Bigfoot, Sasquatch, A. Snowman: Believers?

For those that are totally bored and have little to do in life, they may enjoy visiting the floowing website:

Bigfoot DNA Report Analysis 2011 - Sasquatch Watch Canada 

Following the links after the initial page (which has wording most, including myself do not fully comprehend) they can read about the Erickson Project. It is informative, somewhat educational and possibly convencing. The other links relieve boredom.

I want to say that I do not have a dog in this fight. I have not spent anything other than time in gathering information over the years about the possible existence of Bigfoot. Nor have I, nor will I, contributed a dime to any group involved with the research. If a Bigfoot is found, good. If not, it can remain a mystery as are many other things in life. It may be that it will remain unexplained just as women are unexplainable. I know the government spent $200,000 on booklets pertaining to Bigfoot and that seems stupid for them to do when there is little evidence to suggest the existence of something. Also I want to say there is a lot of contradictory information coming from the government on the subject. Some of the things unrelated to this were denied in years past but are now a matter of public record. I use a FBI website that allows acces to investigational documents once classified and there are thousands of pages of reports on cases they worked that they denied in the past as having done so.
 
Bigfoots (bigfeet) are real. They gather in open fields every Sunday to romp and play. A sub-species plays in enclosed fields (domes) and one group of late comers plays on Mondays. They keep it hidden by calling themselves the NFL.
 
I knew when I saw the other thread that it was going to be good for at least 100 replies. I didn't think it would be good for another thread as well. I have always found the subject interesting. I would not shoot it unless I had to. I think they exist and I have stated why in the other thread. I posted a video in the other thread about a man that had an encounter with one. I honestly believe the guy's story.

Would I tell anyone? Well let me tell you this little story. Back in 2003 I saw a black bear on the opening day of deer season. In our county back then It was a big deal. I told my wife. She accused me of seeing a cow as she had never seen a bear in the woods, only in a zoo. In any event she made fun of me until I got pissed off and stopped at the local DNR office. I went in and asked them if they had any reports of a bear in the area that I had seen it. The receptionist called someone and asked them. I would say it was the district biologist. They told her that yes one had been reported in the area where I saw it. I went home and told my wife. So needless to say that if I did see a Bigfoot I know what is in store for me. I would tell her and probably report it to the local DNR officer who is a high school classmate. And let the chips fall where they may.

As far as a gun. I hope I am carrying my Browning BAR in a 338 win mag when I see it.
 
I'm not big on Bigfoot....

I know they are hokey and misleading, but unless these shows fake evidence there is a temple in Nepal that has a yeti scalp locked up in a glass cabinet that they bring out for ceremonies. It has long reddish hair. The host wanted to touch it and they told him to go jump in the lake. He said he wanted the world to know and they said that they didn't care whether the world knew or believed or what, it was THEIR Yeti scalp and that's all that mattered. The rest of the world could believe what they want. Go Tibetan monks.:)

That's some decent evidence but I really think Bigfoot is about as real as the Bishopville, SC Lizard Man.
 
Last edited:
What's hard for me to believe is that many people actually seem to
believe that Bigfoot exists. After all these years of reported sightings
why is there not one piece of credible scientific evidence to support
it's existance?
 
Texas Star said:
Back to the gun issue, Ruger used to run ads about a guy who hunted gorillas in the Congo in the 1960's. I'm guessing that this was for museum habitat groups, and it was evidently still legal to shoot them then.

He had a Super Blackhawk and a .44 Magnum carbine. He shot at least one big gorilla, quite successfully. Others have shot grizzly bears with .44 Magnums, and I know of at least one killed by a S&W M-66 .357 and unspecified 158 grain .357 loads.

I suspect that most deer cartridges and rifles would suffice, although I'd like something larger than, say a .243. I doubt if more than a .375 H&H Magnum is needed.

T-Star
Click to expand...



The 44 was to shoot the dog, not the gorilla. :D
 
alwslate said:
What's hard for me to believe is that many people actually seem to
believe that Bigfoot exists. After all these years of reported sightings
why is there not one piece of credible scientific evidence to support
it's existance?
Click to expand...

One could ask the same question about the big deity,eh? [emoji15]
 
Last edited:
arjay said:
One could ask the same question about the big deity,eh? [emoji15]
Click to expand...
Good point.

All I know is, there have been a lot of sightings (for hundreds of years) by people who never read a news paper, watched TV, or knew anyone else who had seen one.others who had seen one.
 
If may be counterintuitive but human nature applauds ridicule, and only deplores it when directed at them, like grade school children making fun of handicapped children, or denying existence of the Mountain Gorilla, or the giant squid, or that the world is round, not flat and yes Gigantopithecus or wood ape, AKA, Bigfoot!

So the non-believers are actually most responsible for the lack of publishing the existing 'hard evidence' that they so dearly cling to as their sophistry for non-belief. The testimony of hundreds of thousands of credible witnesses would be a slam dunk to convict someone of murder. Yet it's incredulous how non-believers just sweep aside thousands of sworn witness affidavits of bigfoot sightings by their fellow man like so much house dust! Again, human nature to be part of the majority seems to overrule all rational judgment. Who wants to be ridiculed even if it is by fools just because they are in the majority? Down thru history majority opinion has seldom equated to accuracy.
 
I always thought "bear" threads were a euphemism for Bigfoot threads. Any good bear caliber would be good for Bigfoot. Zombies, on the other hand, are more about shot placement and ammunition conservation. Caliber isn't really a factor.

Be ready for anything, and you won't ever be surprised . . .
 
In a trial fact based evidence is considered more important than an eye witness.

Why?

In times of stress, duress or sudden suprise one's mind is apt to fill in the blanks.

Before big foot it was haunts, ghosts or recently returned from the dead.
Does anyone remember going to a cemetary or abandoned farm houses that were 100% infected with ghosts? Do you remember how someone always saw a ghost?

I do not know for sure so my answer is maybe.

What I do know is they could make tons of money to allow camo makers to copy their stealth duds.

After thought I'm tired of zombies, big foot and aliens. I'm gonna start a thread on are ghosts real.
 
Last edited:
It is unlikely in the uber extreme.

For starters, evolution occurs out of necessity. The creature from which Bigfoot is believed to have evolved was a quadruped...got around on all fours.

Now consider the environment in which these sightings occur: mountainous, hilly terrain, heavily forested, etc. It would make no sense whatsoever for a creature like that to evolve from a quadruped to a biped in that environment. It would be a handicap, in fact.

Also consider that this creature, if it exists, manages to maintain a breeding population, yet curiously has no effect on the food chain whatsoever??? Just not very likely at all.

Also think about discoveries of new species. New species are discovered all the time. They're almost always small, though. Think about it: when was the last time you heard of a new species of creature that physically large being newly discovered?
 
Dan Christopher said:
It is unlikely in the uber extreme.

For starters, evolution occurs out of necessity. The creature from which Bigfoot is believed to have evolved was a quadruped...got around on all fours.

Now consider the environment in which these sightings occur: mountainous, hilly terrain, heavily forested, etc. It would make no sense whatsoever for a creature like that to evolve from a quadruped to a biped in that environment. It would be a handicap, in fact.

Also consider that this creature, if it exists, manages to maintain a breeding population, yet curiously has no effect on the food chain whatsoever??? Just not very likely at all.

Also think about discoveries of new species. New species are discovered all the time. They're almost always small, though. Think about it: when was the last time you heard of a new species of creature that physically large being newly discovered?
Click to expand...

We don't know how it impacts the food chain. And as for a large animal being discovered, 1912? Okapi? I'd have to check, but that rings a bell.

Also, both chimps and gorillas were relatively recent discoveries for Europeans.

The coelacanth fish is big, but thought to be long extinct until new examples were found off of Africa about 1938.
 
Texas Star said:
We don't know how it impacts the food chain. And as for a large animal being discovered, 1912? Okapi? I'd have to check, but that rings a bell.

Also, both chimps and gorillas were relatively recent discoveries for Europeans.

The coelacanth fish is big, but thought to be long extinct until new examples were found off of Africa about 1938.
Click to expand...

1912? 1938? Okay, but consider how much smaller the world has gotten since then, figuratively of course, with modern travel and instantaneous communication.

Somewhere, some how by now one of these creatures would have been identified, captured or killed. I just can't for the life of me believe that something of that nature could possibly go undetected today.

Possible? Maybe. I am still thinking extremely unlikely, though.

The deal breaker for me is pondering how something like that would have evolved the way that it did. Like going from quad to bipedal movement. That just doesn't make any sense for it to have evolved that way given the environment it is believed to live in.

Dunno....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
This Week's Official Bigfoot Thread
5 6 7
Replies
120
Views
4K
arjay
arjay
Ceapea
Which 44 mag round for bear?
2
Replies
24
Views
13K
Ceapea
Ceapea
Dave Nash
Non-Registered Magnum w/Tuskoid Grips
Replies
16
Views
4K
Sprefix
Sprefix
Match10
I am a bit... "Embarassed"....
Replies
15
Views
3K
kennyb
kennyb
G-Mac
If you could only afford one centerfire rifle.....
6 7 8
Replies
145
Views
38K
buckyjames1
B

Latest posts

Back
Top