New Bigfoot sighting, video and footprints in Idaho!

[Brazoo]

I can't verify the source of this, but a quick google search of "bear mange" produced this image from a bigfoot forum:



I'm not saying this explains all sightings, I'm just saying there are times where sick animals can be disfigured in ways that make them look a lot less identifiable.

And this is just one of the many arguments against the value of first-hand accounts vs. physical evidence. Not just for Big Foot - but for ANYTHING.

The tools we have as humans to perceive things are flawed. Our brains aren't recording devices - we interpret what we experience based on a lot of assumptions. That's why we need science and process to figure out what's real.

[Brazoo]

I agree that belief in a higher power is faith based. It's a totally different concept than belief based on science. I don't think they're opposites - as some people think - they're just based on totally different types of logic that don't mean anything to each other. Our psychology makes us really complex beings, and we can use the same ideas to mean totally different things - which is sometimes where conflicts (that really shouldn't happen, in my opinion) arise.

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?

The problem here is that unfortunately it's almost impossible to prove a negative. Meaning, it's logically impossible for me to prove you didn't see Big Foot - but it's also a logical mistake to think that because I can't disprove what you saw that adds evidence to Big Foots existence.

In science - like in law - there's logical standards and tools to sort out truth. A big one is 'burden of proof'. So, in science when someone makes a claim it's up to them to present their evidence - and first hand accounts are the least reliable method for gathering data in both.

And there's one other problem - and I don't want you to take this personally, but from what I understand our brains aren't that great at recording and recalling info. Our memories are basically recreated each time they're recalled - so memory of an event when you were 10 is recreated in your mind each time it's activated. The effect is that we get a less and less accurate the older our memory is. There are many scientific tests that show this.

There's also source memory problems too. There are MANY documented and tested cases of people hearing a story or seeing a movie and then over time they remember the experience as if was a first-hand experience. There are many variations on this too.

Again - I'm not knocking you - I'm knocking human memory. It's such a difficult thing to question our own memories. I have trouble with it myself - even though I believe the studies and analysis of the tests I've read about.

Again, I'm not really trying to attack you or your specific experience and make this personal in any way. Personally I've always loved Big Foot lore, and wish I had a Big Foot experience too. I totally believe you saw something very odd, but with the existing evidence I can't say right now that it's probable you saw a giant native North American wild ape.

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.

Not really, because as I said before it depends how you interpret and value eye-witness accounts as evidence in the first place. And again - I do believe that as the number of sightings increases you have to think that the chances of getting better physical evidence should increase as well, but that ratio hasn't changed much in 50 (or so) years.

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.

Exactly correct - and if someone found a dead Big Foot that would be even more spectacular!

[Brazoo]

Here, this might be frustrating to think about, but also interesting:

How Accurate Are Memories of 9/11?: Scientific American

Here's a quick quote:

"..."what we've known for a while is that emotion gives you a stronger confidence in your memory than it does necessarily in the accuracy. Usually, when a memory has highly vivid details and you're confident in those details, that means you're likely to be right. Confidence often goes hand in hand with accuracy. But when something is highly emotional, they often get separated."

[torgospizza]

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.

All the evidence points towards Patterson being a conman in almost every aspect of his life, including this--he was even charged with grand larceny for not returning the camera by the designated time. Luckily, he miraculously stumbled across a bigfoot at the last minute before they had to finish the expedition. Why did he have the camera in the first place? To get footage in order to secure funding for a bigfoot movie he wanted to film. Talk about being at the right place at the right time.

One point the believers seem to always bring up is the anatomy of the creature in the film, especially the breasts. Patterson's creature is supposedly female because of the huge, pendulous breasts. The thing is, we are the only primates that have breasts structured that way, and that was apparently evolution's means of gaining favor with "butt men." Unless Sasquatch has carried on an affair with honkytonk badonkadonks for hundred of millennia, there is no reason for them to have gained appendages that would only hamper life in the wild. It's like how humans have the largest penises of the primates--we've also been protecting them from getting damaged by wearing clothing for hundreds of thousands of years. It's in the interest of gorillas and chimps to have smaller ones so they don't get ripped off while clambering around in the brush, and I see no reason why the same wouldn't apply to bigfoot concerning the chests of females, unless they're having huge litters to feed and that seems very unlikely given their sparse population.

[enyawd72]

I'm not gonna keep arguing about this...no evidence outside of a dead body will appease skeptics that's for sure, but I know what I saw, and ultimately that's all that matters to me.

Why it's so difficult for people to accept this is simply an animal that hasn't been officially discovered yet is beyond me. Nobody believed in Gorillas either until 1902...that's pretty recent as far as history goes.

New species of large animals are being found all the time, and since there are millions of acres of unexplored forest here in the U.S., to assume we know everything that's living in them is just ridiculous. Northeast Ohio where I live is crawling with bears, but in 40 years I've never seen one. Does that mean bears don't exist?

There is simply NO WAY that EVERYBODY who has ever seen a supposed Bigfoot was mistaken, had a faulty memory, was lying, or the victim of a hoax. It's impossible. The odds are greater of you being hit by lightning and winning the lottery in the same day.

It would also mean that EVERY footprint that has ever been found was either misidentified or hoaxed. That too, is impossible.
That's my final take on the subject...don't wanna argue anymore.

[noelani72]

In this day and age of weekend-warrior prop makers creating neat stuff in their own garages ... I find it really hard to believe there is some illusive creature running around the country. Sersly. With all the journalism and cameras in everyone's hands today...

Some of you have seen my Red Skull costume - the guy who made my silicone mask is working on this costume as we speak:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48cZSU6Fzqo

I have ALWAYS imagined having something like that and lurking in the shadows right off the highway. Could you imagine what would go through someone's mind if their headlights caught something like that for a brief second!?!?
Good thing I don't have a suit like that; I'd hate to be the cause of a car wreck.

I like theories and myths of this type...I love magic and the lure of the illusion.

If Bigfoot ever gets caught, I hope it's in my lifetime.

[johnmiic]

Man, I promised myself I would not get into an argument about this so let me be really diplomatic. enyawd72, I am glad you decided to share your sighting with us. I live in NY and there sightings upstate, (generally the areas considered to be north of the city and the counties of the Bronx, Yonkers & New Rochelle for example), and I often wondered what it would be like not just to sight one of these things but to make eye-contact. To come face to face with one of these would probably be a life-exchanging experience. The thought of seeing one up close would change how you see the world because with so many people saying it's impossible, after you actually see one, you have to think; it exists so what else is not impossible? I hope you contacted the BFRO and filed a sighting report. They also have a pretty good forum for discussion. Check it out.

I have had to come to grips with the situation. Any argument either side makes can be countered. I've read a lot of good arguments for Bigfoot and some not so good arguments against, (I think there's enough evidence to say it's for real but that's not good enough for a lot of other people). Is Bigfoot real? Are the footprints real? is the Patterson film real? Was Patterson dishonest? It won't be settled here on a toy board. A Bigfoot will have to be captured and a body, living or dead, will have to be produced to settle it. So the debate will continue.

And, damn! If I saw that I wouldn't think Bigfoot. I'd be thinking Chuppacabbra!

I can't verify the source of this, but a quick google search of "bear mange" produced this image from a bigfoot forum:

[shellhead]

Here's a cool shot we got of the skunk ape here in Florida.
...............................



OK, it's really me...I play gorillas in movies and we shot this messed up pic for fun on one of our location shoots.

[Werewolf]

I can't verify the source of this, but a quick google search of "bear mange" produced this image from a bigfoot forum:

http://i568.photobucket.com/albums/s..._bear_afp1.jpg

Sick bears like that are also the source for a lot of modern werewolf sightings. People not familiar with wolves are not realizing the "werewolf" they describe (large, stocky, muscular, long arms down to the side, etc.) decribes an upright bear and not a wolf. A wolf standing upright would be thin, on their tip toes with their arms held up and tucked in by their chest like a dancing circus poodle.

[Funkyterrance]

I am on the fence regarding the subject. It certainly seems possible that Bigfoot exists. I am just the sort of person who needs definitive proof. However, we are talking about something that is supposed to live in the wilderness and if it is uncommon and intelligent it would most likely be pretty hard to track.
I don't think its cool to call someone stupid or talk down to them if they do happen to believe they exist.