New Bigfoot sighting, video and footprints in Idaho!

[ddgaff1132]

Jeff Meldrum is the MAN!!!

[BlackKnight]

Even Bigfoot wouldn't go to Idaho.

.... They Got some good potato chips.

[BlackKnight]

Bigfoot lives in Washington State so there's no way he could have been spotted in Idaho.

-Chris

Nah ...
He lives in Jersey ...., Very Hairy, and Craps alot from what I hear.

[MIB41]

I'll say this because honestly it's a fair critique. When you see "something" and it's not "human-like"; It's not a "bear"; And it's not a "moose", (keeping in mind none of these share a d*mn thing in common). How in the heck can you simply discard all reason and say it's "BIGFOOT"? Especially since it remains a legend unproven to exist and unable to be scientifically identified? Lets put aside the notions of what you believe and just accept the facts of this event. We have teenagers who don't know what they saw. Those are the facts. Now anyone who goes running amok saying this is "prove" of ANYTHING has made the case for only one thing - wishful thinking. Until you have the animal, you have nothing. Show me grainy footage. Show me the famous "tracks". Show me whatever you want. But until you prove you have something, it might as well be an alien from another Galaxy. In an age where you can't take a p*ss in your backyard without it showing up on Youtube, I find it laughable that no one can get a clear pic of this thing. It's the same hoax being re-imagined with the same results. And the information age is quickly destroying this idea that a creature 7 feet tall walks amongst us and no one can keep their camera's in focus. Sorry... It's fun to want to believe, but the fact that no one can find definitive remains pretty much says it all for me. If I could do an editorial cartoon on this subject, I would draw two impressionable teenagers with their Iphones flashing away at shadows while they wear T-shirts that say "Is this all there is?" That pretty much sums it up. The irony to all this? If scientists could actually prove these things exist, all of these people would have to chase after a new myth. No one wants facts. They want the myth that can't be proven. It's the magic of believing and Big Foot symbolizes that feeling. It's like Santa Claus to a kid. You don't need hard facts to believe. Just enough processed "evidence" to feed your imagination.

[johnmiic]

It's all good! Hey, BTW, I have a friend of mine who is actually writing a book about Big Foot. I think you would find it engaging. He's examining the people that follow Big Foot through the ages and will try to separate the facts from the frauds. Sounds like a good read!

What's the name of your friend's book, what's your friend's name and when is it coming out?

[MIB41]

When I have a release date, I will let you know. It sounds like a good read too since he is shifting focus from the creature of legend and aiming it squarely at the people who make the claims. Both to credit and to discredit. So, from my perspective, this book will give you a better perspective on how little factual sightings exist versus the small percentage that could have a valid claim beyond an overzealous imagination for something they didn't identify. BTW, he does believe there is truth rooted in it somewhere. Whether it exists today, he is not ready to commit. I fit somewhere in that category. I think if there is ANY truth to this creature, it is long since extinct. Can I prove that? Of course not. But neither can anyone prove it exists today. So it's really a pointless argument. Its all in what you choose to believe...and nothing more.

[enyawd72]

I'll say this because honestly it's a fair critique. When you see "something" and it's not "human-like"; It's not a "bear"; And it's not a "moose", (keeping in mind none of these share a d*mn thing in common). How in the heck can you simply discard all reason and say it's "BIGFOOT"? Especially since it remains a legend unproven to exist and unable to be scientifically identified? Lets put aside the notions of what you believe and just accept the facts of this event. We have teenagers who don't know what they saw. Those are the facts. Now anyone who goes running amok saying this is "prove" of ANYTHING has made the case for only one thing - wishful thinking. Until you have the animal, you have nothing. Show me grainy footage. Show me the famous "tracks". Show me whatever you want. But until you prove you have something, it might as well be an alien from another Galaxy. In an age where you can't take a p*ss in your backyard without it showing up on Youtube, I find it laughable that no one can get a clear pic of this thing. It's the same hoax being re-imagined with the same results. And the information age is quickly destroying this idea that a creature 7 feet tall walks amongst us and no one can keep their camera's in focus. Sorry... It's fun to want to believe, but the fact that no one can find definitive remains pretty much says it all for me. If I could do an editorial cartoon on this subject, I would draw two impressionable teenagers with their Iphones flashing away at shadows while they wear T-shirts that say "Is this all there is?" That pretty much sums it up. The irony to all this? If scientists could actually prove these things exist, all of these people would have to chase after a new myth. No one wants facts. They want the myth that can't be proven. It's the magic of believing and Big Foot symbolizes that feeling. It's like Santa Claus to a kid. You don't need hard facts to believe. Just enough processed "evidence" to feed your imagination.

Sorry MIB, but there is more proof of the existence of Bigfoot than there is of God, yet millions of people flock into church every Sunday to worship an invisible being whose existence can NEVER be proven.
Don't you find that just a little ironic? I know I do.
There is more than enough evidence that Bigfoot exists.
The Patterson footage is #1. There is simply no way a couple guys in 1967 could have created a creature costume more complex than anything Hollywood can produce even today. The Mugato on Star Trek appeared the same year on TV...that's the best Hollywood was capable of with a budget.
#2 are the numerous tracks, some of which contain dermal ridges akin to fingerprints which cannot be faked.
#3 are the hair samples that have been collected and DNA tested against all known species of primates, including gorillas, chimpanzees and humans, and come back as belonging to none of them, but but still being primate hairs. What primate DO they belong to?
#4 Bigfoot is considered to be a myth. So were gorillas until 1902. And as for remains not being found, did you know out of the hundreds of thousands of chimpanzees that live and die in the wild, only ONE set of chimpanzee remains have ever been found in the wild?

[MIB41]

Sorry MIB, but there is more proof of the existence of Bigfoot than there is of God, yet millions of people flock into church every Sunday to worship an invisible being whose existence can NEVER be proven.
Don't you find that just a little ironic? I know I do.
There is more than enough evidence that Bigfoot exists.
The Patterson footage is #1. There is simply no way a couple guys in 1967 could have created a creature costume more complex than anything Hollywood can produce even today. The Mugato on Star Trek appeared the same year on TV...that's the best Hollywood was capable of with a budget.
#2 are the numerous tracks, some of which contain dermal ridges akin to fingerprints which cannot be faked.
#3 are the hair samples that have been collected and DNA tested against all known species of primates, including gorillas, chimpanzees and humans, and come back as belonging to none of them, but but still being primate hairs. What primate DO they belong to?
#4 Bigfoot is considered to be a myth. So were gorillas until 1902. And as for remains not being found, did you know out of the hundreds of thousands of chimpanzees that live and die in the wild, only ONE set of chimpanzee remains have ever been found in the wild?

Apples and oranges my friend. God is religion based and measured by one's "faith". We're debating scientific proof. What you call "proof" can be manufactured. You just don't want to believe it. Here's an essay on the study...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...OVmjcg&cad=rja

And here's another study...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j..._9J7KQ&cad=rja

And one more...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...C1aq7w&cad=rja

If you have definitive proof, please share it. Because it would be worth a fortune. Sadly you can't. Your stating Big Foot IS a species. These other examples were proven by FINDING the animal. Well... go find him. Until you proof it, you have nothing. This animal whom supposedly walks amongst us like the Boogie Man, and magically hides all of it's relatives, remains, and tracks save for a few sounds like a child's tale. It also sounds like a scientific deadend. But make no mistake. I would love to be proven wrong. The only way to do that though is to get one. Until then nothing from nothing leaves nothing.

[enyawd72]

Apples and oranges my friend. God is religion based and measured by one's "faith". We're debating scientific proof. What you call "proof" can be manufactured. You just don't want to believe it. Here's an essay on the study...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...OVmjcg&cad=rja

And here's another study...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j..._9J7KQ&cad=rja

And one more...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...C1aq7w&cad=rja

If you have definitive proof, please share it. Because it would be worth a fortune. Sadly you can't. Your stating Big Foot IS a species. These other examples were proven by FINDING the animal. Well... go find him. Until you proof it, you have nothing. This animal whom supposedly walks amongst us like the Boogie Man, and magically hides all of it's relatives, remains, and tracks save for a few sounds like a child's tale. It also sounds like a scientific deadend. But make no mistake. I would love to be proven wrong. The only way to do that though is to get one. Until then nothing from nothing leaves nothing.

I did find him. I've seen him with my own two eyes at a distance of no more than twenty feet and looked right into his eyes. How do you explain that?
By your logic every single person who has ever seen this thing is either mistaken or lying or being hoaxed, and that my friend, is statistically impossible. Krakens, AKA giant squids were the "boogieman" of the sea for hundreds of years, and then one day a dead one washed up on shore.
Myth and legend became fact in an instant.

[megocrazy]

With the number of things that seem to be found every year, I can't totally rule out the possibility of there being something out there. The missing link might be a bit extreme but who knows. The giant squid is an excellent example. I'd love to see a live action Harry and the Hendersons movie with an actual Bigfoot. He'd get my vote for the Oscar.