Texas Star
US Veteran
The scary movie topic got me in mind of, "The Legend of Boggy Creek", a semi-documentary about a supposedly real Bigfoot that terrorized an area in East Texas. One victim of it was treated at a Texarkana hospital and some girls testified that it tried to get at them in a house trailer. Some very experienced hunting dogs that'd trail bears were afraid of it and refused to trail it.
I've read about these creatures for decades and the most compelling evidence, apart from eyewitness testimony from reliable observers is twofold: One, an Army CID lab examined a hair supposedly left by one and concluded that it was not from any known animal, certainly not from the US Pacific NW . Two: Some of the best tracks are so anatomically detailed and correct that a professional scientist said they'd probably be impossible to fake. And the proportions (different from humans) are right in line with what'd be expected of a heavy primate about nine feet tall.
Personally, I pretty much think they're real. The chimpanzee, the gorilla, and the okapi were all thought to be mythical until quite recent times. (Late 19th to early 20th Century.) Stories of tribal peoples in Asia and North America have described these animals for centuries; they aren't a recent hoax, and descriptions from widely seperated peoples are very similar. One young one was supposedly put aboard a Canadian train to be taken to a zoo and examined, but escaped.
I largely doubt the legend of the Nandi "bear", but I think the Bigfoot/Sasquatch is probably real.The comments about those detailed footprints was the clencher. It would indeed be almost impossible to duplicate/fake the whorls and ridges in the prints in mud just right to retain sharp impressions. And doing that would take a specialized primate anatomist to begin with. The prints are not just big human ones; the anatomy is different and just what a scientist familiar with primates of that size would expect. The hair examined by the CID is also strong evidence, as well as the more reliable sightings.
I'm sure this topic will draw the usual wiseacres, but try to be objective and realistic. Do you believe in Bigfoot, and why or why not?
BTW, I think the Nandi bear is probably a large hyena or solitary baboon seen at dusk or in other poor light. Supposedly, European settlers saw it as well as Nandi tribesmen in western Kenya in colonial days. You can Search for more info. It's pretty interesting.
I don't want to get into the Loch Ness and other lake monsters in this topic. They deserve a thread of their own.
Beware: if some of you spell like you often do, I'm going to take that as evidence that you may be Bigfoot and will send researchers to your homes.
I've read about these creatures for decades and the most compelling evidence, apart from eyewitness testimony from reliable observers is twofold: One, an Army CID lab examined a hair supposedly left by one and concluded that it was not from any known animal, certainly not from the US Pacific NW . Two: Some of the best tracks are so anatomically detailed and correct that a professional scientist said they'd probably be impossible to fake. And the proportions (different from humans) are right in line with what'd be expected of a heavy primate about nine feet tall.
Personally, I pretty much think they're real. The chimpanzee, the gorilla, and the okapi were all thought to be mythical until quite recent times. (Late 19th to early 20th Century.) Stories of tribal peoples in Asia and North America have described these animals for centuries; they aren't a recent hoax, and descriptions from widely seperated peoples are very similar. One young one was supposedly put aboard a Canadian train to be taken to a zoo and examined, but escaped.
I largely doubt the legend of the Nandi "bear", but I think the Bigfoot/Sasquatch is probably real.The comments about those detailed footprints was the clencher. It would indeed be almost impossible to duplicate/fake the whorls and ridges in the prints in mud just right to retain sharp impressions. And doing that would take a specialized primate anatomist to begin with. The prints are not just big human ones; the anatomy is different and just what a scientist familiar with primates of that size would expect. The hair examined by the CID is also strong evidence, as well as the more reliable sightings.
I'm sure this topic will draw the usual wiseacres, but try to be objective and realistic. Do you believe in Bigfoot, and why or why not?
BTW, I think the Nandi bear is probably a large hyena or solitary baboon seen at dusk or in other poor light. Supposedly, European settlers saw it as well as Nandi tribesmen in western Kenya in colonial days. You can Search for more info. It's pretty interesting.
I don't want to get into the Loch Ness and other lake monsters in this topic. They deserve a thread of their own.
Beware: if some of you spell like you often do, I'm going to take that as evidence that you may be Bigfoot and will send researchers to your homes.
Last edited:
Glad to see your post. It isn't just rodents that destroy remains. I understand that the soils in many aeas of heavy sightings are rather acidic and destroy bones. This has also been observed in South America and accounts for very limited evidence of known human tribes. I was just doing some research on the tribes known collectively as the Xingu, who live along Brazil's Xingu River and the Yanomami, who live near the Venezuelan border. The articles mentioned the effects of the acidic soils.
