Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Staggering is gilding the lily; we don't get many paranormal footers here. We do get many of you guys that are enthralled with the idea of elusive footie living off the fat of the sylvan ecotopia where few humans ever visit.

Let me repeat this: the romantic and uneducated notion that the North American continent is some sort of wilderness is a myth; it has long been settled and exploited (sometimes ruthlessly), from the High Arctic to the Everglades. By the time the Europeans arrived, it's now estimated that NA and SA had roughly the same population as Europe. If a 9-ft monkey were hereabouts, it would have been long ago noticed, collected and catalogued, a type specimen in the Field Musuem.

I don't think they need millions of acres of forest to survive. As far as speculating why early settlers didn't bag one? Who knows? Daniel Boone claimed to have done so, a 10 foot tall one at that. Early reports of Bigfoot are found throughout the History of the US. It's a mystery as to why nobody bagged one and brought it in. Perhaps they didn't care to do so? Is it more likely to believe that every single report in History is a lie?

Every single one of them agrees that Bigfoot exists in spite of everyone else saying that it doesn't. "You guys" are all exactly the same. Every single one of you are inside the same box.

In that respect I agree we have that much in common. But if I hear a report describing how a Bigfoot stepped out of a UFO and cloaked, I'm with you guys on that one.

To be fair, The Shrike often makes that point here (and in the past at other venues) but it's argued that since these scientists aren't specifically looking for ole foo, they miss him. It's hard to believe that an adult could make such an argument, but there you have it.

Here's an example of a Scientist in the field.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-worlds-most-elusive-cat-has-been-captured-on-camera-2015-1

4 years in the field and one sighting. After the first year or two most would have probably moved on to something else.

"Reliable evidence" would be a type specimen right? But there is evidence to support these creatures existence even if considered "unreliable". Sightings, tracks etc."- Chris..

^^This is the basic view of the believer. Another way of saying it is "skeptics don't believe because there is no "reliable evidence".

The lack of "reliable evidence" is only a small part of picture. The big picture is that there is so much "evidence" that bigfoot doesn't exist. The old footer quote "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is wrong. Absence of bigfoot evidence is exactly that - proof that he's not there. There are more sightings reports of Santa than Bigfoot...does that mean Santa exists?

So, Chris, based on your experience and knowledge about Bigfoot, is the figure in the film a real bigfoot or a hoax? Please give a real answer, like "yes, I think this one is real" or "no, I think it is a hoax," not one of those "I don't comment on other peoples research" answers. Thanks.

Based on the video, I can't tell if it's a suit or the real thing. Based on the story, I think it's a hoax.

"There's actually a staggering amount of difference in the opinions of Bigfoot enthusiasts" - Chris

Doesn't this tell you something? (like everyone is making it up?)

No, it tells me different people have different opinions about the same subject.

Settler: "I saw a footprint like a cat's only much bigger."
Indian trapper guide: "Yeah, that's 'mountain lion.' He screams in the woods and eats deer."

Sometime thereafter:

Settler's gun: "Bang!"
Settler: "Hey, that's one of them mountain lions. I bet it's hide would fetch me a bob or two down at the trading post."

Wash, rinse, and repeat until just about every mountain lion, wolf, bear, deer, elk, bison, crane, turkey, beaver, otter, fisher was extirpated from the Lower 48 east of the Rockies.

Daniel Boone: "What's that 10 foot tall hairy thing walking on 2 legs?"
Boone's rifle: "Bang!"
Daniel Boone: "Looks like I shot a Yeahoh"

Chris B.

 

[William Parcher]

Chris, did Boone call it a Yeahoh, or a Yahoo?

 

[Resume]

I don't think they need millions of acres of forest to survive.

Let me try to explain this again. The forests where you folks claim footie frolics have been traveled for eons by folks who hunted in them for food, clothing, totems and trophies; if you don't think there'd be plenty of bigfoot rugs and skulls and curiosities to show off to the Europeans, you don't understand human nature.

As far as speculating why early settlers didn't bag one? Who knows? Daniel Boone claimed to have done so, a 10 foot tall one at that. Early reports of Bigfoot are found throughout the History of the US. It's a mystery as to why nobody bagged one and brought it in. Perhaps they didn't care to do so?

Daniel Boone claims to have bagged something, you filled in that blank. And again, it's a claim attributed to him, a campfire story about a campfire story. In other words, an unevidenced assertion. Like your claim about bigfoot reports throughout US history.

As for the mystery of why no one has bagged one, that's no mystery at all. This laughable idea that no one wanted to might play with the over at BFF, but anywhere else besides a playground, not at all. It's just silliness to suggest the thousands of fur trappers would overlook a 9-ft monkey just because. Which is why I advise you to do more than play pretend in the woods; do some reading beyond bigfoot ********.

Is it more likely to believe that every single report in History is a lie?

Every single mermaid, dragon, unicorn report was either a lie, a delusion or mistake.

 

[Resume]

Here's an example of a Scientist in the field.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-w...-camera-2015-1

4 years in the field and one sighting. After the first year or two most would have probably moved on to something else.

15,000+ years and no footie.

 

[The Shrike]

Here's an example of a Scientist in the field.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-worlds-most-elusive-cat-has-been-captured-on-camera-2015-1

4 years in the field and one sighting. After the first year or two most would have probably moved on to something else.

It's astounding how you cherry pick items that you think support this notion of the elusive wood-ninja bigfoots. From the article you linked, Chris:

For example, why did you concentrate on how often one person has seen one in the flesh instead of these other pieces of evidence?

"Bushmeat hunting is pretty ubiquitous across their range, and golden cats are really prone to getting caught in snares,"

"The camera traps were set by researchers studying primates rather than cats . . . "

Well lookie there -the whole reason these golden cats seem to be in trouble is because humans are too good at catching them. One great way to get new data on them? Other people in the forest studying other species.

That sounds like . . . exactly what I've been saying about bigfoot for years. If they were real, local folks would have long since provided physical remains of them and they'd be discovered by scientists and other folks doing all manner of non-bigfooty things in those same woods.

If you'd really like to wallow in some cognitive dissonance, you should follow the link to Bahaa-el-din et al's 2014 paper and read about the frequency of the cats in bushmeat markets, analysis of dozens of scats, and photographic identification of at least 50 different individuals.

Yeah, just like bigfoot . . .

 

[dmaker]

^^ Excellent post. Perfectly illustrates the point. Sadly, this will have zero impact on the people who need to understand it the most.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

It's astounding how you cherry pick items that you think support this notion of the elusive wood-ninja bigfoots. From the article you linked, Chris:

For example, why did you concentrate on how often one person has seen one in the flesh instead of these other pieces of evidence?

"Bushmeat hunting is pretty ubiquitous across their range, and golden cats are really prone to getting caught in snares,"

"The camera traps were set by researchers studying primates rather than cats . . . "

Well lookie there -the whole reason these golden cats seem to be in trouble is because humans are too good at catching them. One great way to get new data on them? Other people in the forest studying other species.

That sounds like . . . exactly what I've been saying about bigfoot for years. If they were real, local folks would have long since provided physical remains of them and they'd be discovered by scientists and other folks doing all manner of non-bigfooty things in those same woods.

If you'd really like to wallow in some cognitive dissonance, you should follow the link to Bahaa-el-din et al's 2014 paper and read about the frequency of the cats in bushmeat markets, analysis of dozens of scats, and photographic identification of at least 50 different individuals.

Yeah, just like bigfoot . . .

I guess in that case you could say the golden cats are terrible at hiding from locals but great at hiding from scientists. Yeah, I agree, just like Bigfoot.
Chris B.

Added info regarding the bolded portion: I was referring to scientists looking for Bigfoot and not finding them. Sometimes lady luck is not on your side.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Chris, did Boone call it a Yeahoh, or a Yahoo?

In the book "Daniel Boone: The Life and Legend of an American Pioneer" (1992), the author claims Boone told "tall tales" about "killing a ten-foot, hairy giant he called a 'Yahoo.' The name, likely corrupted by nearly 200 years of telling and retelling, varies from "Yahoo", "Yeahoh", and today's current KY pronunciation : "Yayhoo"

Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Let me try to explain this again. The forests where you folks claim footie frolics have been traveled for eons by folks who hunted in them for food, clothing, totems and trophies; if you don't think there'd be plenty of bigfoot rugs and skulls and curiosities to show off to the Europeans, you don't understand human nature.

You know I agree with you that the Country has been tamed, the lower 48 anyway. But most folks in North America kinda live under the assumption it's taboo to eat something that looks kinda human. (Yes, I'm aware of reports of cannibalism in the US but I'm not talking about a stranded wagon train and starving settlers.) We just don't eat stuff that resembles us. Now in Central or South America those folks don't seem to mind a bit, but here, we do very much so. So the Bigfoot for food argument doesn't fit, at least here anyway.

I don't know why the early settlers didn't collect Bigfoot fur? They sure as heck collected Indian scalps. I just don't know the answer.

Daniel Boone claims to have bagged something, you filled in that blank. And again, it's a claim attributed to him, a campfire story about a campfire story. In other words, an unevidenced assertion. Like your claim about bigfoot reports throughout US history.

The description was a 10 foot tall hairy individual, a giant. Not a bear. I think Boone would have known a bear. Yahoo, Yeohoh, yayhoo are all three terms used to describe the individual Boone shot. The Yeohoh were reportedly large, hairy wild people who lived in the woods. In one version of the story, told by a Mr. Lee Macgard of Harlan County, Kentucky

As far as historical reports of creatures matching the description of Bigfoot, you obviously have the internet. With a little investigation you'll learn my "claim" is actually "fact".

As for the mystery of why no one has bagged one, that's no mystery at all. This laughable idea that no one wanted to might play with the over at BFF, but anywhere else besides a playground, not at all. It's just silliness to suggest the thousands of fur trappers would overlook a 9-ft monkey just because. Which is why I advise you to do more than play pretend in the woods; do some reading beyond bigfoot ********.

Thanks, I do enjoy reading in the Winter months. I really don't understand why you seem intent on convincing me Bigfoot does not exist? I can't unsee what I've already seen. I know they're out there, you think they're not and that's ok with me.

Every single mermaid, dragon, unicorn report was either a lie, a delusion or mistake.

Misidentifications likely make up the largest portion of those reports. Chinese Dragons likely came from early discoveries of fossil beds/bones IMO. I haven't heard any reports of those creatures being sighted in KY. Bigfoot sightings (or creatures exactly matching their description)seem to be fairly common though.
Chris B.

 

[Resume]

You know I agree with you that the Country has been tamed, the lower 48 anyway. But most folks in North America kinda live under the assumption it's taboo to eat something that looks kinda human. (Yes, I'm aware of reports of cannibalism in the US but I'm not talking about a stranded wagon train and starving settlers.) We just don't eat stuff that resembles us. Now in Central or South America those folks don't seem to mind a bit, but here, we do very much so. So the Bigfoot for food argument doesn't fit, at least here anyway.

People kill people daily. It's not at all taboo. They also eat each other, including Native Americans.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20000907&slug=4041058

Also, Native Americans hunted for clothing and used the skin for tents, drums and everyday items; they even hunted their "totem" animals.

Torture and cannibalism were common among Mesoamerican natives, as well as the NA Iroquois, Mohawk and Algonquin; think less Dances with Wolves and more Black Robe.

Europeans were hunting the pygmy in Africa for sport into the 20th century; the NAs would have shown the Europeans where to find ole foo, just to get off the schneid and that would have been that.

Your attempt here fails. It's just goofy.

I don't know why the early settlers didn't collect Bigfoot fur? They sure as heck collected Indian scalps. I just don't know the answer.

You know the answer; they would have if footie were available and it definitely wasn't because non-existence sort of screws availability all up. Europeans killed everything worth killing; there was no conservation ethic and as you can tell by their treatment of First Nation people, they had no compunction against killing as many of them as they pleased.

The description was a 10 foot tall hairy individual, a giant. Not a bear. I think Boone would have known a bear. Yahoo, Yeohoh, yayhoo are all three terms used to describe the individual Boone shot. The Yeohoh were reportedly large, hairy wild people who lived in the woods. In one version of the story, told by a Mr. Lee Macgard of Harlan County, Kentucky

Stories about stories.

Thanks, I do enjoy reading in the Winter months. I really don't understand why you seem intent on convincing me Bigfoot does not exist? I can't unsee what I've already seen. I know they're out there, you think they're not and that's ok with me.

You don't know any such thing. We know what you think you see; you've posted pictures. They were bereft of bigfoot. They were laughable.

Misidentifications likely make up the largest portion of those reports. Chinese Dragons likely came from early discoveries of fossil beds/bones IMO. I haven't heard any reports of those creatures being sighted in KY. Bigfoot sightings (or creatures exactly matching their description)seem to be fairly common though.
Chris B.

I'd wager lying make up the largest portion of bigfoot reports with misidentification and delusion picking up slack.

 

[Resume]

You know I agree with you that the Country has been tamed, the lower 48 anyway.

You'll find much the same story north of the border. Think of the Hudson's Bay company trappers, thousands of them, trapping furbearers to near-extinction in many cases without much thought about environmental impact. Yeah, but they would've spared a 9-ft monkey. Absurd. Silly.

 

[Resume]

I guess in that case you could say the golden cats are terrible at hiding from locals but great at hiding from scientists. Yeah, I agree, just like Bigfoot.
Chris B.

Nothing like bigfoot because not single one, or piece of one, or bone, or fossil, or hair, has ever been brought to bear, anywhere.

This is getting cartoonish.

It's elusive!

It's inbisible!

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

You know I agree with you that the Country has been tamed, the lower 48 anyway. But most folks in North America kinda live under the assumption it's taboo to eat something that looks kinda human. (Yes, I'm aware of reports of cannibalism in the US but I'm not talking about a stranded wagon train and starving settlers.) We just don't eat stuff that resembles us. Now in Central or South America those folks don't seem to mind a bit, but here, we do very much so. So the Bigfoot for food argument doesn't fit, at least here anyway.

I don't know why the early settlers didn't collect Bigfoot fur? They sure as heck collected Indian scalps. I just don't know the answer.


The description was a 10 foot tall hairy individual, a giant. Not a bear. I think Boone would have known a bear. Yahoo, Yeohoh, yayhoo are all three terms used to describe the individual Boone shot. The Yeohoh were reportedly large, hairy wild people who lived in the woods. In one version of the story, told by a Mr. Lee Macgard of Harlan County, Kentucky

As far as historical reports of creatures matching the description of Bigfoot, you obviously have the internet. With a little investigation you'll learn my "claim" is actually "fact".


Thanks, I do enjoy reading in the Winter months. I really don't understand why you seem intent on convincing me Bigfoot does not exist? I can't unsee what I've already seen. I know they're out there, you think they're not and that's ok with me.


Misidentifications likely make up the largest portion of those reports. Chinese Dragons likely came from early discoveries of fossil beds/bones IMO. I haven't heard any reports of those creatures being sighted in KY. Bigfoot sightings (or creatures exactly matching their description)seem to be fairly common though.
Chris B.

How on earth does a fur-covered 10+ foot tall 900lb ape-man with a sloping forehead look anything remotely like a human being? This is something that gets me on all the tv-shows, in all the reports etc... How did it look "exactly like a human" but at the same time was giant, had a fur-covered body and the face of a caveman? Pure nonsense. Is this the best excuse you can give for why no'one has ever killed one or eaten one? Amazing.

In your earlier post, you mentioned how not all of the reports could be lies. Well, what about the "British Bigfoot," if you're deluded enough, you could look at all of the reports of supposed ape-men in the UK and buy into it, can they all be lies, too? Or is a tiny island like the UK home to a race of giants, just like the USA? If the British Bigfoot is, as I suspect, a load of bollocks, then doesn't that kind of dim the already dimming light on the North American Sasquatch?

Or are the US footers onto something, and the UK footers are all just drunk on "flat, warm ale."

 

[Tolls]

Nothing like bigfoot because not single one, or piece of one, or bone, or fossil, or hair, has ever been brought to bear, anywhere.

Exactly.
Unlike the cat, for which we have had pelts and they've been eaten.

Where are the bigfoot pelts? Where's the bigfoot recipes? Where's the reports on their distribution from decades ago?

 

[rockinkt]

Settler: "I saw a footprint like a cat's only much bigger."
Indian trapper guide: "Yeah, that's 'mountain lion.' He screams in the woods and eats deer."

Sometime thereafter:

Settler's gun: "Bang!"
Settler: "Hey, that's one of them mountain lions. I bet it's hide would fetch me a bob or two down at the trading post."

Wash, rinse, and repeat until just about every mountain lion, wolf, bear, deer, elk, bison, crane, turkey, beaver, otter, fisher was extirpated from the Lower 48 east of the Rockies.

Since about 1670 - the members of the Hudson's Bay Company asked for any and all creatures that had fur on them to be killed and skinned for trade back to Britain. Not only that - but they also asked for any and all creatures that were different and/or unusual because they could be worth some $$$.

The Hudson's Bay Company Charter gave them exclusive trading rights over "Rupert's Land" - about 40% of modern Canada, all of Northern Ontario and Quebec; nearly all of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta; most of the Northwest Territories; and what are now the American states of Minnesota and North Dakota.
By default - it also gave them British Columbia and any points west of Hudson's Bay including what was termed The Oregon Country (until the 1830s).

No record of anything remotely resembling Bigfoot in any fur traded or weird animal or animal part.

There are also no, none, nada, zero, zilch, stories of any creature resembling Bigfoot in any of the tens of thousands detailed reports over 300 or so years from the hundreds of Chief Factors who lived and traded in the wilderness areas of Rupert's Land among the various tribes and who took First Nation women as wives.

If that total lack of any history of anything resembling Bigfoot over that huge domain in North America doesn't stop the average Footer in his tracks - so to speak - they aren't paying attention.

 

[Resume]

If that total lack of any history of anything resembling Bigfoot over that huge domain in North America doesn't stop the average Footer in his tracks - so to speak - they aren't paying attention.

One gets the feeling they didn't do much of that in class, either.

 

[LTC8K6]

We had the fur trade, we had the logging trade, we had gold rushes, we had the railroads cutting through, etc.

We had several times where lots of people were working in the wilds, at times when bigfoot populations should have been their highest.

You can name more, too.

We also had many large scale wars where lots of humans went into normally unexplored areas, we had the expansion westward...

Soldiers camping in the woods, cold and starving, would not have hesitated to collect a bigfoot. And they would have been looking for anything they could use.

We'd have heard of the bigfoots that saved the soldiers at Valley Forge.

 

[Drewbot]

Settler: "I saw a footprint like a cat's only much bigger."
Indian trapper guide: "Yeah, that's 'mountain lion.' He screams in the woods and eats deer."

Sometime thereafter:

Settler's gun: "Bang!"
Settler: "Hey, that's one of them mountain lions. I bet it's hide would fetch me a bob or two down at the trading post."

Wash, rinse, and repeat until just about every mountain lion, wolf, bear, deer, elk, bison, crane, turkey, beaver, otter, fisher was extirpated from the Lower 48 east of the Rockies.

There are also hunger motives.
I'll bet mountain lion tastes good to a logger who hasn't eaten anything but dried venison for a month.

 

[Drewbot]

You know I agree with you that the Country has been tamed, the lower 48 anyway. But most folks in North America kinda live under the assumption it's taboo to eat something that looks kinda human. (Yes, I'm aware of reports of cannibalism in the US but I'm not talking about a stranded wagon train and starving settlers.) We just don't eat stuff that resembles us. Now in Central or South America those folks don't seem to mind a bit, but here, we do very much so. So the Bigfoot for food argument doesn't fit, at least here anyway.

I don't know why the early settlers didn't collect Bigfoot fur? They sure as heck collected Indian scalps. I just don't know the answer.


The description was a 10 foot tall hairy individual, a giant. Not a bear. I think Boone would have known a bear. Yahoo, Yeohoh, yayhoo are all three terms used to describe the individual Boone shot. The Yeohoh were reportedly large, hairy wild people who lived in the woods. In one version of the story, told by a Mr. Lee Macgard of Harlan County, Kentucky

As far as historical reports of creatures matching the description of Bigfoot, you obviously have the internet. With a little investigation you'll learn my "claim" is actually "fact".


Thanks, I do enjoy reading in the Winter months. I really don't understand why you seem intent on convincing me Bigfoot does not exist? I can't unsee what I've already seen. I know they're out there, you think they're not and that's ok with me.


Misidentifications likely make up the largest portion of those reports. Chinese Dragons likely came from early discoveries of fossil beds/bones IMO. I haven't heard any reports of those creatures being sighted in KY. Bigfoot sightings (or creatures exactly matching their description)seem to be fairly common though.
Chris B.

This post tells me that Chris B. is absolutely trolling us, and does not believe a thing he is saying.

 

[Resume]

This post tells me that Chris B. is absolutely trolling us, and does not believe a thing he is saying.

Somehow, it seemed legit (but daft) when I replied at 1:30 this A.M.