New Bigfoot sighting, video and footprints in Idaho!

[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.

[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.

[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."

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[BlackKnight]

Even Bigfoot wouldn't go to Idaho.

.... They Got some good potato chips.

[ddgaff1132]

Jeff Meldrum is the MAN!!!