Bigfoot Fact or Fiction
- Thread starter BigFoot
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #364
Hey Scott! I found your shirt!
* It's funny, I was discussing that phrase with my husband just yesterday and we concluded that "keeping it real" could mean anything including "keeping it real strange" ....... and here Woot comes along with this shirt.........
Ooh! Ooh! I want one!!!!
I want both Robin, could you make that happen??
I see what you did there. 
I would suggest some of these.
I would suggest some of these.
Scott, didn't I warn you to use your new found power only for good. Now that you've used B&Bs power of eminent domain to turn my avatar into a bagel franchise, I'm going to have to charge you for the bagels from now on.
After all, I now have a business to run.
- Thread starter
- #368
Now that you've used B&Bs power of eminent domain to turn my avatar into a bagel franchise, I'm going to have to charge you for the bagels from now on.
After all, I now have a business to run.
I am appalled that you think I did this.
I only use my powers for good.
It had to have been someone else.
- Thread starter
- #369
..
Last edited by a moderator:
I want to believe as well, but find it difficult. Granted, there are still vast tracts of wilderness in this country where people hardly ever set foot. I suppose it's possible, but not very likely.
Here's the thing. They have tribes from various cultures with no dog in this fight talk about various "bigfoots" seightings from every corner of the globe. These tribesman have no want ot TV fame, or money, but tell you how it is in their neck of the woods. That's what make it interesting.
These are creatures from various American Indian cultures where sightings were frequent enough to give them names
Aglebemu
Apotamkin
Chenoo
Culloo
Cipelahq
Flying Head
Giwakwa
Gici Awas
Gitaskog
Horned Serpent
Jipijkam
Gougou
Kukwes
Loks
Pamola
Pukjinskwes
Swamp-Woman
Skadegamutc
Wuchowsen
Weewillmekq
Windigo
Are we to believe that because they were widely reported in this primitive culture that there may actually be something to Ice witches, Mosquito Men, Swamp Ghosts, Sorcerer Vampires, and Skeleton Cannibals?
Aglebemu
Apotamkin
Chenoo
Culloo
Cipelahq
Flying Head
Giwakwa
Gici Awas
Gitaskog
Horned Serpent
Jipijkam
Gougou
Kukwes
Loks
Pamola
Pukjinskwes
Swamp-Woman
Skadegamutc
Wuchowsen
Weewillmekq
Windigo
Are we to believe that because they were widely reported in this primitive culture that there may actually be something to Ice witches, Mosquito Men, Swamp Ghosts, Sorcerer Vampires, and Skeleton Cannibals?
I am more likely to believe Bigfoot than Matt Moneymaker.
No of course not. But most are rooted in some form of truth. One wouldn't believe in a a Hindu God with four arms etc., yet one little girl in India was born after this Godess Lakshmi.
Nobody would believe it till they saw it. But these nomadic tribesmen are not idiots and I'd like to think that like solders of war are experts in their craft hunting, skining, camouflage etc. so when they see something maybe it's true. Perhaps a little embelishment is ther but how much?...
As a side note, if after seeing elephants you told me there was at one time something that an animal roamed the earth that was 120ft long and weighed over a hundred tons ,well, I might not believe you.
Last edited:
No of course not. But most are rooted in some form of truth. One wouldn't believe in a a Hindu God with four arms etc., yet one little girl in India was born after this Godess Lakshmi.
Nobody would believe it till they saw it. But these nomadic tribesmen are not idiots and I'd like to think that like solders of war are experts in their craft hunting, skining, camouflage etc. so when they see something maybe it's true. Perhaps a little embelishment is ther but how much?...
As a side note, if after seeing elephants you told me there was at one time something that an animal roamed the earth that was 120ft long and weighed over a hundred tons ,well, I might not believe you.
Of course I didn't mean my post in a belittling way, sorry if it came off that way.
My point mainly was that folklore, while based on a reality, is frequently not the "reality" we think of.
The reality may be that they needed to convey a lesson about a moral, spritual or physical danger or worry, and the creatures were born of that.
It doesn't mean that they actually saw a swamp monster.
A thousand years ago, I could understand someone not believing in an elephant based on an eye witness account, but in this day and age, with all the forensic tools available there isn't a single shred of evidence that a bigfoot exists.
No hair, no bones, no legitimate pictures from ambush cameras. I get the idea that there are vast tracks of land where humans seldom tread. That isn't the question.
People who believe, claim to have heard or seen these creatures, which places them in proximity to humans. If they are in proximity to humans, then there should be some hard evidence. Something. Anything.
But there isn't. There is just testimony from someone who says they heard something or saw something, all of which could be explained by zoology as we know it today (mangy bear, howling canines etc).
The believers like to use both sides of the argument. When you say there is no evidence, they claim that there are vast wastelands where humans don't tread. Yet for many, their belief is based upon hearing something or seeing something they believe to be a bigfoot, which means that the vast wastelands of wilderness thing isn't a valid argument.
Last edited:
[QUOTE=luvmysuper;3888521]Of course I didn't mean my post in a belittling way, sorry if it came off that way.
Did not take it as such! No apology needed.
My point mainly was that folklore, while based on a reality, is frequently not the "reality" we think of.
The reality may be that they needed to convey a lesson about a moral, spritual or physical danger or worry, and the creatures were born of that.
Excellent point..and to put kids to sleep!
No hair, no bones, no legitimate pictures from ambush cameras. I get the idea that there are vast tracks of land where humans seldom tread. That isn't the question.
People who believe, claim to have heard or seen these creatures, which places them in proximity to humans. If they are in proximity to humans, then there should be some hard evidence. Something. Anything.
But there isn't.
That has me scratching my chin. I'm with you here. I give credence to the tribesmen tale yet.....Maybe they ate it? LOL.
There is just testimony from someone who says they heard something or saw something, all of which could be explained by zoology as we know it today (mangy bear, howling canines etc).
The believers like to use both sides of the argument. When you say there is no evidence, they claim that there are vast wastelands where humans don't tread. Yet for many, their belief is based upon hearing something or seeing something they believe to be a bigfoot, which means that the vast wastelands of wilderness thing isn't a valid argument.[/QUOTE]
True. Trust but verify...
Did not take it as such! No apology needed.
My point mainly was that folklore, while based on a reality, is frequently not the "reality" we think of.
The reality may be that they needed to convey a lesson about a moral, spritual or physical danger or worry, and the creatures were born of that.
Excellent point..and to put kids to sleep!
No hair, no bones, no legitimate pictures from ambush cameras. I get the idea that there are vast tracks of land where humans seldom tread. That isn't the question.
People who believe, claim to have heard or seen these creatures, which places them in proximity to humans. If they are in proximity to humans, then there should be some hard evidence. Something. Anything.
But there isn't.
That has me scratching my chin. I'm with you here. I give credence to the tribesmen tale yet.....Maybe they ate it? LOL.
There is just testimony from someone who says they heard something or saw something, all of which could be explained by zoology as we know it today (mangy bear, howling canines etc).
The believers like to use both sides of the argument. When you say there is no evidence, they claim that there are vast wastelands where humans don't tread. Yet for many, their belief is based upon hearing something or seeing something they believe to be a bigfoot, which means that the vast wastelands of wilderness thing isn't a valid argument.[/QUOTE]
True. Trust but verify...
- Thread starter
- #378
What I heard that night sure did not sound like any known animal I have ever experienced. There is one piece of bizzare trail cam footage from Mt. Olympic. Let me try and find it and link it here. You do need a bit of imagination to make out what they are describing, but it is bizzare.
Here is the link.
Here is the link.
Last edited:
I am not for one second debating that you heard something, or that the footage you speak of indicates something unusual.
My entire point is that though we have untold amounts of forensic tools at our disposal, there has not to this day been one single piece of credible evidence indicating that what we see and hear is definitely not some animal that we all already know, but in perhaps some unusual condition.
I wanted to point out that I was trying to say that people say they hear, or say they see something, but in these cases where they say so, there has been no forensic evidence.
When you tell them that, they then respond with the statement that "There are vast tracts of land where humans seldom go". This doesn't hold water, because people claim to see and hear the creature, which would mean that there should be some type of evidence.
I'll add that I don't think there is anything wrong with "wanting" to believe, but that "wanting" shouldn't cloud deductive reasoning.
My entire point is that though we have untold amounts of forensic tools at our disposal, there has not to this day been one single piece of credible evidence indicating that what we see and hear is definitely not some animal that we all already know, but in perhaps some unusual condition.
I wanted to point out that I was trying to say that people say they hear, or say they see something, but in these cases where they say so, there has been no forensic evidence.
When you tell them that, they then respond with the statement that "There are vast tracts of land where humans seldom go". This doesn't hold water, because people claim to see and hear the creature, which would mean that there should be some type of evidence.
I'll add that I don't think there is anything wrong with "wanting" to believe, but that "wanting" shouldn't cloud deductive reasoning.
Last edited:
Has anybody noticed that Bigfoot seems to have joined this board ?
Similar threads
