PDA

View Full Version : Is Bigfoot real


kokyuio
December 7th, 2007, 02:33 PM
lets ponder on for days and days

personly i think hes real because of the patterson video and even holiwoods best costume designers could not remake a costume to look as real as that

Gummy
December 7th, 2007, 02:36 PM
He may have been real once upon a time but personally, I think he's either made up or extinct. All these pictures are from the era when cameras sucked. Now when we can take pics in Hi-def and what not, no one seems to be finding Big Foot.

kokyuio
December 7th, 2007, 02:38 PM
the patterson video may not be hi def buts its pretty convincing

Shiny Umbreon
December 7th, 2007, 02:55 PM
It might have existed, but not now. Don't you think they would find it easily with all the stuff there is now, such as satellites? It's easier to find than a ghost or an alien, at least. >_>

Jaimes
December 7th, 2007, 02:56 PM
personly i think hes real because of the patterson video and even holiwoods best costume designers could not remake a costume to look as real as that

What the hell? you mean http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/25/Smalfut.jpg/200px-Smalfut.jpg
It depends on your concept of 'real' - the quality is awful it's probably a guy in a monkey costume.. =/

It's about as convincing as a bad quality Dr Who villain. If he is around then he's lived well over centuries then how? Does it have a mate? If not why hasn't his primate like hair changed colour? There is a massive lack of evidence.

It can't be an evolved species because there are no primates living in North America. Giving the history of hoaxes, false claims and illogical arguments, I firmly believe that Bigfoot doesn't exist

kokyuio
December 7th, 2007, 02:59 PM
you can believe that but i still believe its real

p.s. shiny umbreon r u allowed to post youtube links i wanna sow you some gd bigfoot clips

What the hell? you mean http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/25/Smalfut.jpg/200px-Smalfut.jpg
It depends on your concept of 'real' - the quality is awful it could be a guy in a monkey costume.. =/

It's about as convincing as a bad quality Dr Who villain. If he is around then he's lived well over centuries then how? Does it have a mate? If not why hasn't his primate like hair changed colour? There is a massive lack of evidence.

It can't be an evolved species because there are no primates living in North America. Giving the history of hoaxes, false claims and illogical arguments, I firmly believe that Bigfoot doesn't exist

MONKEY costumes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! holywoods best costume designers could not make a costume nowhere near as good as tht and dont say they could because they already treid and failed

Chikara
December 7th, 2007, 03:00 PM
Well... it's hard not to believe in it o.o'

People fins like... proof and... stuff that he's out there. I personally don't care at all, but people have found some suspicious things that could have been stages, but It would have been hard to do it >>

Chibi-chan
December 7th, 2007, 03:04 PM
I don't believe that Bigfoot is real.
It was a good prank though.

I do believe in the Yeti though.

Jaimes
December 7th, 2007, 03:05 PM
MONKEY costumes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! holywoods best costume designers could not make a costume nowhere near as good as tht and dont say they could because they already treid and failed

Source please... lets not throw around random statements and pretend they're facts.. As good as that? you can make out no detail whatsoever! =/

Also King Kong costume 1962, a guy in monkey suit:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/154/429037278_c1a8136788.jpg
Thats 5yrs before and if you think that video is 'real', don't watch Godzilla XD

kokyuio
December 7th, 2007, 03:06 PM
I don't believe that Bigfoot is real.
It was a good prank though.

I do believe in the Yeti though.


bigfoot,yeti,loch ness monster and the beast of bobmim more i belive in them all
____________________________________________________________________________

jwilso you think youre funny but im gonna wipe tht smile off your face but am i aloud to post youtube links here??????

Jaimes
December 7th, 2007, 03:11 PM
bigfoot,yeti,loch ness monster and the beast of bobmim more i belive in them all
____________________________________________________________________________

jwilso you think youre funny but im gonna wipe tht smile off your face but am i aloud to post youtube links here??????

4 age old stories/ crypto animals - with associated hoaxes for all of them, lack of reliable evidence or a logical reason at least. Could you at least explain why you believe them?

Yep, I'm the comedian of the website it would seem. Wipe my smile and every other skeptics smile away with your lack of proof. ^_^

Chibi-chan
December 7th, 2007, 03:14 PM
bigfoot,yeti,loch ness monster and the beast of bobmim more i belive in them all
____________________________________________________________________________

jwilso you think youre funny but im gonna wipe tht smile off your face but am i aloud to post youtube links here??????



You're allowed to post appropriate Youtube links D:

Loch Ness...I'm sorta doubting. These things are fun to think about, but obsessing, like obsessing always is, isn't what myths are made for. I don't think people should dedicate their lives to find the Loch Ness and Bigfoot and yadda yadda.

kokyuio
December 7th, 2007, 03:15 PM
just watch this

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YktEWmLVTvM&feature=related

p.s. i have more dont think im finshed!!!!!!!!!!

(ps its in html so you can read the whole thing)

Erimgard
December 7th, 2007, 03:21 PM
I'll check out the vid later, not really in the mood right now
But I voted no, I don't believe in bigfoot

kokyuio
December 7th, 2007, 03:24 PM
you voted you dont believe and you havent even seen tht one

Erimgard
December 7th, 2007, 03:29 PM
you voted you dont believe and you havent even seen tht one
Alright I watched it
I've seen it before. It doesn't really do much to change my mind. It's possible that they exist...but I doubt it. It doesn't change my vote

kokyuio
December 7th, 2007, 03:31 PM
ok youre title to your opion im gonna post another vid soon

_______________________________

my last vid i gotta go but just watch it!!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-4y5q31y6XA&feature=related

Erimgard
December 7th, 2007, 03:45 PM
that video didn't look realistic at all

destinedjagold
December 7th, 2007, 03:49 PM
Big Foot, Nessie, dragons, they're all myths to my opinion, for they need hard proof for all the people in the face of the planet to believe. I'm with Erimgard, though.

Jaimes
December 7th, 2007, 04:05 PM
In response to your first video: lack of things to disprove it does not act as 'evidence' of it's existence. So what if a costume has never been found? Well obviously the owner hid it :S
or the true owner never admitted to it either.
Also what's the reliability of the information on the video? totally unreliable. There is no source saying that 'Hollywood couldn't make a good monkey costume' elsewhere... It seems like some sort of Bigfoot believer propaganda.
Making a costume is like making a complex sculpture, for a perfect replica would also be difficult.


The second one... WHAT THE!?! HAVE YOU SEEN THE POSTER'S OTHER VIDEO? He finds the 'shot bigfoot'- which ironically he films and a nice clean Chewbacca costume is clearly evident. Besides it looks completely different from the PG vid (video 1 did say that a costume would be hard to copy after all). Also the dimensions are colour differ to PGs.
Sorry, but if you think all the videos on Youtube are true because they say they are and they acts as 'evidence'.. then you are very, very ignorant.

FireEagleDeWitt
December 7th, 2007, 04:50 PM
Lol, all right, any of you people actually seen BigFoot? because I have and he's not that bad. I seen him walking in my back yard and I'm a national forest I have been in and I'm not scared and not pussy enough to touch it. SO! on that note, BigFoot is really real.

Azonic
December 7th, 2007, 06:50 PM
I'm not sure. I'm leaning towards yes because the character isn't too exaggurated but I have no proof ><;

kokyuio
December 8th, 2007, 03:22 AM
In response to your first video: lack of things to disprove it does not act as 'evidence' of it's existence. So what if a costume has never been found? Well obviously the owner hid it :S
or the true owner never admitted to it either.
Also what's the reliability of the information on the video? totally unreliable. There is no source saying that 'Hollywood couldn't make a good monkey costume' elsewhere... It seems like some sort of Bigfoot believer propaganda.
Making a costume is like making a complex sculpture, for a perfect replica would also be difficult.


The second one... WHAT THE!?! HAVE YOU SEEN THE POSTER'S OTHER VIDEO? He finds the 'shot bigfoot'- which ironically he films and a nice clean Chewbacca costume is clearly evident. Besides it looks completely different from the PG vid (video 1 did say that a costume would be hard to copy after all). Also the dimensions are colour differ to PGs.
Sorry, but if you think all the videos on Youtube are true because they say they are and they acts as 'evidence'.. then you are very, very ignorant.
if you dont think the first video is a bunch of lies search up bbcs 1998 recreation of bigfoot thats the video in which all the money was spent

______________________________________
if you really want to be smart and look like you know everything read this WHOLE page.(reading only parts of it suggestes tht it is fake but reading it all and you will see!!!)
http://bigfoot.itgo.com/bbcpackham.htm

Jaimes
December 8th, 2007, 05:20 AM
if you dont think the first video is a bunch of lies search up bbcs 1998 recreation of bigfoot thats the video in which all the money was spent

______________________________________
if you really want to be smart and look like you know everything read this WHOLE page.(reading only parts of it suggestes tht it is fake but reading it all and you will see!!!)
http://bigfoot.itgo.com/bbcpackham.htm

Actually yes, the statement about 'Hollywood couldn't make a good suit' is false. The 1960's Planet of the Apes & King Kong vs Godvilla clearly show that. Also the detail & quality is much better of a film on a screen than from a shaken up, slowed down hand camera. Just because you reminded me of the 1 single example that video showed, it's far from convincing. =/

Evidently the one who is not smart is you, because it seems if anthing, YOU failed to read the whole article yourself.
It points out that the programme is aimed as entertainment not, as evidence.
If you read the article, it claims that the BBC suit WAS a monkey costume, not provided by the BBC. The investigation was to compare movements, the camera type, speed and blur which matched the PGs. It was not to create an identical. ¬_¬

If anything the article simply plays doubt on a TV show aimed to capture audiences. ....So how is this proof for Bigfoot? It's not.
Also this page is a fan-site and lacks any credible sources. >_>


Since we're on terms of showing each other links that we can Google as evidence, then why not read Wikipedia's article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson-Gimlin_film), which is unbiased and DOES cite respectable sources - only if 'you want to be smart' that is. Evidently the facts cast doubt on the PG film.

Rather than copying + pasting a link to the next biased website, why not type out and explain your points? I'm getting bored of reading the awful 'evidence' you're repeatedly presenting. ^_^

Nuke
December 8th, 2007, 05:32 AM
Bigfoot cant be alive now,

if he exised in the first place he would be dead by now.

Zet
December 8th, 2007, 06:30 AM
I'll believe in bigfoot when all the fake photos and footage turn out to be real

Zanacross
December 8th, 2007, 06:47 AM
Bones

We need to find the bones from another Bigfoot first that would give us the dna to prove he exist's but no bones no bigfoot

The Shadow
December 8th, 2007, 07:07 AM
Big foot is just a myth that people created to scare people.

End of topic.

Zanacross
December 8th, 2007, 07:15 AM
He wasnt made to scare people he was made to make it look like the people had made a discoverie

The Shadow
December 8th, 2007, 07:23 AM
The studying of myths such as big foot is known as cryptology's. (Cryptid)

Jessie
December 8th, 2007, 10:07 AM
Personally, I think he's real. I mean, why not? There could be several of them. It is absolutely possible. Just because we haven't found one yet doesn't mean they aren't real. I know a few years ago a fisherman caught a fish that was thought to be extinct millions of years ago. And what about sharks and alligators? They've survived. It could very possibly be some sort of prehistoric ape. However, I do think the Paterson video is a hoax. I also think it's very possible that the Paterson people DID see big foot, no one believed them and then they tried to re-create what they saw. Just a thought though.

I also believe in the Yeti and the Loch Ness Monster.

Merzbau
December 8th, 2007, 10:40 AM
Personally, I think he's real. I mean, why not? There could be several of them. It is absolutely possible. Just because we haven't found one yet doesn't mean they aren't real. I know a few years ago a fisherman caught a fish that was thought to be extinct millions of years ago. And what about sharks and alligators? They've survived. It could very possibly be some sort of prehistoric ape. However, I do think the Paterson video is a hoax. I also think it's very possible that the Paterson people DID see big foot, no one believed them and then they tried to re-create what they saw. Just a thought though.

I also believe in the Yeti and the Loch Ness Monster.

Coelacanth is the fish you're looking for.

Previously undiscovered megafauna, especially in the water, are common. Giant squid, colossal squid, the megamouth shark, etc.

So I don't see why it wouldn't be similar on land. There are miles of jungles left unexplored and if these things are really as related to man and primates as is said, then they could be smart enough to stay out of sight, maybe.

It's probably just a matter of time before a photo or something turns up that is able to be proven.

Jaimes
December 8th, 2007, 10:53 AM
;3152845']
So I don't see why it wouldn't be similar on land. There are miles of jungles left unexplored and if these things are really as related to man and primates as is said, then they could be smart enough to stay out of sight, maybe.

The oceans takes up 3/4 of the planet and most of it is over 4000m deep. Also people don't live in the ocean.. =/
I reckon there's loads of stuff we haven't found yet...

Comparing this scenario to being unable to find Bigfoot in a forest in North British Columbia seems pretty out of proportion.
If Bigfoot was around-then he must have been around for centruries (somewhat unlikely for a mammal) or have a large enough number of it's own species for it to find and reproduce with.

C.J.
December 8th, 2007, 12:43 PM
I think he's real from stories I've heard and tv shows I've watched.

Umanouski
December 8th, 2007, 12:45 PM
could Bigfoot possible be a ursaring?

The Shadow
December 8th, 2007, 01:00 PM
could Bigfoot possible be a ursaring?

Come on now. Use some common sense.

Amachi
December 8th, 2007, 06:33 PM
could Bigfoot possible be a ursaring?
Be more sensible. People are trying to have a serious discussion (more or less) here, and then you come and try to ruin it.

Amazonite
December 8th, 2007, 07:53 PM
I believe Bigfoot is a fathom of the imagination of some visitor in Yellowstone or whatever those Wyoming national parks are, and after taking a picture of a bear or someone else, they easily mistook it for this beast. This of course is an opinion.

Umanouski
December 8th, 2007, 08:51 PM
Ok, i have to redeem myself here. I think he's more than a figment of our imagination. I'll try to explain myself here. If you look into the SCIENTIFIC past of humanity, we evolved from apes, therefore, have a connection to modern day primates. Therefore, it is a reasonable assumption to say there is something like Bigfoot that has existed or still does exist today. However, if you again look at human history, modern-day humans came over the beiring strait. So therefore it is ALSO reasonable to say it is NOT in North America, but somewhere in Asia and Africa and so forth. But all the evidence pointing to the fact he is here, how? Thats what argues well with my point, but i don't see any other solution. All land-life came over from Asia, and more or less evolved here, save vegetation. So, stories such as Bigfoot and the Abominable Snowman are quite possibly true. I just think its over in Asia and Africa.

Happy Dude
December 8th, 2007, 10:14 PM
Mkay.

All we have to Prove Bigfoot are a bunch of Footprints....Which could easily be faked I actually read an article a few weeks ago which had interviews of people who admitted making "bigfoot" Footprints. (I'll see if I can find the link if anyone cares)

Next all we have are a bunch of shaky/ pictures of Bigfoot which we can't see well enough in detail to prove he exsists.

Also like my first point...."Bigfoot" has became so famous that people have actually dressed up as him and started running around to try and prove the myth. Once again I remember seeing an article on this.

You can post all the Biast Video's and pictures you want. But in actual Fact we have no solid proof he exsists.

Untill I see some TRUE evidence I will think it was a well done Hoax.

Thanks,

latioslegends
December 8th, 2007, 10:59 PM
Well I whatch the history channel about things like this so I sort of believe he exists. But I do have doubts, cause of all the fake video, and such. Also the fact all repoted sightings (which can be very easily be fake) start coming in, after the patterson video.

kokyuio
December 9th, 2007, 02:52 AM
Actually yes, the statement about 'Hollywood couldn't make a good suit' is false. The 1960's Planet of the Apes & King Kong vs Godvilla clearly show that. Also the detail & quality is much better of a film on a screen than from a shaken up, slowed down hand camera. Just because you reminded me of the 1 single example that video showed, it's far from convincing. =/

Evidently the one who is not smart is you, because it seems if anthing, YOU failed to read the whole article yourself.

It points out that the programme is aimed as entertainment not, as evidence.
If you read the article, it claims that the BBC suit WAS a monkey costume, not provided by the BBC. The investigation was to compare movements, the camera type, speed and blur which matched the PGs. It was not to create an identical. ¬_¬If anything the article simply plays doubt on a TV show aimed to capture audiences. ....So how is this proof for Bigfoot? It's not.
Also this page is a fan-site and lacks any credible sources. >_>


Since we're on terms of showing each other links that we can Google as evidence, then why not read Wikipedia's article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson-Gimlin_film), which is unbiased and DOES cite respectable sources - only if 'you want to be smart' that is. Evidently the facts cast doubt on the PG film.

Rather than copying + pasting a link to the next biased website, why not type out and explain your points? I'm getting bored of reading the awful 'evidence' you're repeatedly presenting. ^_^

if you read the whole SECOUND article it tells you how the packmans missproof of bigfoot is a hoax he promised bbc that if he got to have the money for the show he would DEFINATLY prove bigfoot wrong he failed and faked that he had suceeded so if the only evidence on your side is a scam than how are we having this dabate when there are so many sightings and videos on my side of the argument!!!!

Ok, i have to redeem myself here. I think he's more than a figment of our imagination. I'll try to explain myself here. If you look into the SCIENTIFIC past of humanity, we evolved from apes, therefore, have a connection to modern day primates. Therefore, it is a reasonable assumption to say there is something like Bigfoot that has existed or still does exist today. However, if you again look at human history, modern-day humans came over the beiring strait. So therefore it is ALSO reasonable to say it is NOT in North America, but somewhere in Asia and Africa and so forth. But all the evidence pointing to the fact he is here, how? Thats what argues well with my point, but i don't see any other solution. All land-life came over from Asia, and more or less evolved here, save vegetation. So, stories such as Bigfoot and the Abominable Snowman are quite possibly true. I just think its over in Asia and Africa.

as soon as you find a snowy mountain in asia or africa for yeti (abominable snowman) to live in then that statement would of made sense

MASTrader
December 9th, 2007, 03:00 AM
My guess is it's fake. Those rumors were proved wrong years ago if you haven't notcied. the only thing to be discovered are U.F.Os.

kokyuio
December 9th, 2007, 03:08 AM
Bones

We need to find the bones from another Bigfoot first that would give us the dna to prove he exist's but no bones no bigfoot

althought bones would not be good sign because it means one has died but ues it would be awesome if some did show up if you ever heard of the megalondon its the biggest shark that ever lived recently (around 1990) we found a big set of fossileised megalondon jawbones it took us around a million years to find the bones i know the ocean is alot bigger but people are already jumping to conclusions after only 40 years!!!

Bigfoot cant be alive now,

if he exised in the first place he would be dead by now.

the first ever sighting of bigfoot was in 1967 and now its 2007 bigfoot is beleived to be a decendant of humans ,humans can live far past 40 years

My guess is it's fake. Those rumors were proved wrong years ago if you haven't notcied. the only thing to be discovered are U.F.Os.

i challenge you to place one bit of proof that completely disproves bigfoot

Jaimes
December 9th, 2007, 03:49 AM
althought bones would not be good sign because it means one has died but ues it would be awesome if some did show up if you ever heard of the megalondon its the biggest shark that ever lived recently (around 1990) we found a big set of fossileised megalondon jawbones it took us around a million years to find the bones i know the ocean is alot bigger but people are already jumping to conclusions after only 40 years!!!
MegaLondon - that's where I live! ^^

Comparing being unable to find a fossil in the ocean to being unable to find the remains of a creature in a forest in America is ridiculous. Forests can be explored easily, whereas the ocean can't.
On the other hand, there is substantial fossil, scientific and logical evidence to prove that there has been an existence of Megalodons. However they have not been rediscovered in the past centrury - it appears you again just made up that 1990 bit. Nice one.


the first ever sighting of bigfoot was in 1967 and now its 2007 bigfoot is beleived to be a decendant of humans ,humans can live far past 40 years

Shows how much you know then.. =/
Bigfoot sightings have been reported back since the 19th centrury by Native Americans. The next sighting by a caucasion was in 1870. There's a list here, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot#Alleged_Bigfoot_sightings) you might want to do some of your own research before believing in mythology.
Eitherway, a human can not evolve within the small span of 1000 years to some hairy gorilla costume. Apes also originate from Asia/Africa and not America, so it can't have already been there. Mammals also can't live for 200 years as well. drat.

If it had a 'family' then that would mean that it had enough members of it's own species for it to find and breed with, a single mate would massively increase the chances of discovery (mates, parents, offspring, fossils, bones etc.) but nope still no evidence..

i challenge you to place one bit of proof that completely disproves bigfoot
I challenge you to place one bit of proof that completely proves Bigfoot
I also challenge you to place one bit of proof to disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Just because you can't disprove something doesn't prove it's existence.

kokyuio
December 9th, 2007, 03:56 AM
ok then were stuck you cant completely disprove bigfoot and i cant completly prove bigfoot

Jaimes
December 9th, 2007, 04:08 AM
if you read the whole SECOUND article it tells you how the packmans missproof of bigfoot is a hoax he promised bbc that if he got to have the money for the show he would DEFINATLY prove bigfoot wrong he failed and faked that he had suceeded so if the only evidence on your side is a scam than how are we having this dabate when there are so many sightings and videos on my side of the argument!!!!
Your kidding right? The bottom of the 2nd article are comments sent in. ¬_¬
Your evidence of 'many sightings and videos' are all non credible sources- and there are about 10 sightings and still no hard proof. I don't care if the BBC show was crap or not, it doesn't show that your fantasy ape exists.


ok then were stuck you cant completely disprove bigfoot and i cant completly prove bigfoot

However, if it did exist it WOULD have left evidence for its existence or at least be consistent in with scientific facts? That is how we know dinosaurs used to exist - they left bones and whatnot to prove it.
Your Bigfoot has not a reliable shred of evidence despite being in a habital region, has a history of hoaxes and is scientifically inconsistent with zoology and phlogeny.

Believing in something that can't be proved, but also defies common sense is totally illogical and at times dangerous. ¬_¬
Although most of the users here are pretty young, I'm still quite worried about 35% of the voters believe in him.

I guess you really wiped the smile of my face in this thread. ^_^

kokyuio
December 9th, 2007, 04:43 AM
.


However, if it did exist it WOULD have left evidence for its existence or at least be consistent in with scientific facts? That is how we know dinosaurs used to exist - they left bones and whatnot to prove it.
Your Bigfoot has not a reliable shred of evidence despite being in a habital region, has a history of hoaxes and is scientifically inconsistent with zoology and phlogeny.

Believing in something that can't be proved, but also defies common sense is totally illogical and at times dangerous. ¬_¬
Although most of the users here are pretty young, I'm still quite worried about 35% of the voters believe in him.

I guess you really wiped the smile of my face in this thread. ^_^
ok be happy that a 12 year old is competeing with you in a dabate and doing extremley well because bigfoot is one of the things i actually know stuff about i spend all my ict lessons looking him up and also how is it danegerous beliveing in him????
and it does not defy common sense because many things where considerd as
myths before they found proof exsample around where i live there is a river and many people reported seeing a crocodile where i live you dont find crocodiles but a fisher man actually caught it and it came out someone had released a pet crocodile so like now how do you know that someone wont catch bigfoot and i personally beleive someone will and when they do i will make a new theard just to say that you jwilso was wrong and untill you have hard evidence that bigfoot does not exsist i will always beleive in him.

Zanacross
December 9th, 2007, 05:08 AM
Its just a shame you cant type in paragraphs

Your a bit sad looking him up all it lesson.
Bigfoot doesnt exist. we would of found him using a thing called satellites. Or we would of found bones from another foot surely?

Find me the satellite pics and bones i will believe you

kokyuio
December 9th, 2007, 05:15 AM
Its just a shame you cant type in paragraphs

Your a bit sad looking him up all it lesson.
Bigfoot doesnt exist. we would of found him using a thing called satellites. Or we would of found bones from another foot surely?

Find me the satellite pics and bones i will believe you

althought there is no solid proof of bigfoot i still believe in him after all there is a lot a evidence that he lives e.g many videos that have not been proved wrong so with non-solid but quite stable evidence that he lives i will always believe in him the only way i wouldnt believe in him is if someone proved every single video and pictures wrong and all the people who say they saw bigfoot took the lye detector test and they where lying then and only then would i not believe in bigfoot!!

Mkay.

All we have to Prove Bigfoot are a bunch of Footprints....Which could easily be faked I actually read an article a few weeks ago which had interviews of people who admitted making "bigfoot" Footprints.1) (I'll see if I can find the link if anyone cares)

Next all we have are a bunch of shaky/ pictures of Bigfoot which we can't see well enough in detail to prove he exsists.

Also like my first point...."Bigfoot" has became so famous that people have actually dressed up as him and started running around to try and prove the myth. Once again I remember seeing an article on this.

You can post all the Biast Video's and pictures you want. But in actual Fact we have no solid proof he exsists.

2)Untill I see some TRUE evidence I will think it was a well done Hoax.

Thanks,
1) yes all links that would help us in this dabate
2)there is no evidence he exsists but no evidence he dont exsist

Jaimes
December 9th, 2007, 06:08 AM
ok be happy that a 12 year old is competeing with you in a dabate and doing extremley well because bigfoot is one of the things i actually know stuff about i spend all my ict lessons looking him up and also how is it danegerous beliveing in him????

Your competing? I don't think this is much of a competition =/
Trust me, I don't think you're doing well at all.. You haven't brought up a single good point that has given me a shred of conviction or which hasn't already been easily countered. Your 'facts' are either made up, unreliable or just plain silly.

The fact that you claimed "the first ever sighting of bigfoot was in 1967" really says it all about you knowing the subject- because... no it wasn't.. there is historical proof to show claims were made before this. If you got this simple fact wrong, then what else do you incorrectly know about him?
Also you made up the Megalodon 'rediscovery' date... And the second video you posted was a total joke (the Youtube poster even showed us).. I reckon if you believed that, you'd probably believe anything..
Oh dear.. =D

Extreme belief and the rejection of common sense can be obsessive and a danger to other people. There's probably someone spending all their life searching for Bigfoot and evidence and are just wasting their life away, when they could be helping someone. Another extreme example would be terrorists who believe that martydom will bring them to heaven, similarly, there is no proof/disproof but lots of logical reasons why this isn't so.

Also you should be doing your ICT in an ICT lesson. School is for studying and getting educated rather than memorising myths. I am not impressed... ¬_¬

and it does not defy common sense because many things where considerd as myths before they found proof exsample around where i live there is a river and many people reported seeing a crocodile where i live
Yes it does defy common sense and is grossly inconsistent with scientific/historical evidence:

Firstly, an animal of humanoid size would leave some sort of identifiable evidence.
It is bipedal/humanoid and therefore can't move fast and is not adapated for flying/swimming across continents. If Bigfoot hasn't lived for centruries then there must be a large number to create a breeding group in the area, significantly increasing the likelihood of proof being found.
If it did evolve from humans, it must have done so in a very short number of years, as far as we know for a large mammal, this is impossible. As well as this, it must of had a breeding group.
If it's 'smart enough to hide' then why? It must have also gained this from evolution, requiring a massively large and diverse breeding group.
There are a history of hoaxes. Taking the PG film as an example of 'hard evidence', it brought fame and money to the filmers- giving a very sensible reason not to expose it. Eitherway there are still very few supposedly 'real' sightings.
Unlike the ocean, the forest and clearing can be explored rather easily, is close to human areas and technology allows us to keep a closer look at things.
No large primate fossil have ever been found in America. Primates live in tropics and Asia/Africa.
Native Americans may have created Bigfoot as a campfire story.. Like how we tell stories at Halloween..
Proposed extinct apes have been speculated as Bigfoot do not match the alleged sightings with fossil records. Also how could they survive for millions of years in small numbers? Again bring back the point that apes never lived in America in the first place..


Your croc example is totally irrelevant and is quite a possible situation. It's not as if anyone released a new species of hairy ape into a forest however =/

i personally beleive someone will and when they do i will make a new theard just to say that you jwilso was wrong and untill you have hard evidence that bigfoot does not exsist i will always beleive in him.
Go ahead.. I'll be waiting forever mind you XD
If you're so certain, we could always put a bet on it... I could make some easy money whilst you try to prove the impossible ^^


Edit: Awww booo..he got booted out. I was enjoying this thread >_>

Jordan
December 9th, 2007, 12:01 PM
Meh, I think bigfoot is simply an ape that is larger than average, not a new species.

Jordan.

Happy Dude
December 10th, 2007, 02:57 AM
Probably not worth going into posting my links of the article now since he isn't here anymore but Yes.

If there is no evidence that he is not a myth and is actually real does that Mean that I could say my modem grew ears and Is spying on everything I am saying something at the computer? I mean I can't prove my modem didn't grow ears But you can't prove my modem didn't grow ears. (weird example of randomness o.O)

But right in summary No I still think Bigfoot is fake and it is going to take more then some distorted pictures and faked movies to make me change my Mind.

~HD

Yingxue
December 11th, 2007, 09:46 AM
I personally do not believe Bigfoot is real. I just haven't been convinced. :I

DarkGreg
December 11th, 2007, 11:11 AM
He's not real, I mean, this was probably mentioned before but that picture could just be a man in a gorilla suit.

And tbh, I just don't believe.