• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Bigfoot Evidence?

outhouse

Atheistically
why haven't they found a Bigfoot?

My take if they exist is low population density, nocternal, and they only way they could have survived cavemen would have been there natural fear of humans.

Why isn't there more footage of a sasquatch?

Many critics of the sasquatch phenomenon point to the scarcity of photographic or video evidence as a reason to doubt the existence of the species. Although no one has ever debunked the best footage that is available, skeptics continue to question why sasquatch images are so rare. Quick logic suggests there should be miles of footage if the animals really do live in our forests, especially considering how much footage there is of other large North American mammals.

It is possible to obtain footage/photos of these particular animals, but the odds of this happening randomly are sharply reduced by particular factors:

-- Sightings of sasquatches are unpredictable. They occur only in rural areas. Very few people in rural areas keep a decent camera handy at all times.

-- Witnesses consistently describe initial confusion and/or fear during their sighting.

-- Sightings typically last only a few seconds. A camcorder's auto-focus, by itself, takes a few seconds to adjust.

-- Very few people go out looking for these animals for the purpose of photographing them. Most bigfoot researchers are "arm chair" researchers.

-- Sasquatches seem to be on the move most of the time, following deer/elk herds like nomadic predators, or hunter-gatherers. There are no dens or nests that are occupied continuously or predictably. Their temporary dens and nests are quickly abandoned when approached by humans, so there's no easy way for wildlife paparazzi to catch them at home.

-- The only practical opportunities for footage or photos with everyday cameras are situations where a sasquatch is observed out in the open, in the day time, from a distance, for several minutes. Those situations are rarely described.

-- The typical habitats are dense, brushy, quiet forests, where human intruders can be heard well before they get within visual range. In those environments a person can be completely invisible to someone standing less than 10 feet away.

-- Sasquatches are likely nocturnal. Hunters and fisherman almost never hunt after dark without a flashlight or lamp.

-- Sasquatches are likely intelligent. Just as their bodies are much larger than humans', so, apparently, are their heads, and presumably their brain cavities as well. They don't live like humans, but they are certainly more complex than other ape species.

-- They may be the most elusive land mammal species of all, yet they receive the least amount of effort or attention from the government.

Nobody Looks for Bigfoot Remains

No serious work has ever been done to look for remains of surviving wood apes in areas where they are rumored to reside. No one should expect remains of such an elusive species to be found, collected and identified without some effort.

Very few remains of ancient wood apes have ever been found in Asia, where they were much more abundant. Millions of gigantos (a branch of the wood ape line) lived and died in Asia over the ages. All the remaining physical evidence we have of them could fit into a few shoe boxes. Fossils of any land animal are very rare.

Remains do not become fossilized very often, but unless that happens, all the remains will, in time, become completely reabsorbed into the ecosystem. There would be remains of animals everywhere if remains were not naturally recycled, including bones and teeth.

Fossils or preserved bones of wood apes may exist in the Americas, but they will be exceedingly rare, because these animals are rare to begin with, and only a tiny fraction of that population will die in locations and soils that will preserve bones somehow. Odds are slim at best that any bones (which are normally fragmentary) will be found, collected and identified unless a focused effort is made to look for them. Until efforts are made in many places, over a long period of time, no one should be scratching their head wondering why "we" don't have any physical remains.
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
I am part Cherokee, I didnt mention it because its irrelevent what race or creed someone is. Are you a racist Mball?????? someone has to be native american to track, does this make them better??? take your racist remarks and beat it. Painted Wolf does not need you backing her she does just fine on her own

Are you joking? You realize I said that in response to your comment "theres a native american saying you might consider, white man talk so much and say so little", right? As in, you're talking to a Native American here. I have to say, too, that I'd be a bit annoyed, if I was Native American, by the phrasing you use for that saying.

Yes, PW doesn't need my backing. So?
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
No I respect your work, and thank you for your opinion. Im not threatened at all. I have just never had or seen a girl hunt or track and we both know that as a norm they do not. Im sure theres a few that can hang with the best. I have not met them.
LoL
sarah-palin-huntress.jpg


You mam, are no Dr goodall
I never said I was... I was refuting your quaint notions that "girls" are somehow less capable with tracking and studying elusive apes. Otherwise why mention my gender at all?

I've also heard the interview... and she says she believes (not in the evidence as a scientist) but in romantic idea because she wants them to.

Well, there are people looking. There are very ardent groups in Russia, and they have published a whole lot of stuff about what they've seen. Of course, the big, the big criticism of all this is, "Where is the body?" You know, why isn't there a body? I can't answer that, and maybe they don't exist, but I want them to.
*emphasis mine
This is the problem with using creationist tactics like cherry-picking quotes and appeals to authority. :rolleyes:

I am part Cherokee, I didnt mention it because its irrelevent what race or creed someone is. Are you a racist Mball?????? someone has to be native american to track, does this make them better??? take your racist remarks and beat it. Painted Wolf does not need you backing her she does just fine on her own
Mball, was refuting your little bit of Native Wisdom...
It was a silly addition to the conversation. ;)

wa:do
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
My take if they exist is low population density, nocternal, and they only way they could have survived cavemen would have been there natural fear of humans.

Why isn't there more footage of a sasquatch?

Many critics of the sasquatch phenomenon point to the scarcity of photographic or video evidence as a reason to doubt the existence of the species. Although no one has ever debunked the best footage that is available, skeptics continue to question why sasquatch images are so rare. Quick logic suggests there should be miles of footage if the animals really do live in our forests, especially considering how much footage there is of other large North American mammals.

It is possible to obtain footage/photos of these particular animals, but the odds of this happening randomly are sharply reduced by particular factors:

-- Sightings of sasquatches are unpredictable. They occur only in rural areas. Very few people in rural areas keep a decent camera handy at all times.

-- Witnesses consistently describe initial confusion and/or fear during their sighting.

-- Sightings typically last only a few seconds. A camcorder's auto-focus, by itself, takes a few seconds to adjust.

-- Very few people go out looking for these animals for the purpose of photographing them. Most bigfoot researchers are "arm chair" researchers.

-- Sasquatches seem to be on the move most of the time, following deer/elk herds like nomadic predators, or hunter-gatherers. There are no dens or nests that are occupied continuously or predictably. Their temporary dens and nests are quickly abandoned when approached by humans, so there's no easy way for wildlife paparazzi to catch them at home.

-- The only practical opportunities for footage or photos with everyday cameras are situations where a sasquatch is observed out in the open, in the day time, from a distance, for several minutes. Those situations are rarely described.

-- The typical habitats are dense, brushy, quiet forests, where human intruders can be heard well before they get within visual range. In those environments a person can be completely invisible to someone standing less than 10 feet away.

-- Sasquatches are likely nocturnal. Hunters and fisherman almost never hunt after dark without a flashlight or lamp.

-- Sasquatches are likely intelligent. Just as their bodies are much larger than humans', so, apparently, are their heads, and presumably their brain cavities as well. They don't live like humans, but they are certainly more complex than other ape species.

-- They may be the most elusive land mammal species of all, yet they receive the least amount of effort or attention from the government.

Nobody Looks for Bigfoot Remains

No serious work has ever been done to look for remains of surviving wood apes in areas where they are rumored to reside. No one should expect remains of such an elusive species to be found, collected and identified without some effort.

Very few remains of ancient wood apes have ever been found in Asia, where they were much more abundant. Millions of gigantos (a branch of the wood ape line) lived and died in Asia over the ages. All the remaining physical evidence we have of them could fit into a few shoe boxes. Fossils of any land animal are very rare.

Remains do not become fossilized very often, but unless that happens, all the remains will, in time, become completely reabsorbed into the ecosystem. There would be remains of animals everywhere if remains were not naturally recycled, including bones and teeth.

Fossils or preserved bones of wood apes may exist in the Americas, but they will be exceedingly rare, because these animals are rare to begin with, and only a tiny fraction of that population will die in locations and soils that will preserve bones somehow. Odds are slim at best that any bones (which are normally fragmentary) will be found, collected and identified unless a focused effort is made to look for them. Until efforts are made in many places, over a long period of time, no one should be scratching their head wondering why "we" don't have any physical remains.
I've already refuted most of this as prime examples of why eyewitness accounts are bunk evidence.:sarcastic

wa:do
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
Although no one has ever debunked the best footage that is available, skeptics continue to question why sasquatch images are so rare.

No one has to debunk them. They are videos of what appear to be bigfeet. They could also be humans wearing bigfoot costumes. They simply aren't very good evidence.

It is possible to obtain footage/photos of these particular animals, but the odds of this happening randomly are sharply reduced by particular factors:

-- Sightings of sasquatches are unpredictable. They occur only in rural areas. Very few people in rural areas keep a decent camera handy at all times.
Yes, that used to be the case, but not as much anymore. However, this ignores all of the people who have gone specifically looking for bigfeet with cameras.

-- Witnesses consistently describe initial confusion and/or fear during their sighting.
Sure, but you'd think at least some of them would get over it quick enough to get decent shots.

-- Sightings typically last only a few seconds. A camcorder's auto-focus, by itself, takes a few seconds to adjust.

-- Very few people go out looking for these animals for the purpose of photographing them. Most bigfoot researchers are "arm chair" researchers.
Really? Where did this come from? I've seen plenty of of shows and read plenty of articles about people going out with equipment specifically hunting bigfeet.

-- Sasquatches seem to be on the move most of the time, following deer/elk herds like nomadic predators, or hunter-gatherers. There are no dens or nests that are occupied continuously or predictably. Their temporary dens and nests are quickly abandoned when approached by humans, so there's no easy way for wildlife paparazzi to catch them at home.

-- The only practical opportunities for footage or photos with everyday cameras are situations where a sasquatch is observed out in the open, in the day time, from a distance, for several minutes. Those situations are rarely described.

-- The typical habitats are dense, brushy, quiet forests, where human intruders can be heard well before they get within visual range. In those environments a person can be completely invisible to someone standing less than 10 feet away.

-- Sasquatches are likely nocturnal. Hunters and fisherman almost never hunt after dark without a flashlight or lamp.

-- Sasquatches are likely intelligent. Just as their bodies are much larger than humans', so, apparently, are their heads, and presumably their brain cavities as well. They don't live like humans, but they are certainly more complex than other ape species.

-- They may be the most elusive land mammal species of all, yet they receive the least amount of effort or attention from the government.
All of this is really just an attempt to justify faith. It's nothing more than "But maybe God wants this to happen" or "Well, maybe Satan has to exist".

And why should the government give them any attention?

Nobody Looks for Bigfoot Remains

No serious work has ever been done to look for remains of surviving wood apes in areas where they are rumored to reside. No one should expect remains of such an elusive species to be found, collected and identified without some effort.

Very few remains of ancient wood apes have ever been found in Asia, where they were much more abundant. Millions of gigantos (a branch of the wood ape line) lived and died in Asia over the ages. All the remaining physical evidence we have of them could fit into a few shoe boxes. Fossils of any land animal are very rare.

Remains do not become fossilized very often, but unless that happens, all the remains will, in time, become completely reabsorbed into the ecosystem. There would be remains of animals everywhere if remains were not naturally recycled, including bones and teeth.

Fossils or preserved bones of wood apes may exist in the Americas, but they will be exceedingly rare, because these animals are rare to begin with, and only a tiny fraction of that population will die in locations and soils that will preserve bones somehow. Odds are slim at best that any bones (which are normally fragmentary) will be found, collected and identified unless a focused effort is made to look for them. Until efforts are made in many places, over a long period of time, no one should be scratching their head wondering why "we" don't have any physical remains.
If this species has existed for this long, with all of the area we have covered at this point, it wouldn't take much effort to find remains. More than enough effort has been put into finding bigfeet over the past 50 years that someone would have found some kind of remains by now.

Here's a question. How is it we know so much about mountain lions, but not about bigfeet? We have found remains of them, and have plenty of video and pictures of them, and we know all kinds of stuff about them. They are very elusive and wary of humans. How did that happen?
 

Nepenthe

Tu Stultus Es
most people dont pick a sex for a hoax. the cotume at that time was hard enough let alone add breast
I’m not sure I understand your hesitation over hoaxing a female sasquatch. Patterson was long fascinated by both Albert Ostman’s not too convincing account of his being kidnapped by a sasquatch family which included such details as:

"The old lady was a meek old thing. The young fellow was by this time quite friendly. The girl would not hurt anybody. Her chest was flat like a boy's — no development like young ladies.
Nowadays the old lady could have been anything between 40-70 years old. She was over seven feet tall. She would be about 500-600 pounds.
She had very wide hips, and a goose-like walk. She was not built for beauty or speed. Some of those lovable brassieres and uplifts would have been a great improvement on her looks and her figure."


Ostman seemed really really interested in those primate mammaries. It all reads like a tall tale or folklore. Patterson was also impressed with William Roe's alleged encounter with a female bigfoot in 1955, so much so that his and Gimlin's Bluff Creek footage is remarkably similar:


Patterson even sketched his interpretation of Roe’s Bigfoot, though there is some argument that Patterson’s sketch was actually inspired by Ostman’s account. Either way it’s obvious Patterson had a template for his filmed hoax two decades before and that the template was a female sasquatch. Patterson also included two drawings of female Bigfoots in his book- it’s hardly unusual or odd that he chose a female as his subject for his film and his account follows Roe’s story to such a degree my skepticism hackles rise up.
no one, no one has been able to duplicate what was done in 67 and no one has been able to prove it a hoax. I had breakfast next to the man in willow creek. He will atest on his deathbed he believes what he saw %100
It's ridiculous that Bigfoot enthusiasts continue to trot out this claim. I’m a big makeup special effects geek and I've seen far superior costumes than this one. And while I wasn’t around in the 60s the argument that the costume was too sophisticated for the time or that even today it can’t be replicated is just plain worthless. There are far better costumes available today; a far superior version of the Patterson film could be made with minimal effort. The problem is that defenders of the Patterson-Gimlin film will just shrug at Rick Baker's work on Harry and the Hendersons or his stuff on the Planet of the Apes remake or even an amateur film in far better quality and argue that the suits don’t replicate the musculature or gait or whatever nonexistent details the true believers see. Far better costumes than the one in the Bluff Creek film were around at the time. There’s nothing special or particularly skilled about the costume the guy is wearing in the film hoax. At the risk of making an argument from authority, many makeup effects artists have gone on record stating the Patterson-Gimlin film (P-G film)depicts a guy in a suit and not a particularly well made one: Rick Baker,Howard Berger, Chris Walas, John Vulich, Mike McCracken, Tom Burman , Dave Kindlon and several other prominent makeup artists have all said it’s a guy in a costume.

Just looking at one primate monster from the 1955 Japanese film Half-Human shows a costume that’s far better looking than the one in the P-G film imo.
HalfHumanPhoto1.jpg

Patterson wasn’t an idiot and I don’t think he needed to plunk down big Hollywood (or Japanese Hollywood) big bucks for a convincing (or not so convincing) costume. It was well within his means. I could post/link a dozen more costumes made long before the P-G film that are far more impressive one but I think that will suffice for now.
in the film, you can see muscles that exactly match those that it would take to support the weight MOVE. in the digitil pics you can see the areolas on the breast.
Bigfoot devotees see whatever validates their prejudice, they and only they see details nobody else can see. It’s a classic case of pareidolia- ambiguous shadowy, grainy, murky images allow all kinds of fanciful interpretations. Shroud of Turin devotees have claimed to see Roman coins over the figure’s eyes and UFOists see portholes or other details in globs of light that nobody else can see. Bigfoot fanatics see rippling muscles and nipples.
 

Nepenthe

Tu Stultus Es
Roger and Bob were just a couple of cowboys who stumbled onto the right place at the right time and got some of the most lucky footage anyone ever has at a highly elusive creature most men dont even get a glimpse of.
Not quite. Poor Patterson and Gimlin are basically in the unenviable (or were in the case of Patterson) position of being too dumb to fake the event or were con artists who carefully concocted a hoax. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle: Patterson and Gimlin were Bigfoot enthusiasts who set out to validate their belief by fabricating footage of Bigfoot in hopes it would generate interest and potential income for their investigations. They both sincerely believed in Bigfoot but felt it necessary to fake the incident to generate attention and potential funds for their Bigfoot hunting (though I remain unsure as to how involved Gimlin was in the hoax). Patterson was a devout believer in Bigfoot and had not only made a few short films about the subject previous to the Bluff Creek incident but had written a book on sasquatch as well.

True, just because he was obsessed with Bigfoot doesn’t mean they hoaxed the whole thing but it does show how the two were not “just a couple of cowboys” but had invested decades of time and money into finding sasquatch and they had a vested interest in generating attention to their cause.


Skeptics have unfairly painted Patterson as a con artist while Bigfoot believers have dismissed his transgressions as irrelevant. The truth once again lies in the middle: Patterson’s illegal activities weren’t sophisticated enough to label him a con artist but there’s no question he ripped a lot of people off. I hate to delve into the whole ad hominem fallacy but it becomes relevant when the “aw shucks, he ain’t nuthin’ but a simple cowboy who couldn’t fake the footage” argument is brought up. Patterson was a manipulative shyster who was always on the lookout to find new ways of getting money from folks to finance his bigfoot obsession. Gimlin’s past is a bit less spectacular but both were active in the bigfoot search and Patterson’s financial dealings were often shady- everything leading up to and including their Bluff Creek film just screams a hoax perpetrated by at the very least Patterson, while Gimlin may have been an unwitting dupe.

The Making of Bigfoot (the Amazon link I has a hilarious review by sasquatch fanatic John Green. He was not a big fan of the book. :D) is an interesting book that Bigfoot devotees claim is a hatchet job of Patterson. Whether true or not it is undeniable Patterson angered a lot of people by not honoring his debts and engaging folks in schemes that resulted in their losing substantial amounts of money. Patterson was notorious for various schemes to make money to fund his Bigfoot documentaries and more often than not those who loaned him money never saw it again. Agreed, it’s not evidence that the film was a hoax but it certainly raises questions about his sincerity, motivation and general trustworthiness.
 

Nepenthe

Tu Stultus Es
No I respect your work, and thank you for your opinion. Im not threatened at all. I have just never had or seen a girl hunt or track and we both know that as a norm they do not. Im sure theres a few that can hang with the best. I have not met them.




You mam, are no Dr goodall :)

Transcript of Dr. Jane Goodall's Comments on NPR Regarding Sasquatch





[youtube]4NmCmfdFAhQ[/youtube]
YouTube - Dr. Jane Goodall Speaks About Bigfoot-PGF Normal Speed
PW mentioned it already but I'll comment on Goodall's off the cuff bigfoot comment. I simply don't see her quote of "maybe they don't exist, but I want them to." as being particularly supportive of bigfoot believers.

If you want to look at anthropologists opinions of bigfoot you'll find the vast majority are extemely skeptical. See Lett's excellent book Science, Reason, and Anthropology for a detailed analysis of fringe beliefs in anthropology and how working anthropologists view those beliefs. Only 13% of anthropologists believed in bigfoot (and only 5 of those amongst the sample were physical anthropologists). It's just not an issue that crosses a lot of anthropologists minds when there's such an absence of compelling evidence.
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
Watching that video again, it amazes me that anyone believes it's real. It's so obviously fake, it not funny. I mean, it's just too perfect. The creature is just far enough away so that you can't make out many details, but it's close enough that it's obvious what it is. They just happened to have a camera, and they started filming while it was close, and it just walked away into the distance, giving just enough of a view of it. The creature turns to look at the camera for just a second so that you can see it's a bigfoot, but not so long that you can really look at its face.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Every time I go into the wilderness, I take some Jack Link Beef Jerky so I can mess with Sasquatch!
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
One can visit www.bfro.net and make his or her own decision

All I can say is unless YOU havent been to a known area of activity where the population is said to be the highest [pacific northwest] then you dont know or understand the sheer volume of sightings they deal with. credibal is about 400 a year.

I have done this myself and talked to many people. In areas such as stated above I have found almost 1 in 4 know something or a friend ect.


if you go into a city that turns into instant crazy talk and denied by the vast majority.
I have lived in the Pacific Northwest for 54 years. I have never met anyone who seriously believes in Bigfoot/Sasquatch. What "sheer volume of sightings" are you babbling about? Where? When? Who?

Next you will be telling us that Ogopogo is real due to the "sheer volume of sightings".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv7_r6M2qT0
 
Last edited:

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
I prefer Champ... even though I've only ever seen the odd log in the lake. But, Ogopogo is definitely more fun to say. :D

wa:do
 

outhouse

Atheistically
I have lived in the Pacific Northwest for 54 years. I have never met anyone who seriously believes in Bigfoot/Sasquatch. What "sheer volume of sightings" are you babbling about? Where? When? Who?


well if you looked at the link in your own reply, all your answers would have been answered
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
YOUR pulling BS out of your hat now LOL :foot:

Joshua P. Warren did this for money and is not a renowned BF hunter, he is a paranormal investigator.

*cough* Tom Biscardi *cough*
 

Gunfingers

Happiness Incarnate
I just want to say how much i'm enjoying watching you guys point out all the inconsistencies and faulty reasoning Outhouse is using to justify his belief in Bigfoot. You guys are awesome.
 
Top