New Bigfoot sighting, video and footprints in Idaho!

[Funkyterrance]

Funky, I don't think anyone here thinks anyone else is stupid if they believe. I believe in things some other members would definitely think is stupid, but I don't expect them to think I'm a drooling simpleton because we differ in one particular area and I would approach them the same. People believe in all sorts of things, it's just how we are.

Also, as a person that's had a "bigfoot sighting" but really doesn't believe in bigfoot, I'm not going to mock anyone else for thinking they saw whatever they saw. The only difference is they're believing their eyes, and I'm not. I think pareidolia or some such effect just jumped into action and tried to explain to my mind what it was I saw. I could be wrong; it's possible it was a bigfoot and I'm a fool to question it. I'll probably never know for certain.

I guess what I'm saying is that although I am firmly convinced Patterson was a fraud, there are a lot of honest people that think they saw something similar to what was portrayed in his film. Whether they are correct or not doesn't make me question their integrity in the least, though.

EDIT: I'll add this real fast. If these creatures are real, no one would be happier than me. I'd probably never step foot into the woods without a firearm again, but I'd cheer for their sheer craftiness in eluding us for so long.

I think that some people get a little bit of an intellectual superiority trip in not believing, in turn forgetting they may be coming off a bit condescending.
I for one would really enjoy hearing the story of your personal "bigfoot" sighting though, torgospizza.

[torgospizza]

I think that some people get a little bit of an intellectual superiority trip in not believing, in turn forgetting they may be coming off a bit condescending.
I for one would really enjoy hearing the story of your personal "bigfoot" sighting though, torgospizza.

Right here, Funky. I think you might be right about some people getting "an intellectual superiority trip" (I'm quoting you because that's really the best way to put it, I'll confess) by being skeptics in general. I've gotten that from others and dished it out, myself. Personally, I think these threads are great and everyone here has put some thought into their views. This thread, however, is quite a bit different from (f.ex.) Facebook, where people often post info that is patently untrue and seem to enjoy perpetuating outright falsehood when the truth is actually much better news. Recently, there was a political news site I frequent that was posting misleading headlines, and although I shared their political view, it troubled me they were coming off at worst as a propaganda machine and at least like inept amateurs. I would read through the comment section and it dawned on me no one was actually reading the article (which said something very different than the headline) or doing any research into the subject, but just believing whatever confirmed their previously held beliefs. I would post links to accurate articles and try to explain what was actually going on, and it was a wasted effort. No one cared the least about the facts, but maintaining ignorance that reinforced their view of the subject. Maybe I sound like a jerk, but I definitely felt superior to those guys, because they were willfully ignorant. It also kind of stung, because these guys were my ideological brethren, and they were shameful in their lack of scrutiny and acumen. This is totally different situation. Mainly because a lot of thought is going into this by all parties posting. There are some sharp cookies in here.

Sorry if this is rambling and goes off course, man--I'm tired as heck, on top of my usual thick-wittedness.

[piecemaker]

Quote: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. QUOTE Torgospizza.

I just want to say that i have never seen a Bigfoot,BUT i do believe they exist.There may not be scientific proof or proof beyond a shadow of a doubt right now,but i dont need that.I have seen enough"circumstanstial" evidence over the years and even heard first hand accounts of sightings to convince me.
Torgospizza,how do you explain this:

Or this:
[LIST]
Or this pendulous female gorilla:

[MIB41]

I always find this discussion interesting. But ultimately I base my conclusion on statistics and nothing more. Here's a database of reported sightings from around the world. Even Australia has one!

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

But here's my point. Even if you could take each and every one of these reports as coming from educated, honest, and completely reputable people (which you can't), there is not a shred of statistical probability that what one person sees in Australia is going to match what another sees in Indiana, Kentucky, or Prince Edward Island. Take that same concept then and apply it over the past 400 years and the probability plummets. Perception is based so much on educational, philosophical, and social beliefs. So how can what an Indian culture see centuries ago match up with what a person sees today? What would that Indian say if he saw the space shuttle flying through the skies? Would you agree with his prognosis of what he saw? Probably not. So why argue the point that sightings have occurred for centuries as proof of anything? What if a person is attacked by a shark in Australia? Does it mean it was a Great White because they inhabit those waters? No. If spectators say they saw a big fin and thus conclude it was a Great White, does that make them right? Nope. Scientists have to examine the bite and teeth markings to offer a scientific suggestion.

So there's just one example of a human being being attacked in broad daylight, yet no one can positively identify what did it. Do you see people screaming THIS attack PROVES that Great Whites are responsible for every attack in Australia? Better yet... the world? No you don't. So how is it that every time a person from any corner of the world "sees" something 'big and hairy', it's Big Foot? Maybe they shouldn't be taken seriously? Oh... they should only be taken seriously in certain locations? See how the "science" of Big Foot collapses on itself? So I guess my point is "Big Foot" sightings are part of every culture. Society likes to romance the idea of a creature living amongst us that is too stupid to stay hidden, but is smart enough to not get it's picture taken from a reasonable distance to identify it. Roll that thought around in your head for a while. It's the bogeyman with hairy armpits and a serious foot disorder which he leaves as his calling card.

So does my conclusion mean I believe we have identified every creature on this planet? Of course not. But I don't believe those remaining stand seven feet tall and walk through North America being advertised on bumper stickers and internet sites. For those who believe, that's cool. It's a fun concept to embrace. But it doesn't negate what is apparent from looking at the raw data. What that first Indian saw and what the people on this board believe they saw likely have nothing in common. But more importantly it doesn't mean that either party saw what they thought they saw. If you put Rob Zombie on a dark hillside and someone saw him from a distance, they might not be able to identify him as Rob Zombie...or as a human.

[The Bat]

In the immortal words of Hamlet:

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."