teens. It was a 500 page book and five years later that pesky video from Bluff Creek. And DANG IT! Here I am.

 

Answering your questions and concerns isn't easy. I can say though that there has been progress on a scientific front that may shed some light on the existence issue. Rather than go into it here there is some recent discussion on a process you may have heard of called e-DNA? A PhD is running some soil samples taken from underneath what might be a Bigfoot nesting site found a couple of years ago. There is more info on that elsewhere on the Forum. It might be good for you to know about that and also know that the rest of the members here for the most par work to push the Bigfoot subject forward as much as possible. So look around for some good science here and, hopefully without insulting your intelligence, members will be more than happy to help get you up to speed. And I will say this, a skeptical proponent is a valuable asset so it is good to see you here.

[norseman]

4 hours ago, prob2236 said:

 

I’m a new member of the site so I’m sorry if this conversation has been beat to death in past discussions.

 

I’ve been a bigfoot enthusiast for a long time and have really enjoyed reading some of the discussions posted on this site, in just the short time I’ve been around.  Like a lot of you, my interest in bigfoot goes all the way back to childhood and has stuck with me through much of my adult life.  While a younger me was, without a doubt, convinced that Sasquatch existed and that it was only a matter of time before science revealed them as fact.  As I’ve gotten older I’ve become much more of a skeptic.  At this point in my life, I’m still hopeful that somehow this animal might be found, however, I find the lack of supporting evidence and logic against bigfoot to be so over powering. 

 

I admit, I’m mostly an amateur when it comes to bigfoot info and breaking news.  What I know about sasquatch is what I read and what I’ve watch on shows, that I’ve grown to despise, like Finding Bigfoot.  For 30 years it seems like it’s been the same old same in terms of evidence for this creature, grainy photos, vocalizations, footprints and eye witness accounts.  Science as a whole seems to find no reason to entertain the possibility of finding this animal and even in cases where science has stepped out and tried to give its two cents, results have not been favorable.   Take for example the DNA testing of reported “bigfoot hairs” done by Oxford geneticist Bryan Sykes in 2014.   Doors where opened for samples to be sent in for testing from around the world and while I believe the results did find evidence of a hybrid polar bear, all other samples were identified as being common, well known animals like bear, raccoon, horse and I think even human.  We seem to think that science should be taking the wheel in our attempt to find bigfoot but science seems to be waiting for us to give them a good reason as to why something like that would be worth their time.

 

Beyond the limited data; time, logic and reasoning just seem to lead right down the same road, to the same unfortunate conclusion.   Really, how is it possible that with 500 million people living in North America, most of whom now have instant access to a high def. camera with their cell phones, we can’t get more convincing images of this animal a live.  Trail cameras can pick up hundreds of thousands of clear images of every other form of wildlife but not one single photo is out there that isn’t highly debatable.  Anyone off the street can now purchase drones with cameras on them that can be flown miles into the woods, documenting the whole time.  People claim that they’ve had these animals run across roads right in front of them but no one has ever accidently hit on of these things?  Statistically isn’t that just so unlikely?  Thousands of hunters in North America everyday but no one has ever shot one of these things, even on accident?  People go hiking, hunting and trekking through the woods all over the place and year round but no one has accidently happened upon a dead body? 

 

I think the moment where all this really cemented for me and the real odds of all those coincidences coming together at the same time sunk in was when I was ready about the re-discovery of the Coelacanth in 1938.  This fish that was presumed extinct for 65 million years being caught in a fishing net by chance.  Now you can log on to youtube and watch multiple videos of divers swimming up to these things and interacting with them.  We found a 5 foot extinct fish in the largest, most unexplored location on our planet but we can’t find an 8 foot tall humanoid walking around the continent of North America.  Doesn’t that just scream impossible?

 

I’m not looking for you guys to convince me that bigfoot exists and like, I said, I would love to be and hope that I’m wrong about everything I’ve said.  I just don’t see how all roads aren’t pointing to this creature being a total legend.  I guess what I’d like to know is what reason you guys have optimism when it comes to believing in this creature?  Despite all the information we have that I’ve talked about, why do you continue to be convinced that this animal is waiting to be found?  Maybe you just have to have experience this animal face to face to know that it exists… 

 

Sorry again if this is a redundant post.  I’m looking for a jumping off point for discussion on this forum and decided to start with my own personal observations.  I’d love to have this become a fruitful discussion.

 

Respectfully, Patrick in New Hampshire

 

Im confused.... Doesnt finding long extinct animals extant a real shot in the arm for cryptid hominids everywhere? The Hobbit? Denisovans? Homo Naledi? More recent fossil discoveries in hominids.....

 

We have reports of people hitting them, shooting them, we have drone footage, camera trap footage, police dash cam footage, cell phone footage and even professional footage from the 60’s in which a expert proclaimed it “very very real”.

 

We get lots of people proclaiming that we dont have this or that when we do....have this or that.

 

We dont have a body though. We need that.

[Guest prob2236]

28 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

Im confused.... Doesnt finding long extinct animals extant a real shot in the arm for cryptid hominids everywhere? The Hobbit? Denisovans? Homo Naledi? More recent fossil discoveries in hominids.....

 

We have reports of people hitting them, shooting them, we have drone footage, camera trap footage, police dash cam footage, cell phone footage and even professional footage from the 60’s in which a expert proclaimed it “very very real”.

 

We get lots of people proclaiming that we dont have this or that when we do....have this or that.

 

We dont have a body though. We need that.

 

I see what your saying with your first point.  My point is that, if people could happen upon a small fish in a larger, more unexplored environment than one one would think that coming across an 8 foot primate in the woods wouldnt be as impossible as its been.  The fact that it has 't been found, during this day in age, makes it seem more likely that its not there to find.

 

You saw we have people who have hit them, shot them etc but most of these tend to be eye witness accounts that raise more questions than answers. 

 

If you have videos of any of this compeling encounters id love to see them.  I doubt ive see a lot of the videos you're talking about.

[gigantor]

[Huntster]

6 hours ago, prob2236 said:

...........I think the moment where all this really cemented for me and the real odds of all those coincidences coming together at the same time sunk in was when I was ready about the re-discovery of the Coelacanth in 1938.  This fish that was presumed extinct for 65 million years being caught in a fishing net by chance.  Now you can log on to youtube and watch multiple videos of divers swimming up to these things and interacting with them.  We found a 5 foot extinct fish in the largest, most unexplored location on our planet but we can’t find an 8 foot tall humanoid walking around the continent of North America.  Doesn’t that just scream impossible?

 

First of all coelacanths are quite rare, just like sasquatches are believed to be. Secondly, the locals knew they were there all along. It was only when a museum curator saw one in the nets of a local fishermen that the “discovery” was made. Fishermen occasionally caught them, but they aren’t considered good eating, so they were essentially a trash fish. So, in reality, the only “discovery” is when the supposedly smart people finally come to know what others knew all along.

 

I suggest that the same is true with regard to sasquatches. The last folks to know will be the scientists, and I’m good with that.

 

 

[norseman]

1 hour ago, prob2236 said:

 

I see what your saying with your first point.  My point is that, if people could happen upon a small fish in a larger, more unexplored environment than one one would think that coming across an 8 foot primate in the woods wouldnt be as impossible as its been.  The fact that it has 't been found, during this day in age, makes it seem more likely that its not there to find.

 

You saw we have people who have hit them, shot them etc but most of these tend to be eye witness accounts that raise more questions than answers. 

 

If you have videos of any of this compeling encounters id love to see them.  I doubt ive see a lot of the videos you're talking about.

 

Yes but this fish was supposedly extinct by 60 million years. 

 

With extinct hominid species we are talking about much less time than that. Less than 50,000 years in some cases. Its not a huge range of time with the fossils we do have.

 

Also, we have to imagine that a bipedal hominid has a lot more smarts than your average fish. Even Chimps change patterns when pressured by Humans.

 

The media section has tons of video examples to peruse at your convenience.

 

Im not here to convince you of existence in the absence of evidence. But I do think we need to keep an open mind. 

[Arvedis]

7 hours ago, prob2236 said:

 

I think the moment where all this really cemented for me and the real odds of all those coincidences coming together at the same time sunk in was when I was ready about the re-discovery of the Coelacanth in 1938.  This fish that was presumed extinct for 65 million years being caught in a fishing net by chance.  Now you can log on to youtube and watch multiple videos of divers swimming up to these things and interacting with them.  We found a 5 foot extinct fish in the largest, most unexplored location on our planet but we can’t find an 8 foot tall humanoid walking around the continent of North America.  Doesn’t that just scream impossible?

 

 

The difference is a fish is not equipped with cognitive thought. We have to presume BF is a mammal of some variety and therefore, is equipped cognitively.  The species is built to be on the move and with that, the ability to evade detection. It is a misnomer to believe humanity has eyes and ears everywhere (which seems to be the case because we are drenched in tech but in reality, is not the case at all).

Edited November 17, 2018 by Arvedis

[Guest prob2236]

47 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

Yes but this fish was supposedly extinct by 60 million years. 

 

With extinct hominid species we are talking about much less time than that. Less than 50,000 years in some cases. Its not a huge range of time with the fossils we do have.

 

Also, we have to imagine that a bipedal hominid has a lot more smarts than your average fish. Even Chimps change patterns when pressured by Humans.

 

The media section has tons of video examples to peruse at your convenience.

 

Im not here to convince you of existence in the absence of evidence. But I do think we need to keep an open mind. 

 

I agree and my mind is open.  I certainly cant come up with an arguement as to why this creature couldnt exist.  Sometimes it just seems like a lot of peoples belief in bigfoot is fueled more by the heart and their hope that its there and they end up grasping at straws to reach the conclusion they want.

 

I know hes a tv personality but for you guys who ever watched Finding Bigfoot, Bobo is a perfect example of what im talking about.  He believes so strongly in bigfoot that he investigates every report as if its a forgone conclusion that Sasquatch was involved.  He'll find an area of matted grass and go on a rant about how "this is typical bigfoot behavior" and yada yada.  Completely ignoring the fact that are probably 20 animals in the room all around him more likely to have made that area of matted grass.

 

Im reaching for examples but my point was that I think this is a common thing with bigfoot hunters.  You want so badly for it to be there that you almost convince your mind to see and believe things that just arent true.

[gigantor]

2 minutes ago, prob2236 said:

Im reaching for examples but my point was that I think this is a common thing with bigfoot hunters.

 

I'm curious, do you know any "bigfoot hunters"?  I don't.  I guess you're watching TV and think people here are all like Bobo. 

 

 

[Arvedis]

17 minutes ago, gigantor said:

 

I'm curious, do you know any "bigfoot hunters"?  I don't.  I guess you're watching TV and think people here are all like Bobo. 

 

 

 

[redacted], didn't realize the guy is ill.

Edited November 17, 2018 by Arvedis

[Guest prob2236]

28 minutes ago, Arvedis said:

 

[redacted], didn't realize the guy is ill.

 

Every other person interviewed when it comes to a bigfoot sighting is some back woods hick who looks and sounds just like Bobo.  Have you ever heard Bob Gimlin give an interview?  The two could be relatives.

Edited November 17, 2018 by prob2236

[Arvedis]

17 minutes ago, prob2236 said:

 

Every other person interviewed when it comes to a bigfoot sighting is some back woods hick who looks and sounds just like Bobo.  Have you ever heard Bob Gimlin give an interview?  The two could be relatives.

 

I was making a joke about his hair or lack of it but I don't want to kick a guy when he is down.  Bobo is a decent fella, not the sharpest tool in the shed but he can't be faulted for his chosen pursuits in the woods.  He is nothing like Gimlin so I have no idea  what you mean.

[PBeaton]

46 minutes ago, prob2236 said:

 

Every other person interviewed when it comes to a bigfoot sighting is some back woods hick who looks and sounds just like Bobo.  Have you ever heard Bob Gimlin give an interview?  The two could be relatives.

prob2236,

 

Have you ever talked to a witness ? I don't think I've talked to a single witness that sounded like Bobo, not that I want ta dis Bobo. I've talked to Bob multiple times over the phone, my opinion, he's good as in my book. 

 

Pat...

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, prob2236 said:

I agree and my mind is open.  I certainly cant come up with an arguement as to why this creature couldnt exist.  Sometimes it just seems like a lot of peoples belief in bigfoot is fueled more by the heart and their hope that its there and they end up grasping at straws to reach the conclusion they want.

 

That does exist. The term for it is 'confirmation bias'. And some do see Bigfoot as the protagonist, or antagonist depending on one's viewpoint, in things. But we are here to educate ourselves in such matters and hopefully better objective footing. "Not everything is Sasquatch' seems to be a mantra around the joint  There is a ton of collective experience here and it is easy to generalize until one discusses an individual. For a lot of folks here they stay where the rubber meets the road so to speak and are pretty savvy when stuff gets presented here as being caused by Sasquatch. TV is...well...TV. It is all about ratings and entertainment and so things more often than not get played up to that end.

 

It is pretty easy to get somewhat jaded and disillusioned when one sees what is publicly being done to this subject. I might suggest maybe leaving TV to TV and dig in your heels a little more here if you would like to see a more grounded approach that really does work at, and for, the truth. You might like it better  It does sound like you are ready to know more and maybe when you see what others have done you can build on it and perhaps present an approach that is better. And I mean that too.