OK, Bigfoot enthusiasts...new footage...

[Random Axe]

As mentioned in other threads, I keep an open mind about this, though the mountain of non-evidence against Bigfoot is growing. I do believe there is something to all of this. Native Americans have claimed to seen them starting back in the early 1700's. The percentage of hoaxes versus possibly legitimate footage is like 1000 to 1 or worse.

It's entirely possible we are not the smartest creatures on the planet. Humans are the only species of life on Earth that routinely kills, plots against, tortures, maims, rapes, pillages and desecrates it's own kind and often other species. Animals fight and kill, but they do not have malice or prejudice or political agendas. It's mostly to eat. Aggressive, territorial behavior is normal, psychotic is not. And we're supposed to be the smart ones?

I am with most here in that SOMEONE has to come up with concrete evidence. Unless you have clear-cut evidence of it's existence or you've hit one with your truck or you've taken a 40 megapixel portrait of one, don't show us. The world is full of grainy, out of focus pics and vids. Until you have one that is crystal clear, go the hell away. You're likely a hoaxer anyway.

BTW, I think the Jack Links commercial version is the best I've ever seen in media. That's exactly what I picture in my head when someone mentions Bigfoot or Sasquatch.

[cockyhoskins]

here is another [ATTACH=CONFIG]8397[/ATTACH]

Your dog is either (a) very used to seeing you in that costume or (b) very trusting or (c) extremely brave! LOL

[Teemu]

Your dog is either (a) very used to seeing you in that costume or (b) very trusting or (c) extremely brave! LOL

She wasn't trusting at first..that was my first time with it on as you can see her cautiously sniffing Bigfoot's hand ....now,she could care less! lol

[Teemu]

As mentioned in other threads, I keep an open mind about this, though the mountain of non-evidence against Bigfoot is growing. I do believe there is something to all of this. Native Americans have claimed to seen them starting back in the early 1700's. The percentage of hoaxes versus possibly legitimate footage is like 1000 to 1 or worse.

It's entirely possible we are not the smartest creatures on the planet. Humans are the only species of life on Earth that routinely kills, plots against, tortures, maims, rapes, pillages and desecrates it's own kind and often other species. Animals fight and kill, but they do not have malice or prejudice or political agendas. It's mostly to eat. Aggressive, territorial behavior is normal, psychotic is not. And we're supposed to be the smart ones?

I am with most here in that SOMEONE has to come up with concrete evidence. Unless you have clear-cut evidence of it's existence or you've hit one with your truck or you've taken a 40 megapixel portrait of one, don't show us. The world is full of grainy, out of focus pics and vids. Until you have one that is crystal clear, go the hell away. You're likely a hoaxer anyway.

BTW, I think the Jack Links commercial version is the best I've ever seen in media. That's exactly what I picture in my head when someone mentions Bigfoot or Sasquatch.

I absolutely believe there is truth to Bigfoot and believe the Native Americans wrote many times of seeing Giants (possibly Bigfoot).In Buffalo Bill's book,he wrote how the Native Indians would say Giants would chase down a Buffalo and put them into a headlocks....

[mazinz]

Thank you! I totally believe in Bigfoot, but when I saw some of these video clips and especially the pics that you posted from that video, I said holy **** its Chewbacca. All the shots in said video looked like suits rather than any sort of real animal

I watched this video the other day. I'm not interested in the ambiguous walking footage here but what the Chewbacca-looking animal? Was that an identifiable animal or is it a close-up of a Bigfoot face? Can it be traced to a known, commercially available halloween mask? Someone tell me what this is. If it's not a man made mask then we may have something here. It's not what I pictured Bigfoot would look like but still it's better than most photos. That's a pretty clear shot to me. Not great-but not that blurry either:


[Img][/Img][Img][/Img]

[GlobalObserver]

I used to believe in Bigfoot when I was a little kid, but I grew up. I stopped believing in silly myths and fairytales.

There isn't a single shred of credible evidence that such a creature exists today, or has ever existed.

Beliefs should be based on something more than wishful thinking. Critical thinking is required.

Bigfoot in nothing more than a legend. You might as well spend your time searching for Unicorns and Leprechauns.

[Marvelmania]

you really should be more open

[megoapesnut]

You posted the cropped version of that photo. Here is the full view

[enyawd72]

I used to believe in Bigfoot when I was a little kid, but I grew up. I stopped believing in silly myths and fairytales.

There isn't a single shred of credible evidence that such a creature exists today, or has ever existed.

Beliefs should be based on something more than wishful thinking. Critical thinking is required.

Bigfoot in nothing more than a legend. You might as well spend your time searching for Unicorns and Leprechauns.

I take extreme offense to your comments. As someone who has personally seen one of these "fairytales" up close, I need no further proof. If you arrogantly believe that an indigenous species of animal cannot remain hidden from man deep within millions of acres of unexplored forests you are mistaken. Christopher Knight, the "North Pond Hermit" successfully eluded capture in the Maine woods for 27 years, and authorities KNEW he was in there. BTW, my critical thinking surpasses that of a college professor. My I.Q. is 135.

[johnmiic]

It was not my intent to debunk this footage. However, why debate a figure running around in the dark when the juicy part of the footage is this face? Even the news reports ignore the fact that you have this footage of something's head growling. Wouldn't a more crucial piece of footage be a video of Bigfoot's face and head? Wouldn't that really hint as to whether this is an ape or a human if the footage is real? No critical analysis is given to the face/head in the video. It looks a lot like a Chewbacca mask but someone credible needs to do some research and see if this is a modified mask.

The Bigfoot community as well as the UFO community has its fair share of feuds, infighting and dysfunctional players. It's a popularity contest between many immature people. Someone has something the other doesn't; like the Roger Patterson footage. The person or person(s) who don't own it get jealous because they're not getting attention they think they deserve so they taint the evidence to steal the spotlight. Claims get made during debunking which are more outrageous than the "evidence" which started it.

In these fields the debunkers are now worse than those who come forward with evidence. There is a double-standard. People who say it's fake are not scrutinized as well as those who come forward, (like the guy who claims he made the Patterson Bigfoot costume-yet can't make one that resembles it). If you're going to say evidence is fake you also better show how it could be faked.You better get on par with Mythbusters research. I think this video is pretty weak looking. It does look like a Chewbacca mask but I'll also wait for someone to show the mask which was used and how it was modified before slamming the door on it.

[enyawd72]

^Well, I for one am done posting anything Bigfoot related here. It's just not worth the effort. I'll keep my beliefs and opinions to myself.

[drquest]

I'm waiting for the day that a UFO lands, and a ghost of BigFoot steps out in front of CNN cameras for everyone to see.

Those three categories, UFO's,Ghosts and BigFoot(and other unknown animals) are so very interesting to a lot of people, but scams and deceit overwhelms any true stories too much.

I know there's a lot of unexplained things in our world and beyond, we are infants in thinking we have all of the answers. enyawd72 I think it's great you have experienced what you have, but understand, 99% of us haven't. I've personally seen something unexplainable in two of the three categories I mentioned above, but it only made me curious to know more.

My wife knows I'm a skeptic, but that skepticism is mainly towards human behavior. If they can show me proof, I'll be on board. Show me what appears to be staged grainy video with people in costumes, and guess what, you lost me, which goes back to my human behavior comment.

[johnmiic]

but a tranq gun or such isnt farfetched to expect them to carry.

A seemingly simple plan. Have a tranq gun handy. But it's not so simple. Aside from the fact that you probably need to be licensed to use a tranq gun, (I assume you can't just grab one at the local Walmart); Per wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tranquilizer_gun

Tranquiliser agents[edit source]

Several immobilising drugs have been invented for use in tranquiliser darts.[4] These include:
Azaperone, Combelen (Bayer), Domosedan (Farmos), Dormicum (Roche), Detomidine (Farmos), Fentanyl (Janssen Pharmaceutica), Etorphine hydrochloride (M–99, Novartis), Haloperidol (Kyron Laboratory), Immobilon, a mixture of etorphine and a phenothioazine tranquilliser such as acepromazine or methotrimeprazine, Valium 10 (Roche), Xylazine (Rompun, Bayer), Sodium Thiopental (Abbott)

These substances have been invented for animal injection only. Humans are far more affected by the drugs[dubious – discuss], as they trigger respiratory problems. The injection or consumption of only a drop of M–99 is sufficient to kill an adult man within a few minutes if the correct antidote treatment is not administered immediately.[5] Therefore, instead of the substances found above, only incapacitating agents would be suitable for military or police use.

Military and police use[edit source]

Tranquiliser darts are not generally included in military or police less-than-lethal arsenals because no drug is yet known that would be quickly and reliably effective on humans without the risks of side effects or an overdose. This means that effective use requires an estimate of the weight of the target to be able to determine how many darts (if any) can be used. Shooting too few would result in no effect whatsoever, while too many can kill the target [6]

So since we haven't yet classified Bigfoot what drug do we use, if any? Is Bigfoot really human? Do we risk killing a person and go to jail? We don't know how much the specimen weights so how much do we use? Not so simple.

[Brazoo]

I take extreme offense to your comments. As someone who has personally seen one of these "fairytales" up close, I need no further proof. If you arrogantly believe that an indigenous species of animal cannot remain hidden from man deep within millions of acres of unexplored forests you are mistaken. Christopher Knight, the "North Pond Hermit" successfully eluded capture in the Maine woods for 27 years, and authorities KNEW he was in there. BTW, my critical thinking surpasses that of a college professor. My I.Q. is 135.

Enyawd, I wouldn't bother debating with you at all if I thought you were unintelligent, and I don't agree with the way GlobalObserver framed his arguments, but I think what he's referring to is correct. "Critical thinking" is not an intelligence level concept - it's a specific process for weighing data. There are a specific set of skills and guidelines to follow that have been shaped over centuries. The most intelligent people often get things wrong because they ignore the tools and skills of "critical thinking", so to guard yourself and your opinions more, and to advance your theories I really recommend taking a look at this concept better.

Here's a link to a Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

To be honest, I don't think the Wikipedia entry is too helpful, but when I learn about this stuff I find it helpful to look at specific tools and examples.

One thing I refer to often is the concept of "logical fallacies". What traps do our minds easily slip into when we're not guarded? When I find I'm trying to weigh two options I often look for which argument depends on logical fallacies more.

Here's a list of fallacies with short definitions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

--

Here's one that I think applies to what some non-Bigfoot believers sometimes use:
Appeal to authority – where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.

The arguments should be weighed on their own merit, not based on the ranking of the person saying them - if that makes sense. Of course, I'm not an expert in something like DNA analysis, so heeding expert opinions (especially when there's a consensus within that community of experts) is still important.

--

One that's applicable to this thread is the thought that Native American Bigfoot sitings are better evidence. Why would that be? There's no argument put forward to explain why Native Americans 200 years ago would be better observers than people now. To me, the concept evokes this fallacy:

Thought-terminating cliché – a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance, conceal lack of thought-entertainment, move onto other topics etc. but in any case, end the debate with a cliche—not a point.

--

Obviously identifying "logical fallacies" is just one tool within critical thinking. Other tools include -

Falsifiability - a common aspect to pseudoscientific theories is that they don't have a way of proving them wrong. The believers incorrectly assume that since a theory can't be proven wrong it must be right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Occam's razor - when weighing two competing theories which side depends on more assumptions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Burden of proof - A VERY important concept - identifying which side of two competing theories needs to gather evidence to topple the other side:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

[mazinz]

What I was curious about was the case that was on the first episode of Monsters and Mysteries in America (Destination channel). The one where the young hunter claimed to have shot and killed two of them and then months later part of the carcass (or something left) was taken and brought for DNA work. I am curious if there was any sort of published follow up to that or just what the results showed