Is Bigfoot real

[latioslegends]

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]

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. ^_^

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]

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]

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]

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, 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]

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

 

[Jaimes]

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]

.


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]

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]

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]

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]

Meh, I think bigfoot is simply an ape that is larger than average, not a new species.

Jordan.

 

[Happy Dude]

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]

I personally do not believe Bigfoot is real. I just haven't been convinced. :I

 

[DarkGreg]

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.