Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Bigfoot: Fact or fiction?


LeesburgSkinFan

Recommended Posts

It's been years since I've read anything or viewed shows on this topic, but the last year or so it's piqued my interest for some reason. I've viewed the Patterson-Gimlin film from 1967 as the only real evidence of a Bigfoot's existance, but with some hesitation. Two or three men have come forward saying they wore a monkey suit for the hoax. Then, some guy who planted phony footprints through the years died and his family said he was responsible for the Bigfoot phenomena, but there were stories about such "creatures" in the 19th century.

So, what are some other thoughts on this topic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not so long ago (Decade) Scientists said Giant Squids were fiction.

New species are discovered annually

We have not explored the entire world yet to be so sure of what could and could not exist.

Though obviously big foot is the result of (Italian) sister-wife and (West virginny)hubby daddy procreating for generations and a fear of razor as well as barber shears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not so long ago (Decade) Scientists said Giant Squids were fiction.

Kind of hard to dismiss actual bodies being washed up on the shore now Dave isn't it? Giant Squids were never thought to be fiction, but they were never filmed in the wild a big difference. . .The colecanth is another story though.

New species are discovered annually

We have not explored the entire world yet to be so sure of what could and could not exist.

My money is on not existing. . . where are all the bodies needed to sustain a population? How come there has never been one skeleton found?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest sith lord
Not so long ago (Decade) Scientists said Giant Squids were fiction.

New species are discovered annually

We have not explored the entire world yet to be so sure of what could and could not exist.

Though obviously big foot is the result of (Italian) sister-wife and (West virginny)hubby daddy procreating for generations and a fear of razor as well as barber shears.

But that's a little different considering giant squid are from the ocean. It's a fact that only a small percentage of the worlds oceans have been explored.

I personally don't believe in bigfoot. I feel after all these years, somebody would of shot one or found one dead by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget that the Mountain Gorilla was considered a myth until scientists tagged one in 1901. Prior to that they were the bigfoot of Rwanda. Not to mention the Pigmy Hippo, Snow Leopard and Giant Panda were all considered mythical creatures until explorers "discovered" them -- the Giant Panda wasn't "confirmed" in China until 1936. It's not probable that Bigfoot exists, but it is possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fiction

Voice of Reason: The Reality of Bigfoot

By Benjamin Radford

from the Skeptical Inquirer

posted: 28 July 2005

04:43 pm ET

Bigfoot's been a busy beastie recently, especially in Canada. In April a Manitoba ferry operator videotaped a large, dark, indistinct creature moving along a riverbank. Whatever it was -- Bigfoot, bear, bison, or otherwise -- it caused quite a stir and made international news.

Three months later, in nearby Yukon province, Teslin resident Trent Smarch found a tuft of coarse, dark hair in a forest where he and other locals heard a large, mysterious animal in the brush. They believe the creature was a Sasquatch, the Canadian version of the huge, hairy, humanoid mystery creature known as Bigfoot. The find was reported across North America and around the world, and many wondered if this hair find might finally prove Bigfoot's long-disputed existence. The hair sample was sent to University of Alberta wildlife geneticist David Coltman for analysis. Coltman was asked to extract any available DNA from the hair, sequence the mitochondrial genes, and compare them to a database of known regional creatures.

On July 28, after a week of testing, the results were announced. More on that later, but first some background on the search for Bigfoot evidence. Bigfoot burst into the public's mind in 1959, with the publication of a magazine article describing the discovery of large, mysterious footprints the year earlier in Bluff Creek, California. A half century later, the question of Bigfoot's existence remains open. Bigfoot is still sought, the pursuit kept alive by a steady stream of sightings, occasional photos or footprint finds, and sporadic media coverage. By far the majority of support for Bigfoot comes from eyewitness reports and anecdotes, yet this is the least reliable kind of evidence -- and virtually worthless from a scientific perspective. What science needs to validate the existence of Bigfoot is hard evidence: a live or dead specimen, bones, teeth, blood, or hair. Because hard evidence is lacking -- no bones or bodies have been found -- Coltman's analysis was much anticipated.

The Yukon sample is not the first Bigfoot hair to be analyzed. Over the past few decades, dozens of hair and blood samples have been recovered from alleged Bigfoot encounters. (One example: in 2000, a group of Bigfoot researchers found what they interpreted as a Bigfoot body print in mud near Mount Adams in Washington state. Despite five years of study and the promise of alleged hair, saliva, and dung samples, no conclusive evidence has yet emerged from the find.) When a definite conclusion has been reached, the samples have invariably turned out to have prosaic sources -- "Bigfoot hair" turns out to be elk or bear or cow hair, for example, or "Bigfoot blood" is revealed to be transmission fluid. In his book Big Footprints, noted researcher Grover Krantz discusses such evidence: "The usual fate of these items is that they either receive no scientific study, or else the documentation of that study is either lost or unobtainable. In most cases where competent analyses have been made, the material turned out to be bogus or else no determination could be made."

It is important to understand the science behind hair analyses: An outcome of "unknown" or "inconclusive" does not necessarily mean the sample came from a Bigfoot. All it means is that the sample did not match whichever other samples it was compared to. For that reason, a wig or carpet fiber or even hair from an animal foreign to the region (such as a kangaroo or camel) claimed to be from a Bigfoot will likely be reported as "unknown." It also highlights a basic methodological problem that plagues all Bigfoot research: The lack of a standard measure. We know what a bear track looks like; if we find a track that we suspect was left by a bear, we can compare it to one we know was left by a bear. But there are no undisputed Bigfoot specimens by which to compare new evidence.

This is why evidence such as the Yukon hair is so crucial to proving Bigfoot's existence. At a press conference, Coltman revealed the results of his DNA analysis. The Bigfoot hair matched that of a bison 100 percent. Bison are common in the region, and it seems likely that the locals' expectations and perceptions were influenced by the Manitoba sighting three months earlier.

The DNA result will not, of course, deter the Bigfoot believers and eyewitnesses. But it does provide an excellent example of what happens when hard evidence of a mystery is subjected to the rigors of science. This high-profile Bigfoot hair analysis by a reputable scientist also addresses a criticism often heard by monster enthusiasts: That mainstream scientists ignore Bigfoot evidence for fear of damaging their reputations in pursuit of what some would call a myth. Yet if Bigfoot or other mystery creatures do exist, they are certainly worthy of serious scientific scrutiny. At the same time, since all previous samples were found to be hoaxes, inconclusive, or from known animals, scientists' lack of enthusiasm for spending time and resources on yet more such evidence is understandable.

In the space of six months, one alleged Canadian Bigfoot was videotaped and another left its hair. Nothing new has been learned from the Manitoba video -- it's still an unidentified dark blob, possibly one of any number of large animals in the area -- and the Yukon hair has been identified as bison. The mystery remains, and the search goes on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL its fiction of course. There is no way a large humanlike creature could exist that we would not know about it by now. Nowhere in North America is unexplored anymore. If there is such a creature, there would have to be many of them to breed, and they would have to have an impact on their environment to support such a population. They don't die and leave bodies, or bones, ever? They don't get spotted by hunters or hikers or loggers? Dogs don't sniff them out and they never get into anyone's trash?

There are losts of undiscovered species of animals still, but no undiscovered quasi-humans. This is not 1901 anymore. There is no way for such a population to hide anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a guy in Virginia that quit his job and sold a bunch of his belongings after having a bigfoot run in in southern, VA. He bought a Winnebago and equipped it qith all kinds of high tech stuff to find bigfoot. He and an off duty FBI agent saw it. They are both in the woods every weekend now looking for it again. He had a website but I think it's down now. Can't remember the link.

What the hell, sure, I believe in Bigfoot. He'd also make a great offensive tackle. I'm sure George Allen would have given him a try out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...