Finding Bigfoot

Senor Willy

Anyone watching this crap on Animal planet. Its so bad its actually good.
Take the dumbest so called biologists and and bigfoot enthusiasts on the
planet, add in a dumbass weirdo Bigfoot expert and some lying Hill Billy
eye witnesses and you have tv dynamite.

The lead guy talks about Bigfoots or is it Bigfeets as an actual species and how
they track the Deer herds through the forest for food.
They even have actual Bigfoot calls and they enter the forest at night
( very near to a road ) and make Bigfoot calls and listen for replies.
The best comment was when he says they are a very curious species. If this
was the case there would be millions of pictures and moves of them and ever
Dublin Zoo might have a pair on show.

How they make this crap and where they find the weirdos is beyond me.
Its still worth a watch though. TV DYNAMITE.

Myrddin

They're a very curious species, yet there's not a single genuine photograph of one nor has the body of a dead one ever been found. Still, it's good for tourism...

Dave!

Enter steddyeddy!

I'm also not convinced by this. Considering the number of alleged sightings, and in the locations they are (North America -- not the Congo), I find it unlikely that someone wouldn't happen to be carrying a camera phone with them. There are also a tonne of hunters in N America (indeed these are often the ones who report the sightings), none of which have managed to shoot one.

I think at this stage that the mythology and legend play a big role in sightings, and there's a financial incentive for some "Bigfoot towns" to perpetuate the story also.

Pushtrak

Animal Planet going down the same road as The History Channel?

Dave!

Dave! wrote: »

I'm also not convinced by this. Considering the number of alleged sightings, and in the locations they are (North America -- not the Congo), I find it unlikely that someone wouldn't happen to be carrying a camera phone with them. There are also a tonne of hunters in N America (indeed these are often the ones who report the sightings), none of which have managed to shoot one.

I am not convinced but i am leaning towards thinking there is something going on. There is alot of evidence out there alot of witnesses alot of video's and photo's. Constant same reports coming in. I think the reported sightings is up about the 80000 mark. The trail cam photo of what people say is a juvenile bigfoot are interesting.
http://www.pabucks.com/bigfoot/1012071556a.jpg
http://www.pabucks.com/bigfoot/1012071556b.jpg

Also Les Stroud Surviver Man said he had an incounter with what he says sounds like an Ape

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y5aO5XdgT0

What actually gets to me despite (no body) Are the measurements people are giving. They are giving accounts of this being from 6 ft to 10 foot. Shoulder width of 4 feet. This is just huge.

The 911 calls are funny

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmbNEKrNnvg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8FnF_zuupk

Dave!

There are thousands of sightings of the Loch Ness Monster also, it doesn't mean sh*t. There are plenty of other animals around which can be mistaken for a Bigfoot, particularly when there's a huge mythology surrounding the animal, and a financial incentive for many parts of N America to promote this stuff.

Those pictures, as with all of the other Bigfoot photos, are inconclusive. What's the point in posting up some pictures that could be anything? Post up something conclusive, or else you're just contributing to the perception that a lot of us have -- Bigfoot enthusiasts, as with Paranormal enthusiasts, substitute lots of bad evidence in place of 1 bit of good evidence, and they believe that it is worthwhile.

Aren't those pictures the ones of the bear with mange?

choedoboy

you are right dave but i think its good to have questions with no answer it makes people think...everyone gets into the rhythm of they're own life that they forget that we don't know everything. so in ways it is good to have that curiosity of life.

choedoboy

am i wrong but is this the same forum that nukewinter and rude boy was on like 5 years ago i think i found it.......

Senor Willy

Dave! wrote: »

There are thousands of sightings of the Loch Ness Monster also, it doesn't mean sh*t. There are plenty of other animals around which can be mistaken for a Bigfoot, particularly when there's a huge mythology surrounding the animal, and a financial incentive for many parts of N America to promote this stuff.

Those pictures, as with all of the other Bigfoot photos, are inconclusive. What's the point in posting up some pictures that could be anything? Post up something conclusive, or else you're just contributing to the perception that a lot of us have -- Bigfoot enthusiasts, as with Paranormal enthusiasts, substitute lots of bad evidence in place of 1 bit of good evidence, and they believe that it is worthwhile.

Aren't those pictures the ones of the bear with mange?

The Doctor who took the first picture of the Lock Ness Monster, admitted last year that it was a hoax and yet still, weak minded gob****es still spend a
fortune visiting the area and taking Submarine and diving trips etc in the
lake.
Bigfoot if the same, its all about money. Bigfoot must be worth millions to
these small back water American towns every year.
If they did actually find one it would be best to kill it and burn the body..LOL

Dave!

Dave! wrote: »

Those pictures, as with all of the other Bigfoot photos, are inconclusive.

Aren't those pictures the ones of the bear with mange?

Of course they are inconclusive, if they were conclusive we wouldnt be having this discussion.

Bear with mange ? ? Does it look like a bear with mange ? ?

I would go for an escaped chimp or even a child Hypertrichosis before a bear.


What are the other animals which can be mistaken for a bigfoot, besides a bear ? ?

Senor Willy

Senor Willy wrote: »

The Doctor who took the first picture of the Lock Ness Monster, admitted last year that it was a hoax and yet still, weak minded gob****es still spend a
fortune visiting the area and taking Submarine and diving trips etc in the
lake.
Bigfoot if the same, its all about money. Bigfoot must be worth millions to
these small back water American towns every year.
If they did actually find one it would be best to kill it and burn the body..LOL

No he said it in 1994 before he died. It wasnt last year.

I love this Sentence ......

Bigfoot must be worth millions to this small backwater American towns :P

Senor Willy

I got the years wrong but the result is the same.
The Lock Ness monster is a hoax..

Pardon my grammar on my sentence.
I meant to say, " Bigfoot must be worth millions to these small backwater American towns "
Maybe we can have an irish version of Bigfoot and call it Bogfoot.
All we need is a monkey suit, a ****ty camera and a shaky hand.
Could be worth millions..:D:D:D

Dave!

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course they are inconclusive, if they were conclusive we wouldnt be having this discussion.

Bear with mange ? ? Does it look like a bear with mange ? ?

I would go for an escaped chimp or even a child Hypertrichosis before a bear.


What are the other animals which can be mistaken for a bigfoot, besides a bear ? ?

It does look like a bear with mange, yes!

Mr Freeze

I watched the show too. Thought it was rubbish.

But most documentaries are like this now. Instead of a factual documentary you get his half fictional, half dramatized rubbish. (sorry for the wee rant) :pac:

I was hoping for a show going over actual evidence, and weighing up whether Bigfoot exists or not. These were probably all actors.

Anyways, would love to see an actual documentary on the subject.

The TV show itself is there to deliver ratings, so dont expect much from it. I do like to hear the witness testimonies though. The cast themselves say the final cut of the show is fake. They admitted in one episode, they picked up a figure on the thermal imager. They chased it down and it turned out to be a man following them. It was cut to make it look like a bigfoot that got away.

DublinGAA96

Hi all, just thought I'd give my opinion on this.

For starters, yes most things said on the show have to be taken with a pinch of salt. I will admit that in particular Moneymaker and Bobo are constantly clutching at straws with calls and movement on night investigations, but some things have happened that I believe are Bigfoots . There experienced you know, Moneymakers been "squatching for 25 years now" he's not going to waste his life unless he is a believer that there real. Obviously there have been some bollocks stories on it but a lot of interesting and compelling eye witness accounts that I believe are real and some are even backed up with video footage that cannot be fully explained, but is obvious it's not a human( the sheer size and gigantic step and clear body muscle of the subject - you cant see body muscle in legs and arms if your in a suit.)

I'm as big a skeptic as anybody, but I just think it's a big possibility. Some of the stories are just unbelievable. The Patterson and Gimlin video is very interesting too. Another one in Florida which was on the show where a couple were terrorized with incidents that has to be a squatch. Also in Georgia where a police car caught a subject running out in front of their car. They did a reconstruction on this incident, the road was something like I dunno, 10m wide or something and the subject cleared it in 2 steps. They got Bobo to try it and he wasn't able to do it in 2 steps he was way off. So it must be a Sasquatch.


To end it, the show doesn't help the fact(at times) that Bigfoot can definitely exist because there just retarded at times. But I think Bigfoot exists. Science needs a body but there is massive evidence and over 8,000 eye witness accounts. And it's clearly obvious that not all 8,000 witnesses are lying.

Dave!

Dave! wrote: »

It does look like a bear with mange, yes!

I still wouldnt say mangey bear. First off because it has hair and given the dimensions and bone structure, it doesnt fit bear.

I have seen some pictures showing the possibility of the pictures being a photoshopped bear, that actually look like a possibility. Cant find them now as i am in work. I will take a look later.

Funny enough i just came across this today by accident ......

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/82648441/

steddyeddy

Mr Freeze wrote: »

I watched the show too. Thought it was rubbish.

But most documentaries are like this now. Instead of a factual documentary you get his half fictional, half dramatized rubbish. (sorry for the wee rant) :pac:

I was hoping for a show going over actual evidence, and weighing up whether Bigfoot exists or not. These were probably all actors.

Anyways, would love to see an actual documentary on the subject.

A great documentary on the subject is called Sasquatch legend meets science. It features many scientists looking at the available evidence and coming to their own conclusions. It featured a famous segment where Daris swhindler the biggest sasqautch skeptic and expert on ape anatomy recanted his belief that all the tracks were hoaxs and made his statement

The skookum body cast is that of an unknown hominoid primate

steddyeddy

To balance things out heres a scientific treatment of bigfoot by an academic skeptic. Unlike a lot of skeptics on this subject shes relatively objective however she misrepresents a lot of the evidence and uses some misinformation but she gives some fuel for thought.

http://fora.tv/2009/01/13/Eugenie_Scott_Bigfoot_and_Other_Wild_Men_of_the_Forest#fullprogram

Edit: She also makes the mistake of calling the basking shark a whale but apart from that shes good

Zombrex

Bigfoot claims only makes sense if you ignore all modern understanding of biology and evolution. Couple that with the ridiculously limited accounts of sightings (there are species with only a handful of animals left in deep jungle that people still manage to find and study) and it is not hard to conclude that Bigfoot is most likely the product of a very interesting biological phenomena, the tendency of humans to imagine things that aren't there and make **** up.

JerryHandbag

DublinGAA96 wrote: »

The Patterson and Gimlin video is very interesting too.

Was that not proved to be a hoax a few years back?

Mr Freeze

steddyeddy wrote: »

A great documentary on the subject is called Sasquatch legend meets science.

Thanks, does that be on Sky/Discovery at all, or will I just have to go digging for it?

JerryHandbag

JerryHandbag wrote: »

Was that not proved to be a hoax a few years back?

No , loads of people came forward claiming they they did it. But the person who filmed still talks about it today. He says , all he knew about the thing was the fact it had big feet, hence the name. So he goes up finds it, films it and leaves.

Nobody has been able do it since. The fact that a video recording from the 1960's is the best evidence is a huge red flag for me.

What the video has going for it, is the fact it looks real. Hair and muscle movement clearly visible.

Mr Freeze

Deleted User wrote: »

What the video has going for it, is the fact it looks real. Hair and muscle movement clearly visible.

The walk though it a bit weird for an ape creature, it very much a strut!

Its probably a fake, would love if it was real though, I still remember the first time I watched it as a kid, was completely blown away.

I want to see what happens with this apparent bigfoot steak some hunter has. He is selling it gor 10 grand. He cut it from 2 bigfoots he apparently shot.

Steadyeddie here is one for you as you might know a bit about it. Remember that bigfoot frozen body which turned out to be a hoax. Alot of this story doesnt sit right with me. 2 guys claim to have found a body. They freeze it, fly people out to see it , take pictures, hold a press conference and answer questions about it . Get it DNA tested, suddenly its a costume in a freezer ? ? This doesnt sound like a hoax, more stupidity. As they invited all these people to their house ????

Mr Freeze

Mr Freeze wrote: »

The walk though it a bit weird for an ape creature, it very much a strut!

Its probably a fake, would love if it was real though, I still remember the first time I watched it as a kid, was completely blown away.

I dont know if i would like it to be real. I certainly wouldnt go camping !!

maccored

If this was before October 17th, 1902, then you would be calling the mountain gorilla something that "most likely the product of a very interesting biological phenomena, the tendency of humans to imagine things that aren't there and make **** up."

Considering mountain gorillas do in fact exist - as was discovered on Oct 17th, 1902, you would, once again, be incorrect.

Zombrex wrote: »

Bigfoot claims only makes sense if you ignore all modern understanding of biology and evolution. Couple that with the ridiculously limited accounts of sightings (there are species with only a handful of animals left in deep jungle that people still manage to find and study) and it is not hard to conclude that Bigfoot is most likely the product of a very interesting biological phenomena, the tendency of humans to imagine things that aren't there and make **** up.

CSU

I think there's a Squatch in them there woods! ||_ {{}} ||_

steddyeddy

maccored wrote: »

If this was before October 17th, 1902, then you would be calling the mountain gorilla something that "most likely the product of a very interesting biological phenomena, the tendency of humans to imagine things that aren't there and make **** up."

Considering mountain gorillas do in fact exist - as was discovered on Oct 17th, 1902, you would, once again, be incorrect.

Very well said.

maccored

Im surprised the myrid of fully qualified scientists - who are way way smarter than me and you - that apparently frequent this place, hadn't made that point earlier.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Very well said.