Last time I wrote a crazy article on aliens, suggesting they helped in building the Great Pyramid of Giza. I still maintain the Egyptians couldn't have done it by themselves, but the rest of my argument I quite happily concede as padding. But now I'm going to tackle Bigfoot, my favourite "myth". The Patterson-Gimlin footage of 1967 is still the best evidence of what may be a giant bi-pedal ape living within the forests of North America. The animal (see below) was filmed walking across a clearing in a remote forest of north west California. At one point, the creature turned to look at the pair, apparently drawn to the noise made by Gimlin's horse as it crashed over the underbrush. The full movie, which is copyrighted so I can't put it up here (although it's the second highest pirated piece of film in history), shows a frighteningly realistic figure of such proportion, making it extremely hard to imagine a human being beneath a suit. In fact, because science is so skeptical, numerous tests were done (using the most advanced technology of recent times) in an attempt to prove the footage as a hoax. Firstly, the movement of the creature in the video has been unsuccesfully replicated on every occasion. The slumped figure, long dangling arms and huge stride simply cannot be copied nor could they have been made by a person, particularly by two low-paid men back in 1967. Secondly, if this was indeed a hoax and a person was actually beneath a suit, then how come the most expensive attempt at a reconstruction (made by the BBC in 1998) could not create something anywhere near as realistic as the original, some 30 years after the original incident? Furthermore, how can skeptics explain the obvious muscle definition along the legs and torso as the creature walks? What about the appearance of breasts? And the face (which has recently been maximised and made clearer) shows amazing similarities to that of other primates, such as a protruding bottom lip - something which can already be seen on chimpanzees. Of course, there was a surge of material following the release of the Patterson footage. A great number of hoaxes and sightings started to pile in, and it is these that have tampered with the credibility of the original footage. People send in eye-witness reports each year. Most of them can be discounted, but amongst the thousands there has to be some truth. Many of the witnesses are in fact seemingly credible, and their stories are consistent with previous accounts. In some cases, evidence has been found at the scenes - footprints, fur, "stick creations" (a common male primate warning sign). Most interesting, upon scientific analysis of the fur and footprints, is evidence of footprint patterns and DNA sequences that belong in the primate family, yet are not consistent with any currently documented species. So how come Bigfoot hasn't been found yet? Well, that question almost answers itself. Bigfoot has been found, there's just no solid, biological evidence sitting before scientists. For this myth to finally be rid, someone is unfortunately going to have to shoot (or perhaps tranquilize) one of these creatures and bring it out of the wilderness. But how would someone even go about finding a Bigfoot? They have thousands and thousands of miles of forest to hide in, and as reports suggest, they are very shy animals. We've found signs of them, but we just haven't dedicated enough time to actually capturing one. And the media isn't helping, constantly promoting the mystery of Bigfoot as a joke on society. As a result, no company in any industry has been bothered to fund a proper project to attempt to find the elusive creature. The question I have is why the media doesn't listen to the scientists who do say there is a strong possibility of a giant ape living in North America. All one has to do is look at similar stories from the world. Take the ferocious giant ape recently discovered in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Up until recently only natives have witnessed it, but now a researcher has seen it, recorded it, and the species has been labelled as fact. There are numerous cave paintings of Bigfoot in North America and footage has been taken, but we still can't seem to accept it ... The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (BFRO) dedicates as much time as possible in the hunt for bigfoot. Over the years they've discovered some interesting evidence, while also compiling a number of stories from eye-witnesses. An interesting method they use, like so many others, is to set up a number of special cameras over 5-mile radiuses deep within the forest. These cameras are motion sensitive, and if anything walks in front of them a picture will be taken. The cameras are also Infra Red and can take the all-important night-time shots. Salt licks and other attractions - ranging from dangling CDs and windchimes are used to hopefully attract animals towards the camera. And they work. Many of the animals documented are deer and bears, but there have been a few exceptions. The most recent, and most interesting, has been the following: Bear Cubs Juvenile Bigfoot? * Another picture of the possible Bigfoot is in the next post, since I've exceeded the 5 image limit. Is it possible that these photos show us Bigfoot? The article on the site goes on to explain that the length of the arms almost certainly rules out a bear, yet more evidence of a "mangy bear bending over" are required. I recommend checking out the article and the rest of the site if the topic interests you - it's a great resource. The best video I've seen so far (I believe from the History channel) is split into 5 parts on Youtube. It's fascinating viewing and the start is one of the most intense introductions to a documentary I've ever seen, if not the most. The first part is here and you can link to the rest from there with ease: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YieSSGzJh6I If you have anything sensible to say on the topic you're welcome to start a debate/discussion, however I would appreciate not being called a "weirdo" for creating this thread, particularly since this isn't science-fiction and the chances of this being a reality are very high. Also remember to vote in the poll for a general idea of where people stand on the topic.
I wish I had looked at the photos before voting! Well, I am also of the belief that the pyramids were built by "aliens." The pyramids fascinate me and they have done plenty of studies to show that the engineering required for them was way beyond a humans capability at the time. No machinery or blue prints. Bigfoot on the other hand? Hmm, I have seen all the documentaries on bigfoot and personally I think if a man beast really did exist we would have caught one by now. You're photo's are impressive, I'll give you that. Have you heard of the "chupacabras?" Supposedly found in Mexico. Dog like beast with huge teeth that eats small animals and children? Now that one is scary! Would make a good book!
When you think about it, it's not easy to catch a giant ape creature that A) doesn't want to be seen and B) doesn't want to be caught. They have miles of forest to hide in, and most encounters humans have had with them are brief. The fear of seeing one would lessen the chance of being able to capture one in time as well. The Mexican creature I'll look in to. It sounds very interesting.
Man oh man, I could never believe in the idea of a giant ape living in the forrests of California. The world has become quite populous, and I think that more people in this world would have seen the bugger or at least gotten some decent footage of him. Like the Loch Ness, he's just a cool myth that everyone knows about and knows deep down there is no way he exsists. I could believe it more if it was in some less seen part of the world, but California just has too many people.
That's exactly what I was saying. If so many people lived there, how come no one has come across a dead Bigfoot or found some real hard evidence. The whole thing is just a fun myth.
It was certainly very interesting reading your post - I answered I think it's possible. I definitely think such a creature could exist, but I probably would like more proof. I'm always happy to keep an open mind about these things because it would be nice to think there's more out there Wouldn't mind reading any more information you might have, I'm off to watch the YouTube video now. ETA: I have to add, if there is such a thing I hope he's properly discovered before he dies ETA: Ooh, 5 parts, I'm gonna spend half the day watching this. ETA: I do have to say, the Patterson video is a little unconvincing, I wouldn't have thought he would walk like that.
Ah, but if you continue watching you'll find that upon scientific analysis the amount of muscle definition couldn't have been done by a human beneath a suit. And the human must have been pretty fat for the suit to look so realistic. Also, it's a female and how else would a bi-pedal ape walk? If science can't replicate or mimic something done in 1967 then that's enough proof for me to suggest it's real.
I thought you were saying California is so heavily populated it should've been found already? So I said that people don't live deep within the forests, therefore the population won't have as easy a time finding the creature. Bigfoot's most likely location isn't California, it's actually Oregon and Washington where the most reports come from, although sightings have come from all over the US and Canada. Finding a dead body may not be as easy as you'd think considering (if they do exist) we don't know how long their lifespan is and they may choose to die within some form of den. Oh and they have come across evidence - I said that in the article. We've found footprints, cast them, then noted skin patterns or footprints (I can't remember the technical term for them) that show they're from the primate family, and then fur from the same areas which, when tested for DNA, found a creature belonging to the primate family yet currently an unidentified species. And if you're really skeptical could you explain the most recent pictures taken at night? The arms are too long for it to be a bear so what is it then?
I know I was just pointing out that I wouldn't have pictured such a primitive creature walking in that manner. I'm up to part 4 now, it's very interesting stuff and fairly convincing. ETA: I have to add, though, one other thing I'm a bit skeptical about is the fact that all the groups that went up there to gain evidence of him all managed to do so. With something like this, usually it would take hundreds of tries just to get a glimpse or piece of evidence of the thing that was being searched for.
Yeah, that's entertainment for you. I can't remember what the man who used the CDs found? I just loved it when he went to review the photos. That moment would be so tense. The main woman from the other group is a little crazy. I watched another Bigfoot doco on Youtube and she was in it with a different hairdo! And in that one she had a completely different story where she was attacked by Bigfoot, as opposed to having it "scrunch the tent". There's a lot of manipulation going on in these documentaries, which is why the media annoys me.
All he got were elk and deer I agree, it's very hard to know what the true stories are - the media loves to manipulate and alter things. I just finished watching, it was incredibly interesting, I'd like to read more. Also, I'm less skeptical now than I was when I initially read your post
Thanks for reading and watching. While others are quick to dismiss, once you actually read or watch the information the idea doesn't seem so far-fetched. In fact, I don't view Bigfoot as a scary Lochness-type creature. I just imagine another species of ape we haven't discovered yet. There's nothing to be scared about, but society seems to have created Bigfoot into a monster and therefore it's only a myth to frighten people ...
Sorry about this, I don't want it to be a big debate but I must defend my position. The "evidence" that is cast foot prints could easily just be somebody with great carving experience. The fur I'm a bit weird about, something has to be amiss about that. What excactly I don't know, but I doubt it to be a 300 pound bi-pedial primate. And the picture of the "long-armed bear" could quite simply be a distortion in the film. Alot of pictures that come out like that something messed up maybe due to the lighting, poor flash, dust etc. Film can turn out to be quite strange. Still, there are strange phenomena out there, it would be cool if there actually was a Bigfoot. Ah well...
I don't think it's far-fetched really. A large ape like creature in North America? We do have plenty of forest areas where they could hide. The pictures are either the real deal, or fakes and since I'm no expert of photography manipulation I won't pretend to know the answer. The photos look real to me. I don't find them to be scary in the least. The documentaries I have watched show it to be more tender and private than beastly. I don't "think" they exist, however I would love to be proven wrong. They are fascinating.
Most of the large ape-like creatures I encounter spend the majority of their time on a bar stool, and only enter the forest to purge their bladders and to fire guns at anything that moves (or appears to move).
In all seriousness, after continuing to research this topic, I'd actually consider flying over to the US to become involved in an expedition. The sheer level of evidence the public and media either aren't aware of or dismiss immediately is astonishing. These creatures are real. The latest photos I've found are these: Those are possibly the rarest Bigfoot photos going around. But come on, take a look at all the short vids: The Memorial Day footage: how did the creature go from 5'3 to 8 feet just before it entered the tree-line? Probably because there was a baby clinging to its back as it ran. Paul Freeman doesn't have the best reputation, but in his famous video I actually believe him. Even if whoever is reading this doesn't believe it, that's fine, but when the creature is actually discovered I want you to remember some guy on a forum told you they existed!
Um, is it just me or does every video and picture of the alleged Bigfoot have to be blurry and hard to see. It seems everytime that someone trys to take a picture of him he uses magic rays to make the photo terrible quality. Interesting...
Not everyone goes out into a forest with expensive cameras ... The other guy did and got the night shot, and you can't properly explain that, only suggest things that are last resort (hopeful) skeptical comments ... Where's lordofhats I want to hear his opinion on this!
A quote from Futurama: Seeing how these indisputable facts come to us from the 31st century they must be true! omg bluemouth I didn't know you cared. *Weeps* Well seeing how you asked here it is: I'm 50% on big foot. I can see it as a plausible possibility he exists but I'd like some more concrete evidence before declaring it a fact. A body, a unblurry camera picture you know that sort of thing. By the way. The "juvinile" big foot looks like a bear. Don't care what the people who examine the photo say. If one can declare a blurry image bigfoot I can declare that animal a bear .
I am not a full on believer though I believe that they could exist (and I live in Washington state, and hike quite often, and have never seen one). Having said that I have a few questions for thought: 1) if they are rare and don't want to be found couldn't it be quite possible that they are intelligent and able to keep themselves away from most people 2) I know that no dead bodies have been found but how many dead bears do people find? 3) Have you ever seen a baby pigeon? Just some thoughts. Again, I am not totally convinced that they are real but I am absolutely open to the possibility.
I'm open to possibilities. There could,or could not be a Big Foot. And many reasons and arguments to counteract and support this logic have been discussed. But with the world underway trouble, this is the least of my worries.
Yes, the truth is out. Justina, can I live vicariously through you whenever you go on a hike? I could never do it. If I heard a bird I'd drop to the ground thinking it was Bigfoot and wouldn't be able to move for ten minutes. Do you always carry a camera? And do you go off-trail? You never know, you could be the one to snap the winning shot.
