Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Any Bigfoot believers out there?

Well said. I try to stay open-minded on such things. On the lighter side, I know that my hunting partner has very large feet and he also has a squash patch in a raised bed.

I think thats what you really meant to say.

I will believe it when I see it (dead or alive).

Saw one in a Wonderbread store around 1982 - my son (who was 3 at the time) pointed and said "daddy, what is that"? I was at a loss to identify it as wholly human.

Just thinking this through, but how many dead bears have you run across, that died of natural causes? How many do you think you'd run across if there were only maybe a few thousand in the whole United States? Do most bears die/sh*t in the woods, or in the middle of the road/trail? If there were 10x, 100x, 1000x as many bears as bigfoot, how many bigfoot bones/scats would you find on the road/trail compared to as many as you've found of bears?

If an animal shares a habitat, say Bigfoot shares habitat with bears, deer, elk, etc and has to eat the same food would you think their "dump" would look significantly different than the other animals it's sharing it's habitat with? Who's to say you haven't stepped over a broken Bigfoot rib bone or scat and just thought it was something else? So, say there is no reason you wouldn't find Bigfoot bones or scats, say you would absolutely see them, if only once or twice based on how many other animal bones/scats you see, would you know the difference between a known animal and a Bigfoot bone or scat?

Also, there have been hair, scats, footprints, broken trees, bedding areas (and more) not easily attributed to other animals (which isn't to say it's an unknown primate), so there is physical evidence, just not indisputable physical evidence.

Most of the believers are Obama supporters. Otherwise they wouldn't have put a big foot in the white house.

Well, I don't believe they're possible, contrary to what some folks say.

Evidence of them is not existant, for one thing. Second, for a population to thrive, need quite a few numbers to breed, etc. And living in numbers, they would be more widely seen.

Third, not enough wild food where they're supposed to live. Wild plants don't have much nutrients, and so herbivores need to eat most of their waking hours. Game, well....no other ape is carnivorous, although some [bleep] will occasionaly eat meat. No other ape is a hunter, they don't go far from home but stay secluded where plants and fruits ARE plentiful. And that being the case, the area where they're reported simply has too many people walking about to not see them, their sign, crap, or whatever.

Fourth, there is no fossil record of any apes in either of the Americas, N. or S. Monkeys, yes; apes, no. So if an ape were to come to N. America, it would have to migrate there thru Siberia, which has been frigid always. An unshod animal like an ape simply couldn't make it. Takes a hoof to go that way.

And last, there ain't no bigfoot.

I remember when I was a PV2 in the Army, going to bed with Vanna White, but waking up with Bigfoot once or twice. ya didn't have to be 21 in Louisiana when i was a Private.

Gotta believe in something, I choose Bigfoot.

I'm not a believer, I'm a skeptic with an open mind. So, just to keep this going a little longer...



Evidence and proof are two very different things. There is hair, scat, footprints, witness sightings, bedding areas, photos, video evidence, scientific reconstruction and analysis supporting an animal outside the range of human height/weight. Evidence is there, proof is not.



How many would be needed? If that number were compared to the numbers of other woods animals what would be the expectation of them being seen? Would it be widely seen, or seen in far fewer numbers than you think? If you'd expect to see them, how do you handle the thousands of witness sightings and reports? Are there not enough witness sightings or do you discount them for some obvious reason?



Primates are hunters, apes/[bleep]. Are there not fruits/vegetables in the woods? What if Bigfoot is similar to a [bleep] or a human (remember humans are primates too)? Why would Bigfoot, living in the same woods as a bear or an elk or a deer not eat something similar? If the woods can support elk why can they not support Bigfoot? Do elk eat a lot of meat, and if not, why think Bigfoot would need to eat more than the other woods-animal? There are a lot of people that have never seen a bear in the woods. There are many that wouldn't have seen them if they weren't baited. Most people stay on established trails. Is that the best place to see a large animal? You say apes "stay secluded where plants and fruits ARE plentiful". Is that the best place for people to see them, or would they be less likely to be seen if what you say is true?



No fossil record, good point. If the ape had to migrate through Siberia, which is frigid, is it less likely to have made it than humans? How did other primates get to the Americas (NA/SA)? How did the monkeys get to S. America? How did humans get to the Americas? Would another primate, Bigfoot, be less likely to make it than humans, hoofed animals?



Good point, hard to argue with that

Seems to me that with all the hiking,camping, hunting and especially the logging going on in the PNW for all these years, that if one did exist, someone would have found some evidence.
Not saying they don't exist, but----

Do you not think hair, scat, photos, prints, and witnesses are evidence, or, did you not know this evidence was out there? Do you not consider it evidence? Is evidence proof, or does evidence support a conclusion?

Not saying they exist, but there is some information out there supporting people's claims.

Are you being serious or playing along?

If you are serious, I didn't know such evidence existed either.

I'm being serious; however, when DNA analysis is done it means the thing being analyzed is compared to what's already known. So, you find a hair, have it analyzed and get a response of 'didn't come back as anything already in the database'. Well, does that mean it was Bigfoot? No, it doesn't mean that to me, but it does to some people. Means to me that it could have been contaminated, or it could be a new species, but it's not specific enough for me. So, you find scat that doesn't appear to be bear. Do DNA analysis on it and find it to be too degraded to be properly tested. What if it had a bacteria or parasite in it that bears don't carry? Well, some people would say, yep it's Bigfoot.

There are hundreds if not thousands of prints throughout the United States. There are tree breaks that don't appear to be weather related or rubs from deer or elk. There are witnesses in every state except Hawaii. There are photos from several states. There is even someone that's found the same print (as far as he can tell the same individual) hundreds of miles away. He collects prints from the Sierra Nevadas in California and has found several prints, several hundreds of miles apart that appear to be from the same thing.

What's all that mean, I don't know. It doesn't mean to me that there is an unknown primate in the US, but it's evidence to support a conclusion. I don't think it's the right evidence to support the conclusion there is a Bigfoot, but some people do.

Dr. Jeff Meldrum wrote a book, Legend Meets Science, which doesn't answer the question for me, but it does for some people. There's a lot of evidence out there, and some would say there is a preponderence of the evidence to support it's a real animal. I need a little more.

Edited to add: I've found tracks, human shaped tracks that were about 17" long and walked down an embankment. I also found a track near a creek that looked a lot my own foot, but bigger. What's that mean? Maybe someone bigger than me was walking around barefoot in the middle of the woods where I hadn't seen a 4wheeler track or signs of any other humans

I have an open mind on the subject. I have seen one instance of scat in a dirt road in Northern California that I took for a broken limb until I saw it after someone had run across it and broke it up. whatever it came from had to be huge.
I have never seen anything that looked like a big foot but have had some strange things happen,
One afternoon and evening in particular had a series of unusual happenings that ended with something rocking my truck while I was sleeping in it.
Since it was pitch black outside and I had several rifles with me I decided it was safer not to go outside and investigate.

Santa, the tooth fairy, and the Easter Bunny all confirm the existence of Bigfoot.

If there is any evidence of an unknown species in N. America collected by anyone which would stand up to critical analysis, it would unleash a brigade of zoologists and biologists roaming the woods, eager to make a career by finding such an animal.

Evidence to that effect doesn't exist. Except, I'm sorry to say, on "Monster Quest" on the History Channel.

that's just uncalled for.

hurtful, hurt my feeling. I'm filling out a hurt feelings report right now, that'll learn ya. Meaner.

Yeah, well, did ya have to use my trailer hitch?

I think most doctors (PhD) would not jump on a bandwagon, but would look at the evidence with skepticism and would not spend their own money on the subject. I doubt it's easy to get a grant to study something that you can't prove exists. That being said, I somewhat agree, that the evidence to date hasn't stood up to critical analysis. Some of the evidence stands up to some of the critical analysis, but I don't think everyone accepts the conclusion, Bigfoot. I think the conclusions are inconclusive, something, but what can't be absolutely defined without a body.

There are doctors who are looking at the subject, Dr. Bindernagel, Dr. Meldrum, Dr. Krantz (dead), Dr. Eisner (these are just a few). Even Jane Goodall, who has a lot of primate experience, has made more than one reference to the existence of Bigfoot being plausible. Most of the "doctors" from which I've read or heard something stated said there must be a body to explain the evidence collected and without a body the evidence cannot/will not stand on it's own. That's probably true of almost any animal cataloged though, that without the body there won't be an acceptance of it regardless of the evidence and regardless of the critical analysis of the evidence presented. What exists without being able to see/touch it? Even then, someone can see it, but it doesn't prove it exists for others (there are thousands of sightings of Bigfoot but it doesn't prove anything to those that don't accept those witness sightings as fact/proof).

Edited to add Jane Goodalls recent interview on NPR by Frank Sesno (I believe Sept 9 2009):

"FS: Question here from James, who writes here in email to drshowwamu.org. Here we go... "You are quoted on an NPR Show a few years ago noting that you either believed that bigfoot type creatures could exist in certain areas in the US, or around the world,.. or that you would not be surprised to find they existed. Could you explain further about this issue?" ... Bigfoot? I didn't see a chapter on bigfoot in your book?

JG: No I didn't write about bigfoot in the book. But I'm asked questions about my belief in bigfoots all the time. Or sasquatch, or yowee of Austrailia, or the abominable snowman, the yeti, different names all over the place. I cannot believe that the descriptions of these creatures around the world would be so similar if there wasn't something. My scientific mind says, well it's very strange that there aren't any remains, if these creatures exist. But on the other hand, logic says, well its all over the place.

Now my best story comes from Ecuador, from the middle of nowhere. And I was there with some villagers actually introducing "Roots and Shoots" in the middle of nowhere. It took two hours of flying, no roads and the little communities maintain contact because the hunters would go like the old traveling troubadours and they would take the news. So I asked the interpreter. I said, will you ask some of these hunters? Ask in the villages. All I said was, "Have you seen a monkey walking upright?" No more than that.

And much later I got the answer that in three of the little villages people said, "Oh yes. There's a monkey that walks upright. It has no tail. It's about seven foot high.

FS: Ookaaay. And from that you conclude?

JG: Well, from that I conclude that, you know, these people have no vested interest. There was no, "Oh, she wants to hear that there was bigfoot."

FS: But what happens to your scientific mind, like you say, you know. If there were something that huge and had been around for a while, wouldn't someone find a remain, or a bone, or something?

JG: Not if they are of an advanced enough level that they actually understand and can bury their dead. You don't actually find - talking to hunters - you don't find like dead bears around very often. You don't find dead mountain lions and that sort of thing.

FS: So you're a believer? Agnostic? Where... where are you?

JG: I'm... I have an open mind. I'm a romantic. I want them to be there. I'm not going to say they're not there. Absolutely, I think they might be."

She's better versed in primates than I am.