The fact and fiction of sasquatches and why people search for Bigfoot

[PossumRoach]

Just take a look at TikTok and you'll find it's quite common.

Really now?

 

[birdsandbats]

Honestly, this really isn't something i read about last week and got interested in, I've spent the last decade reading, watching and literally absorbing what I can.

You do have to wade through the BS, the nonsense the idiotic, i will agree, but the evidence is there. The history goes back, I'd say at least 300 years in N America. Native Americans especially accept the 'creatures' existence. You also have to accept that these creatures are different and that is the 'leap of faith' difficult for many non believers or fence sitters to do, I totally accept that.

For starters watch the footage of Patterson & Gimlin 1967. See what Disney and any other film costume makers say about the suit. Its nearly 50 years old, look at the 'animal' in the film and compare to the Planet of the Apes costumes from 1970. That is not a man in a suit. The Freeman footage mid 1990's too.

Loads are mis I'ds, loads are black or grizzly bears on hind legs, but for everyone who has a story to tell, how many are too scared to tell their story due to fear and fear of ridicule.

Also, the name Bigfoot, it's not a good starting point for seriousness is it....

giraffe is a Longneck, elephant a Bignose ....

Native Americans also believed in thunderbirds. I haven't seen any giant three-headed cloud birds, have you?

 

[Pootle]

Does April fools lie in the end of april for UK people? Because this surely must be a joke.

So easy to not believe, each to their own. About 15 years ago I thought it a myth, but interesting and started reading about it. It's not an Ape or an animal as we understand animals. They can possibly do things with light, (UV and infra red), use reflection in ways we don't understand.

It's not a large primate (as we know Gorillas or Orangs), if it was we would have one in a zoo now or had one in a zoo historically, I think that's a point of agreement possibly?

 

[Pootle]

Native Americans also believed in thunderbirds. I haven't seen any giant three-headed cloud birds, have you?

I've not seen any Sasquatch either myself, (let alone these Thunderbirds ), however after spending so much time reading and researching I believe there is something like a Sasquatch currently existing.

What would it take for you yourself to believe they exist?

 

[birdsandbats]

I've not seen any Sasquatch either myself, (let alone these Thunderbirds ), however after spending so much time reading and researching I believe there is something like a Sasquatch currently existing.

What would it take for you yourself to believe they exist?

Some actual hard evidence. A carcass. An actual clear, non-photoshopped and non-AI generated image. Literally any piece of hard evidence as to their existence. Not some blurry photo or shaky inconclusive video.

 

[Pootle]

Is there a link to the paper?

Ahhh, are you thinking I am referring to a recent journal? If so sorry for the confusion, I am indeed referring to the paper by Melba Ketchum and 3 or 4 other PhD's.

I thought it was posted here once? I looked but couldn't find it.

 

[birdsandbats]

So easy to not believe, each to their own. About 15 years ago I thought it a myth, but interesting and started reading about it. It's not an Ape or an animal as we understand animals. They can possibly do things with light, (UV and infra red), use reflection in ways we don't understand.

It's not a large primate (as we know Gorillas or Orangs), if it was we would have one in a zoo now or had one in a zoo historically, I think that's a point of agreement possibly?

If it's not an animal, than what are you suggesting it is? An alien? An interdimensional being?

 

[dillotest0]

I was going to respond to the 'evidence' inquiry, when I found another message I felt would make for more .. interesting dissection...

So easy to not believe, each to their own. About 15 years ago I thought it a myth, but interesting and started reading about it. It's not an Ape or an animal as we understand animals. They can possibly do things with light, (UV and infra red), use reflection in ways we don't understand.

If it is that we assume Bigfoot has the ability to manipulate reflection of light, as you claim, then why is it that the tape you consistently cite as evidence has Bigfoot [arguably] clearly visible? Has Bigfoot made it so that they are only visible on film which materialised prior to the end of the 20th century? If so, how is that meant to work?
And if it's 'not an animal as we understand animals', then does that mean it does not consume for energy as do other animals? Is it some other type of organism?

By this line of thought, I will say personally I have a Bigfoot in my backyard. He feeds on stray cats and his name is Steve. You will not see him, however, as he has a very advanced form of camouflage which literally lets him, and his internal organs, assume the appearance of his surroundings. And he isn't made of regular flesh, either. He is made of stuff which is easily passed through by people. Incredible! You can barely tell he is there ... /j

 

[Pootle]

Some actual hard evidence. A carcass. An actual clear, non-photoshopped and non-AI generated image. Literally any piece of hard evidence as to their existence. Not some blurry photo or shaky inconclusive video.

We are starting to agree on somethings now which us good.

I think if I saw any footage now, it would need to be filmed on 'old film'. I could not trust anything taken with modern technology (unless it was ultra convincing, with back up evidence.) In fact I think it's fair to say I'm in your camp regarding photo's videos etc, As a believer, I do however believe some vids are real, yet most are not. Also I cannot prove 100% any of them are real can I ? I have my opinion you and others have yours. As said for the record I do believe the Patterson/Gimlin film is real, not just from watching it, but from researching that piece of film, some of the stories surround just that film would have you amazed!

As for carcass, I do believe one or a small few have been presented and there is a cover up.

 

[birdsandbats]

As for carcass, I do believe one or a small few have been presented and there is a cover up.

That's another thing - if Bigfoots are real, then why is there some sort of international conspiracy to cover them up? It doesn't make any sense, and it seems very convenient, wouldn't you say?

 

[SwampDonkey]

I believe in them, my issue with not believing is that I personally know someone that has seen one while hunting and I know of several other people that are witnesses that have no reason to be lying to me.

Whatever they saw fits the description of sasquatch, how it can be explained I don't know.

 

[Pootle]

I was going to respond to the 'evidence' inquiry, when I found another message I felt would make for more .. interesting dissection...

If it is that we assume Bigfoot has the ability to manipulate reflection of light, as you claim, then why is it that the tape you consistently cite as evidence has Bigfoot [arguably] clearly visible? Has Bigfoot made it so that they are only visible on film which materialised prior to the end of the 20th century? If so, how is that meant to work?
And if it's 'not an animal as we understand animals', then does that mean it does not consume for energy as do other animals? Is it some other type of organism?

By this line of thought, I will say personally I have a Bigfoot in my backyard. He feeds on stray cats and his name is Steve. You will not see him, however, as he has a very advanced form of camouflage which literally lets him, and his internal organs, assume the appearance of his surroundings. And he isn't made of regular flesh, either. He is made of stuff which is easily passed through by people. Incredible! You can barely tell he is there ... /j

I don't claim anything, they are all hypothesis as nothing is proven. However, yes I do possibly think they may see or can do things with light, possibly vibration too which we do not understand ourselves. There is a strong possibility they can somehow cloak themselves and possibly more. I didn't mean to consistently mention that tape, I do so, as in my opinion it is the best evidence. The Freeman film is very possibly real too, however several of Todd Standings films I cannot accept, he also thinks it is Gigantopithecus, I do not. Back to its not a animal as we understand. This is a tough one to describe, yes they are omnivores, so eat what they can get where and when. Many people have seen them and filmed them near water (the one in 'that film' was next to a creek. A hypothesis is that water can affect their ability to camouflage too well. There have been several sightings of them at waters edge gathering clams, drinking then they literally disappear further away from the water. Even if they leave prints, so many times the prints seem to literally stop, yes its crazy I agree with that, but its reported so many times independently! Whilst on the water subject they have often been seen swimming, not something any of the Great Apes (bar humans) we know like doing is it?

Moving onto Steve (did you christen him that?) who lives in your garden, or possibly not... your response was cheerful, but because we don't understand something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. One of the questions people like me want to know about these things is this. What would you yourself need to see to believe in them please?

If they don't want to be filmed photoed or get caught by us, then why are they so very inquisitive about what we do at the same time? There are 1000's of examples of people saying this or similar.

 

[birdsandbats]

I don't claim anything, they are all hypothesis as nothing is proven. However, yes I do possibly think they may see or can do things with light, possibly vibration too which we do not understand ourselves. There is a strong possibility they can somehow cloak themselves and possibly more. I didn't mean to consistently mention that tape, I do so, as in my opinion it is the best evidence. The Freeman film is very possibly real too, however several of Todd Standings films I cannot accept, he also thinks it is Gigantopithecus, I do not. Back to its not a animal as we understand. This is a tough one to describe, yes they are omnivores, so eat what they can get where and when. Many people have seen them and filmed them near water (the one in 'that film' was next to a creek. A hypothesis is that water can affect their ability to camouflage too well. There have been several sightings of them at waters edge gathering clams, drinking then they literally disappear further away from the water. Even if they leave prints, so many times the prints seem to literally stop, yes its crazy I agree with that, but its reported so many times independently! Whilst on the water subject they have often been seen swimming, not something any of the Great Apes (bar humans) we know like doing is it?

Moving onto Steve (did you christen him that?) who lives in your garden, or possibly not... your response was cheerful, but because we don't understand something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. One of the questions people like me want to know about these things is this. What would you yourself need to see to believe in them please?

If they don't want to be filmed photoed or get caught by us, then why are they so very inquisitive about what we do at the same time? There are 1000's of examples of people saying this or similar.

There very well may be things out there we do not understand. UAPs are the best example, I think. No hard evidence of their existence has been presented, but the witnesses are reliable and even the US government believes them to exist. With that being said, I am skeptical of UAPs but totally believe they could be out there.

Bigfoot on the other hand - there is no hard evidence of its existence, and even less evidence that they can manipulate light in some seemingly impossible way. UAPs at least have reliable witnesses, and Bigfoot simply does not. I don't know of any examples of anyone even close to credible claiming to see Bigfoot changing colors or anything crazy like that. The only thing even close to evidence we have for Bigfoot is the Patterson/Gimlin film, and even that most experts believe to just be a guy in an ape suit.

 

[Pootle]

I believe in them, my issue with not believing is that I personally know someone that has seen one while hunting and I know of several other people that are witnesses that have no reason to be lying to me.

Whatever they saw fits the description of sasquatch, how it can be explained I don't know.

If some said tomorrow, look people of the world these Sasquatch things are actually real then we open a giant can of worms!

1. They are endangered if considered an animal and US & Canadian economy will change.
2. If DNA sequencing as it stands to date does indeed show that they are descended from a hominid (not Neanderthal) which bred with human female(s) circa 15,000 years ago, then what are their rights as human or part human beings?
3. What about Religion?

Economics, Religion and New Species to play with - no wonder they keep them hush hush. The programs about them on TV are so away from the truth they are ridiculous, but I hold my hands up and say they triggered my interest years ago.

 

[birdsandbats]

If some said tomorrow, look people of the world these Sasquatch things are actually real then we open a giant can of worms!

1. They are endangered if considered an animal and US & Canadian economy will change.
2. If DNA sequencing as it stands to date does indeed show that they are descended from a hominid (not Neanderthal) which bred with human female(s) circa 15,000 years ago, then what are their rights as human or part human beings?
3. What about Religion?

Economics, Religion and New Species to play with - no wonder they keep them hush hush. The programs about them on TV are so away from the truth they are ridiculous, but I hold my hands up and say they triggered my interest years ago.

There has never been an international conspiracy to cover up sage grouse, or Saiga, or orangutans. There has never been an international conspiracy to cover up other things which arguably could be said to clash with Christianity, such as dinosaurs. So why would there be one to cover up some North American ape thing? And how could the possibly go unnoticed in such a heavily populated and rich country as the US? There's far too many things that don't add up.

 

[Pootle]

There very well may be things out there we do not understand. UAPs are the best example, I think. No hard evidence of their existence has been presented, but the witnesses are reliable and even the US government believes them to exist. With that being said, I am skeptical of UAPs but totally believe they could be out there.

Bigfoot on the other hand - there is no hard evidence of its existence, and even less evidence that they can manipulate light in some seemingly impossible way. UAPs at least have reliable witnesses, and Bigfoot simply does not. I don't know of any examples of anyone even close to credible claiming to see Bigfoot changing colors or anything crazy like that. The only thing even close to evidence we have for Bigfoot is the Patterson/Gimlin film, and even that most experts believe to just be a guy in an ape suit.

I think if you do a bit of research, you will realise its probably not a guy in a suit, but that's your interest and your time.
There are lots and lots of great witnesses out there and 1000's more who are witnesses and keep their mouth shut out of fear of ridicule. Then there are the billy bullsh1tters, loads and loads of them too.
As for hard evidence, I genuinely believe from reading, listening and all the general nosing I have done that bodies have been 'handed in' but they are immediately covered up - Can I prove this no, but when you have read as much as me on the subject and sifted through the BS, you do start a jigsaw and its putting the pieces together. The only way I can do this, is what I can believe in myself and find plausible. I have a decent scientific education and this helps me do this and is probably why I am interested. Incidentally other cryptozoology doesn't float my boat which is weird. Regarding UFO/UAP's, many people think there could be a link between the two. I'm on the fence here and would need more info, but it would tick some unticked boxes if true.

 

[birdsandbats]

I think if you do a bit of research, you will realise its probably not a guy in a suit, but that's your interest and your time.
There are lots and lots of great witnesses out there and 1000's more who are witnesses and keep their mouth shut out of fear of ridicule. Then there are the billy bullsh1tters, loads and loads of them too.
As for hard evidence, I genuinely believe from reading, listening and all the general nosing I have done that bodies have been 'handed in' but they are immediately covered up - Can I prove this no, but when you have read as much as me on the subject and sifted through the BS, you do start a jigsaw and its putting the pieces together. The only way I can do this, is what I can believe in myself and find plausible. I have a decent scientific education and this helps me do this and is probably why I am interested. Incidentally other cryptozoology doesn't float my boat which is weird. Regarding UFO/UAP's, many people think there could be a link between the two. I'm on the fence here and would need more info, but it would tick some unticked boxes if true.

I have done research into the Patterson/Gimlin film, and yes, I do think it's a guy in a suit.

 

[Pootle]

There has never been an international conspiracy to cover up sage grouse, or Saiga, or orangutans. There has never been an international conspiracy to cover up other things which arguably could be said to clash with Christianity, such as dinosaurs. So why would there be one to cover up some North American ape thing? And how could the possibly go unnoticed in such a heavily populated and rich country as the US? There's far too many things that don't add up.

You call it a North American Ape thing is binning the idea before we start to discuss or debate. I thought it may be a tough audience here, but as a member for ages a good one given you all generally have an animal knowledge out ranking the general publics.
All I can say to you is carry on as you are or look into the subject more for yourself, but please don't dismiss my intellect or years of reading on the subject. I think our conversation should end here on a mild note.

 

[Zoofella]

Like skinwalker ranch, the subject is interesting but the way it's presented on tv shows makes me laugh. Are they recreating actual experiences during their investigations, or are we expected to believe these incidents happened while tha cameras were rolling. The skinwalker ranch guys are so wooden. "It just doesn't make any sense!" Haha!

 

[Pootle]

Like skinwalker ranch, the subject is interesting but the way it's presented on tv shows makes me laugh. Are they recreating actual experiences during their investigations, or are we expected to believe these incidents happened while tha cameras were rolling. The skinwalker ranch guys are so wooden. "It just doesn't make any sense!" Haha!

A good point, the American TV people with Skinwaker ranch program, is very much like the Finding Bigfoot series. They both make churlish fun of an interesting subject. In Expedition Bigfoot, they sometimes start to tickle the surface of some of the truths but then move onto another topic. I assume it's their way of making good TV. Viewers are more important than truth or facts after all. If you read about some of the independent research the likes of James Faye and Cliff Barackman have done themselves, believe the subject or not but at least you will look at them in a different light, esp James.
In my opinion there are 20 films/vids on YouTube quite recently by Dave Paulides. These are a much better starting point to the subject than the TV shows.
Give it a try, if you try and don't like then you can always go to the Zoo!