• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
    Register

Is Bigfoot real

is bigfoot real

  • yes

    Votes: 10 41.7%

  • no

    Votes: 14 58.3%
  • Total voters
    24
  • Poll closed .

FireEagleDeWitt

The Ghetto Soulja Boi
70
Posts
16
Years
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.
 

kokyuio

Banned
64
Posts
16
Years
  • Age 28
  • Seen Dec 10, 2007
jwilso72 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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!!!)
HTML: 
http://bigfoot.itgo.com/bbcpackham.htm
 
Last edited:

Jaimes

720
Posts
17
Years
  • Seen Jan 15, 2011
kokyuio said:
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!!!)
HTML: 
http://bigfoot.itgo.com/bbcpackham.htm
Click to expand...

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, 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. ^_^
 
Last edited:

Zanacross

1,118
Posts
17
Years
  • Age 118
  • Seen Jan 25, 2022
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
 

Zanacross

1,118
Posts
17
Years
  • Age 118
  • Seen Jan 25, 2022
He wasnt made to scare people he was made to make it look like the people had made a discoverie
 
Jessie

Jessie

Don't forget to be awesome.
1,038
Posts
16
Years
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

it's just a ride.
1,167
Posts
20
Years
icaica said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

720
Posts
17
Years
  • Seen Jan 15, 2011
[sugarPUNK!] said:

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

Amazonite

God's Loyal Servant
20
Posts
16
Years
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

1/2 of the NIWA Tag Team Champ
209
Posts
16
Years
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

Queen of the DDC.
2,823
Posts
19
Years
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,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top