Undiscovered Creatures Thread (Nessie, BigFoot, etc.)

Thanks for this goes to Darkmatters and Darkk, because Darkk mentioned something about creatures being mentioned in the Bible, making me mention Nessie, and Darkmatters commented on that too, and so it goes :D

So, here's what I think. Our world is a big place. It was just on the news not to long ago that we discovered a new ANIMAL that resembles a raccoon or something. Before that, there was the arctic crab that had fur! We are constantly discovering new types of sea creatures, insects, and occasionally animals. With that being said, why do so many find the idea of a creature like Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster to be so far out there? Remember, there was a time when the giant squid was considered legend, but now we've proven they exist.

I'm not saying there are monsters out there; we just label things like Nessie and Bigfoot as monsters, when in reality, if they do exist they are some sort of animal. Nessie could be a prehistoric sea creature we thought extinct. It wasn't so long ago that scientists discovered a fish that we thought to be extinct, still alive and swimming around. So it's possible. Bigfoot could be a species of ape or monkey that we have yet to discover.

Darmatters pointed out that the "original" Bigfoot video everyone likes to point to as evidence that the creature exists was hoaxed--the people who supposedly made it came forward and told how they did it (this was in a different thread about religion). I would like to point out that there's been sightings of Bigfoot for hundreds of years or more, so just because the first video was proven to be a hoax doesn't mean that the creature itself is. The same can be said of UFO's--even a couple of our founding fathers had claimed to see flying objects in the sky (and this was before there were planes floating around out there, before the Air Force and experimental aircraft). And there've been reports of UFO's long before them too; so proving the first or earliest video evidence false doesn't prove the idea false.

What do you think? Could these creatures possibly exist, or do you think they're all hoaxes--or maybe you have an alternate explanation that hasn't yet come up?

~SilveerWolf~

Part of me wants to say that Nessie isn't real because as far as I've heard, there's only really been one site from where it has been observed (correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't really done my research on this) suggesting that there is only one of its species, or that they all live in that same area but travel individually. Not only that, but the lifespan of the supposed monster must be incredibly high seeing as it has been sighted for many years.

Araishu, I watched a documentary on the science channel a few months back about a creature often referred to as "America's Loch Ness Monster." I don't remember where it is exactly (it was a surprise to me, I live in the US and never heard of it, but apparently there's been sightings), but there is a creature that has been sighted/filmed/photographed that looks exactly like Nessie. Now, it could be a hoax of course, but I've heard of other sightings too in other places, so I don't think Nessie is the only sea creature sighting we've had. She is the most famous, of course, but I know of at least one more, and am pretty sure I've heard of others. Of course, there's always sightings of strange creatures in swamps and lakes in other underdeveloped countries too; Nessie-like ones, I'm not sure, usually these are tales of things like GIANT snakes and alligators.

I agree with you on the life-span, the most obvious explanation being there is a family of Nessie-like critters in Loch-Ness, and other places where they've been sighted, rather than a single creature living there. Or, it's all a hoax and I'm wrong in believing they exist. I think Bigfoot is more likely then Nessie, only because Nessie is in a lake, that unless I'm mistaken, has no connection to the ocean. I've never heard of a sighting in the ocean of a Nessie like creature (although I'm sure there have been). Though there have been tales of "sea monsters" for centuries.

~SilverWolf~

Humans really do frustrate me sometimes :P
Hoaxes are just a complete waste of time when we could actually be studying something worth while. Big foot I also think would be a more likely creature to exist, but why they are so rare and infrequently spotted is quite the mystery.

Could be a numbers thing; a species, near extinction perhaps. If there weren't alot out there to begin with, it could explain why they are so rare, and also why there has never been a body found; after all, bears are pretty common creatures, and yet we don't see them very often, or come across their corpses. Soooo, imagine how the odds would be stacked against that if the creature were one that is extremely limited in number.

Now, I wouldn't be surprised if we found a nessie-like creature in the oceans. We know more about our galaxy than we know about our own oceans; and to me there's no excuse for that. We ought to know more about the planet we live on than we know about what lies in space :o

~SilverWolf~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSilverWolf

Could be a numbers thing; a species, near extinction perhaps. If there weren't alot out there to begin with, it could explain why they are so rare, and also why there has never been a body found; after all, bears are pretty common creatures, and yet we don't see them very often, or come across their corpses. Soooo, imagine how the odds would be stacked against that if the creature were one that is extremely limited in number.

Now, I wouldn't be surprised if we found a nessie-like creature in the oceans. We know more about our galaxy than we know about our own oceans; and to me there's no excuse for that. We ought to know more about the planet we live on than we know about what lies in space :o

~SilverWolf~

---

I don't know about you, but marine life really creeps me out. I would much prefer to travel among the stars than explore the depths of the deep blue :S

Haha, that's funny! I see your point though, we have things like giant squid and sharks and who knows what else :o

I'd personally prefer to explore space too :)

But you never know, we might perfect space travel and find even creepier creatures then marine life. Like those grey's people claim to see, only worse. OR, an alien version of a Giant Squid that floats around in space waiting to eat extraterrestrial explorers :D

~SilverWolf~

There are new species being discovered all the time, but of course the vast majority of them are pretty boring, nothing like the wild and fanciful imaginary creatures that capture the popular imagination. On the last episode of River Monsters Jeremy Wade did a lot of investigating into Nessie (not really scientific, strictly amateur stuff) and followed similar sightings and reports around the globe, and discovered one quite likely link between all of them - the mysterious (almost unknown to science) creature known as the Greenland Shark. Not as much fun as thinking about a surviving Plesiosaurus of course, but much more probable (though obviously not conclusive). He also got the guy involved who has been responsible for most of the research into Loch Ness. Great episode!!

I also got pretty excited a while back about the Florida Skunk Apes - not as exciting as a human/ape hybrid or evolutionary throwback like Bigfoot, but something still pretty cool to think about - something similar to Orangutans living in swamps in Florida and prowling backyards to raid trash cans and dumpsters for feed, being attacked by dogs, etc. The stories sound a lot more plausible than Bigfoot, but still there's no actual evidence.

There have always been myths and legends about ape/man hybrids living in the forests. It's just a fascinating idea that appeals in a deep primal way - totally archetypal (and the archetypal will be seen everywhere around the globe, even if it doesn't exist, because it exists so powerfully in the human psyche). But it's pretty unlikely that to this day we wouldn't have ever found a dead body or a skeleton of even one.

So I absolutely do get excited about undiscovered creatures, but a lot less so about the ones that are pretty obviously fanciful wish fulfillments and probably don't actually exist. Hey, it's possible there really is some kind of Sasquatch or Nessie somewhere, but I'll get excited about that one when the evidence comes to light. Oh, don't get me wrong, it's a lot of fun to think about, just like watching an exciting fictional movie is a lot of fun. In fact they're very similar.

When it comes to Bigfoot, I'm on the fence. I haven't seen him personally, but I haven't seen full on proof the it doesn't exist, so I don't fully believe it, but I'm not fully dismissing it as fake. Same with other things of that nature, except spirits, because I have seen one of those. I'm just wondering why people keep saying that there is no proof of Bigfoot. There are tons of hair samples that have been tested and found to not belong to anything we know of. There have been dozens upon dozens of footprints that have been examined and proved not to have been faked. Of course there have been footprints done by a guy who claims to be a professional bigfoot print maker, but he has only placed them around California. They even have group meetings all over the US for people who have had bigfoot sightings and dozens of people show up for those things. I just think there is far too much proof from all over the world by all different people from different countries who don't even know each other to dismiss Bigfoot as sure fire fake. The skunk ape fascinated me too, but he's not the only cousin of Bigfoot. There's the Hibagon – Japan's Bigfoot, the Mogollon Monster, the Tsul 'Kalu, the Wild Man of the Navidad, the Yeren – Mongolia's Bigfoot, the Yeti – The Himalayas' Bigfoot, and the Yowie.

One of the things I wanted to bring up from something DarkMatters brought up on the Christian post was about crop circles. I have always been iffy about them, then I saw a program dedicated to crop circles and they had people who told that they had made some crop circles, and then showed how they did it. Most basic crop circles are just people playing pranks, but the majority of the most elaborate ones, the ones that people are sure can only be made my aliens, is actually a professional crop circle making group. They also showed how they made them and said they did it as a passion of theirs. While watching it I realized that even I have the capability of making one of those things, and it would be kind of fun, but then I would be causing a farmer to lose money and I could go to jail. The farmers had a segment of the video, telling about how badly their profits were affected by crop circles. I can't say that it causes me to dismiss aliens, but at least we know for a fact that they don't leave patterns on our corn fields.

I don't think they are real, because they are big, and in areas with people. Things that we discover are usually small things, or things in remote areas, often both. Things that are large and in areas people often visit should be seen often, and would likely have been studied some what. It is even more unlikely since a lot of people search for them but have not found them.

I get what your saying Alric, but bears and Moose are big too, and how often do people really see them, considering how many people are out in the woods? Not as many as one would expect, given how many there are. Now take into consideration the possibility that they are near extinct, and is it really such a surprise that we wouldn't have discovered it yet? And those things I was telling you about that we just discovered recently, the ones that looked like raccoons, they were in plain sight all along. From the news story I saw, they were in a reasonably traversed/populated area, and we've just now found it. Granted, it's small, but still...

On the crop circles, I saw something on either science or natgeo about them, probably the same show you did Darkk. There was also another one though too, that talked about how in some crop circles, the grain that they were created in was actually changed on a molecular level! THIS is significant; in the hoaxed ones the guy had researched, that difference wasn't there, that change in the plants wasn't there. I don't think THAT could be hoaxed--that points to a need for another explanation of them.

I'll also say it really ticks me off when someone decides one morning "Hey, I'm going to go out and dress like big-foot, film it, and post it on the internet" or "I'm going to go and hoax a crop circle today, just to mess with people's minds!" It really makes it hard for people to take such phenomena seriously when you have jerks that think it's such a great idea to go and hoax people like that--with the intent of making people believe it's supernatural. THAT is just wrong :s

~SilverWolf~

I see bears and moose almost every time I watch Alaska State Troopers. People need to take extreme precautions to keep bears from breaking into their gardens, trash, and even their houses. Moose get hit by cars, or block the highway, or are found dead all the time. I remember one episode where somebody called the troopers because they had found what they thought was a human hand skeleton on top of a dumpster, and it was actually a sawed-off bear paw skeleton, which is very common.

I've never heard of any of these problems with Bigfoot skeletons or Bigfeet being found digging through dumpsters or needing to be scared off the highway so traffic can move again.

Yeah, what I'm saying is considering how many of them there are, there are relatively few sightings; and this is mostly with bears, although it seems when you WANT to find a Moose, they mysteriously vanish :o

But, IF Bigfoot exists, and it is either endangered or near extinct, don't you think that could account for the total lack of running into them, Darkmatters? Or do you still think there would be something more tangible than we have?

I think some people will believe what they want to believe, regardless of evidence or the total lack thereof.

You know, I think we are in complete agreement on that one, Darkmatters. Some people will believe, or refuse to believe, no matter how much evidence is thrown to refute them. And then there are those that are so close minded they refuse to take the evidence seriously, or come up with incredulous reasons why the evidence cannot be valid--or simply refuse to acknowledge that there is evidence. I've always wondered how much better off our species would be as a whole, if we were just a bit more open minded about things, instead of being stuck with the entire "seeing is believing" mentality.

~SilverWolf~

Define close-minded. I'm not at all close-minded concerning Bigfoot. If there was any evidence that was more than just anecdotal hearsay, then I'd be willing to take a closer look. Are you open minded about unicorns and flying octopi?

If nessie is real then definately its a prehistoric creature, a relic from the dinosaurs. Its possible nessie was living about 200 years ago. But with all this invasive pollution, its also possible its officially extinct. Most people are also not aware just how deep the loch really is. It is, really, really deep.

But bigfoot? Run.

If bigfoot is real, it is not a creature, it wouldn't even be an ape-man. Part of the bigfoot problem is people so want to find this ape-like-creature. They aren't listening to the experiences. There are many accounts of bigfoot encounters that are simply "supernatural". Like, the capacity to turn invisible. It sounds nutty, but its actually whats been reported. And it dates back to the native americans.

The native americans will tell you that Bigfoot is an interdimensional being - or a spirit that can take on physical form. They are intelligent, but can also be very very hostile. And for the most part they hate humans and are not to be messed with. So what are people experiencing? I don't know, all I know is if you do see a bigfoot go the other way!

Years ago my friend walked into the woods alone. She stopped by a large tree that had a huge gaping hole. A huge black man-creature stood out. She meant this man-creature was so black he was basically a featureless shadow. All she could see was the outline. Huge, massive, taller than normal. But the way he stepped out of the hole is the way we humans step. And not the way a bear would step, shuffling their feet.

She bloody ran the other way and that thing chased her the entire way out the forest!

I define close minded as not willing to believe, or unwilling to change your mind given reasonable evidence. Of course, what I define as reasonable and what you do is probably going to be very different. And there have been supposed unicorn sightings, just as an FYI. Probably from people who've been reading a fantasy novel while taking some LSD, but just saying :p

juroara, I've not really heard the more paranormal reports of Big-foot. I've only heard the ones where someone sees a large hulking figure that looks like a giant ape; stories of that nature. Though I did once hear that there is often an influx of UFO sightings in areas with Big-foot sightings. Not sure if that means anything or is just coincidence.

What your friend described almost sounds like some of the sightings of Shadow People (which I think are probably ghosts or spirits if you prefer that term). A huge black creature that is basically a featureless shadow...sounds like a pretty good definition of a Shadow Person to me. Interesting it would appear to step OUT of a hole though. And it's stories like that, that I don't think we should dismiss entirely. There are sooo many like that, are we really to believe every single one is made up, imagination, hoax, mistaken identity, etc??

I'm pretty open minded. I don't just believe EVERYTHING is real, but I am willing to change my opinion if there are enough facts to warrant it. For example, if we came up with definitive proof that there was no way for an animal like Bigfoot or Nessie to exist, then I'd be okay with that and accept it. But we cannot account for all of the sightings; to believe every single Bigfoot sighting is a hoax or case of mistaken identity just seems to be a bit of a stretch. It's the same thing with alien life, in my opinion. How can one say that there isn't other life on other planets, when we live in an infinitely large universe, with trillions and trillions and trillions of planets. If even .01% of those planets were in the "goldilocks zone" for life, that is still a heck of a lot of chances for there to be life out there.

So yeah, to me open mindedness is (within reason) not immediately dismissing an idea just because it at first sounds a bit out there.

~SIlverWolf~

I already said what my threshold for evidence is - something beyond anecdotal hearsay. To define it further, something concrete - bones, a body. Bigfoot is a pretty extraordinary claim obviously, and requires some real concrete proof to rise above the mythical/fantasy realm. For me anyway.

I didn't ask you if there had been unicorn sightings, my question was are you open minded about it? Do you accept that there are probably unicorns? Because as you said, some people said they saw one once.

What's your bar for evidence in a murder case? Hopefully if you were on a jury you'd require more than you do to accept such an extraordinary claim as Bigfoot. Does your acceptable level of evidence shift depending on the situation?

When it comes to someone's life, as in a murder trial, it's completely different. The burden of proof, for one thing, is supposed to be on the prosecution, not the defense (although, in practice, this seldom seems to actually happen, but that's another topic for another time). But I think the sightings themselves have moved beyond hearsay. If millions of people started to claim seeing unicorns, I'd probably begin to think there's something to the sightings. Maybe an unknown breed of horse that has a horn, or something like that. I don't believe a horse could ever fly, but depending on the mythos, a Unicorn may or may not have wings.

I don't require something like bones or a body to believe Bigfoot is out there, for the reason's I've highlighted before. Presuming Bigfoot is real, as I think it is, and presuming it is simply some sort of animal (not some half human half ape, but a genuine undiscovered animal), and presuming that, as I believe, this animal is near extinct, that alone should explain the lack of bones or a body. Now don't get me wrong, I'm also open to the possibility that Bigfoot DOESN'T exist; I just think right now, there's too much out there to definitively say that this animal does not exist.

And I think yes, my level of acceptable evidence does shift depending on the situation. I think it does for everyone, because everybody has different perceptions and things that they can more easily believe. For example, I don't believe in the illuminati/lizard person conspiracy. That even pushes the boundaries of my open mindedness. But something you seem not to understand is that I am not saying I don't think there's a possibility the whole Bigfoot thing is pure fantasy; because I am. But I also just have that feeling. Everyone has instincts, call it gut feelings, call it instincts, call it whatever you like, but we all have it. And side from the evidence that I see, such as the many many MANY sightings, and my own theories to explain away the lack of bodies/bones, I also feel that this creature exists, that there's more to these sightings than coincidence. I guess, to use an X-Files analogy, I'm like Agent Mulder--I believe the truth is out there, and just hope we find it.

~SilverWolf~

The Patterson-Gimlin film was never proven to be a hoax. If anything, we've proven that a human does not fit the animal's proportions. It could not have been a man in a suit -- not a normal man, anyway.

I don't think unicorns exist, and they definitely wouldn't have wings. The whole idea of unicorns having wings was a combined mythology with Pegasus, who is from Greek mythology, and Greek mythology is definitely not real. Unicorns are in the bible, but it turns out that it was referring to a single horned rhinoceros, there Latin name being unicornis.

Quote:

---

There was also another one though too, that talked about how in some crop circles, the grain that they were created in was actually changed on a molecular level! THIS is significant; in the hoaxed ones the guy had researched, that difference wasn't there, that change in the plants wasn't there. I don't think THAT could be hoaxed--that points to a need for another explanation of them.

---

I saw that one too! I completely forgot about that part :P ya that definitely was weird. Maybe it's possible for humans to have gotten the idea of crop circles from seeing one already made by aliens, who knows. I have looked into tons of alien videos and claims, and while some have been proved to be hoaxed, some have not been. There is one video that baffles me and critics. Fact or faked did an episode on it (which excited me because I have always liked the video) and they found that there is no way it could have been faked, there replications came nowhere close. They even lie detector tested the guy who's camera it was captured on and he was telling the truth. No one can prove it wrong, it's one of my favorite videos. They weren't able to prove Roswell was fake either, and there was even a case where an entire town saw the same craft at the same time, even the law enforcement. They looked into every possibility of what it could have been but there is nothing. Things like that really cause my beliefs to lean more towards these things existing. Plus it's just like what TheSilverWolf said, there are trillions upon trillions of planets out there, the likely hood of other beings existing is completely probable. They have discovered another planet like earth actually, and currently have robots on the way to explore it. Wouldn't that be funny if that robot causes that planets inhabitants, if there are any, to have alien rumors about us haha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSilverWolf

With that being said, why do so many find the idea of a creature like Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster to be so far out there?

---

Two reasons.

1) The claims put forth as evidence end up being either fabrications or just not evidence at all (false sightings, mistaking a log for Nessie's head, etc.).

2) The likelihood of such large creatures existing without us knowing is rather low. Big Foot and the Loch Ness Monster aren't comparable to large animals like the Giant Squid; neither live in places humans have an incredibly difficult time getting to such as deep oceans. Big Foot supposedly lives somewhere in the Pacific Northwest of the US. Nessie supposedly lives in, well, Loch Ness. You might say that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but we should expect to have SOME rigorous evidence of these creatures. Their legends have been around for decades, ignoring the hundreds of years of more general traditions revolving around similarly described monsters. In each expedition or study performed, no conclusive evidence has been discovered. "Absence of evidence where evidence of a certain kind should be expected is evidence of absence."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TimeDragon97

The Patterson-Gimlin film was never proven to be a hoax. If anything, we've proven that a human does not fit the animal's proportions. It could not have been a man in a suit -- not a normal man, anyway.

---

The film's history is suspect, to say the least.

Yes, but what Darkmatters said was false. That's all I'm saying.

I personally find it hard to believe that every Sasquatch sighting, hair sample, DNA sample, footprint, photograph, video, and audio recording is a misidentification, hallucination, or hoax.

I never said it was proven to be a hoax. You misinterpreted SilverWoof's recap of what I had said on another thread. In fact on that thread I had to straighten out somebody else who had leaped to the same conclusion.

What I actually said is that one of the guys who had been involved in filming it came forward and revealed that they had had a costume made and deliberately made the film as a hoax. I don't remember all the details, which guy it was and all that, it's been a long time since I read about it, too lazy to look it up right now. As I recall I think it was the guy who wore the costume.

So yeah, it's true that a confession by one of the perpetrators isn't conclusive proof - he's been unable to produce the original costume after 30 some years and the other people involved are probably dead and can't be reached for comment. But it does go a long way toward solving the mystery, doesn't it?

Not surprisingly, all the people who love Bigfoot refuse to accept his testimony. Just as they refuse to accept that the famous plaster castings of footprints were also a hoax, perpetrated by a construction worker who wanted to freak out his co-workers so he carved some big wooden feet and placed footprints around the construction site, thereby giving Bigfoot his name.

It seems people accept a lot of nonsense as so-called 'evidence'. Hair samples that supposedly have been identified as 'not from anything we know'? Who did the identification - could have been some guy who just looked at the hair and said "Welp - don't look human to me, nor do it look like my dog's hair. T'aint from nothin' I ever saw before!"

Even if it was examined by biologists and found not to be human or any other particular species that can be identified, all that would mean is it's not from anything we can identify. It doesn't prove it's from a tall human-ape hybrid.

"I can't identify this" is not proof of anything.

For DNA samples to be proof of anything you need to be able to match the DNA to something known. In a paternity lawsuit they don't just go "Well, the baby's DNA doesn't match the husband's, so therefore it must belong to THAT GUY OVER THERE!"

Staged school shootings, chemtrails, Bigfoot... I swear Extended Discussion used to be better than this.

No offence. I think your original post is just a matter of semantics. What does "Big Foot" actually mean? If you just mean an undiscovered species of ape living in some indeterminate area of the world, nobody can really rule that out. Undiscovered mammals exist... this is not controversial. That's no reason to have a positive belief in any specific creature, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Staged school shootings, chemtrails, Bigfoot... I swear Extended Discussion used to be better than this.

---

It's fucking wacky. R/S is better than ED these days.

I have no idea if these things exist or not. After reading about the giant squid thing in the OP, I ended up looking giant squids up on youtube and wasting about 30 minutes.

Anyway, there's this sea monster called Ogopogo which lives relatively close to me in BC. I think the main problem with most of these supposed monster sightings is that they could be interpreted in many ways. Like the Ogopogo one, for example. The sightings all look kinda like this:

http://www.frymybacon.com/media/imag...le_0136_03.jpg

And people's imaginations get carried away and they think they're seeing some snaky dinosaur thing, while really it just looks like it could be shadows on the waves or something. Maybe the bottom of the lake creates odd waves, or the mountains around it make weird reflections. Whatever it is, the movements don't look like a real animal's.

I haven't looked into the Lochness Monster myth (put a documentary on my 'watch later' playlist), but it seems to me that if it really did exist, people would have seen it by now, or gotten some hard evidence. What are the chances that they'd get a bunch of shadowy, los-res or far-away photos, especially in the modern age where everyone has an HD camera on them? These types of pictures just make the whole thing more mysterious and interesting to us, which makes people seek it out, and since they're looking for it, if they notice something a little odd they'll think it's the monster.

I think it would be awesome if the megalodon turned out not to be extinct though.

http://www.bubblews.com/assets/image...1375825672.jpg

It's hard to google that shark without finding "Could giant shark still exist?", etc. You don't get people hypothesizing and some believing that other extinct animals may still exist, because no one cares. The thought that a giant shark could exist, though, is just so exciting and scary that it becomes like an urban legend in a sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

I never said it was proven to be a hoax. You misinterpreted SilverWoof's recap of what I had said on another thread. In fact on that thread I had to straighten out somebody else who had leaped to the same conclusion.

What I actually said is that one of the guys who had been involved in filming it came forward and revealed that they had had a costume made and deliberately made the film as a hoax. I don't remember all the details, which guy it was and all that, it's been a long time since I read about it, too lazy to look it up right now. As I recall I think it was the guy who wore the costume.

---

I know who you're referring to, and I think he's lying for money and attention.

Quote:

---

Not surprisingly, all the people who love Bigfoot refuse to accept his testimony. Just as they refuse to accept that the famous plaster castings of footprints were also a hoax, perpetrated by a construction worker who wanted to freak out his co-workers so he carved some big wooden feet and placed footprints around the construction site, thereby giving Bigfoot his name.

---

That's a gross generalization. I actually accept the latter as a hoax. There is also a cryptozoologist -- Bernard Heuvelmans or something, I think -- thinks the Patterson film is a hoax. You seem to be under the preassumption that all Bigfoot believers are gullible morons.

Quote:

---

It seems people accept a lot of nonsense as so-called 'evidence'. Hair samples that supposedly have been identified as 'not from anything we know'? Who did the identification - could have been some guy who just looked at the hair and said "Welp - don't look human to me, nor do it look like my dog's hair. T'aint from nothin' I ever saw before!"

Even if it was examined by biologists and found not to be human or any other particular species that can be identified, all that would mean is it's not from anything we can identify. It doesn't prove it's from a tall human-ape hybrid.

"I can't identify this" is not proof of anything.

---

I never said it was. It shows something is going on that needs to be investigated. And stop calling 'Squatch "human-ape hybrids".

Quote:

---

I think it would be awesome if the megalodon turned out not to be extinct though

---

I personally am a fan of the megladon still possibly existing. I don't know why, maybe because we know it did exist and it's survival is more probable then most of the other myths, and I once herd a hypothesis that made perfect sense as to how it could still be alive.

I am very critical on every myth I hear before I accept it as possible. The majority of the ones I have read about I have found are either fake or people seeing something out of something else. This one video I saw was supposedly an unidentified creature swimming in a lake. Everybody SWORE it was real because it was a video and the creature was in the middle of the video and it was taped for a good time, but I took one look at it and automatically knew it was just an elephant swimming. The video was so obvious, and the thing that stumped me was how a "professional biologist" looked at the video and said it was something he had never seen before. What?!? That seriously made me question his credibility. I am certainly not a biologist but I know a swimming elephant when I see one. Take a look at the video and see what you think. Type in "turkish lake monster" and its the second video down titled "lake van monster in turkey". I guarantee if it had it's trunk sticking up people would say it was the loch ness monters cousin or something.

That's another reason I hate hoaxers. You get some idiot that wants to mess with everybody, so they put together some cheap film a 3 year old could make better, and post it as "proof x exists" and then everyone else who is halfway sane looks at it, scoffs at the hoaxer, and then labels all people who believe in "x" as crackpot morons. It's like the statements that keep referring to Bigfoot as a "human-ape Hybrid." Did I ever say I think human-ape hybrids are walking around? No I did not. I never once stated I think Bigfoot is a human-ape hybrid. Some people think that's exactly what Bigfoot is. Many more do not.

The real problem this comes down to, and why so many scoff at people like me, Darkk, TimeDragon, and others who believe in the possibility of these creatures existing, is people who make hoaxes. Be they professional grade hoaxes, with high quality, realistic looking videos, or childish hoaxers who film things purposefully grainy and/or blurry, OR use obvious CGI; all of them have one thing in common: They make the rest of us look completely stupid.

I have to disagree with the idea that Bigfoot is "too big" for us to have never come across it by now. Also, the creature is not restricted to just one part of the world, as that person (can't remember who posted it, don't want to lose this post to go back to the last page and find it), said in their post. The Yetti is the arctic's version of Bigfoot; it's the same creature, only instead of being seen in the jungle, it's seen in snowy mountainous terrain instead. But that's just me; I am able to believe it's possible for us not to have discovered it yet, because in reality, Bigfoot isn't all that big. It's only a foot or two taller than humans, and compared to many of the animals around, we humans aren't very big either. Plus, the fact is, if we are still discovering new (animal) life on this planet, what's to say that we won't one day find whatever is responsible for all the Bigfoot sightings?

~SilverWolf~

Honestly, I'm scared for these hoaxers. If you're an idiot running around in a forest wearing an ape costume, you're only asking a trigger happy american to make you into a mantle piece.

I have only one thing to say to that Juroara, and I'm lucky I can manage to even type it:

LMAO!!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSilverWolf

I have to disagree with the idea that Bigfoot is "too big" for us to have never come across it by now. Also, the creature is not restricted to just one part of the world, as that person (can't remember who posted it, don't want to lose this post to go back to the last page and find it), said in their post. The Yetti is the arctic's version of Bigfoot; it's the same creature, only instead of being seen in the jungle, it's seen in snowy mountainous terrain instead. But that's just me; I am able to believe it's possible for us not to have discovered it yet, because in reality, Bigfoot isn't all that big. It's only a foot or two taller than humans, and compared to many of the animals around, we humans aren't very big either. Plus, the fact is, if we are still discovering new (animal) life on this planet, what's to say that we won't one day find whatever is responsible for all the Bigfoot sightings?

~SilverWolf~

---

I can't imagine many of the new species being discovered these days include organisms that are very large.

An ape-like creature should not be difficult to find, especially if it's larger than the average human, even just by a foot or two. This is ignoring the stated habitat of something like Bigfoot, which is pretty unanimously the Pacific Northwest of the US. This is even ignoring the possibility of a population of these kinds of creatures. If ancient legends of the Himalayan settlers include creatures such as the Yeti, there can't be just one or two fumbling around in the wilderness these days (assuming they're not going extinct). Everything we know about animal populations suggests that if such creatures are real, we shouldn't have to strain to find them. There should be more than one. We should find bones and fur that don't match any known animals, fecal remains, odd habitats, corpses, etc. We have none of that despite years of legends. In cases such as these, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Ah, but I think you missed my own personal theory, BlueLine. I do think that this creature would have to be near extinct. For one, if there were the numbers you are saying, I think there'd probably be more sightings of them. Maybe not, because really, how likely is it for you to go out and see a wolverine, even if you are an experienced hiker that spends years in the woods? But, given the creature, I would say if this creature weren't endangered or near extinct, we'd probably see more of them and we would probably have definitive proof by now that they do exist. You make good points, BlueLine, it's just I think you're missing the idea I have, in that Bigfoot is some animal that is extremely shy (many animals are this way, even wolves--they flee at the faintest sign of a human), and it is either endangered or near extinction. With both of those together, I think that really would explain our lack of physical evidence.

~SilverWolf~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSilverWolf

Ah, but I think you missed my own personal theory, BlueLine. I do think that this creature would have to be near extinct. For one, if there were the numbers you are saying, I think there'd probably be more sightings of them. Maybe not, because really, how likely is it for you to go out and see a wolverine, even if you are an experienced hiker that spends years in the woods? But, given the creature, I would say if this creature weren't endangered or near extinct, we'd probably see more of them and we would probably have definitive proof by now that they do exist. You make good points, BlueLine, it's just I think you're missing the idea I have, in that Bigfoot is some animal that is extremely shy (many animals are this way, even wolves--they flee at the faintest sign of a human), and it is either endangered or near extinction. With both of those together, I think that really would explain our lack of physical evidence.

~SilverWolf~

---

I didn't miss the point. Generally people only speak of ONE Big Foot or ONE Yeti, not populations. But they had to have come from a larger population, which leads me to question why we haven't found any of its deceased counterparts. Even if it's shy, it's not invisible. At least the history of its species isn't invisible.

Where are the Bones? » CliffBarackman.com

Quote:

---

This is ignoring the stated habitat of something like Bigfoot, which is pretty unanimously the Pacific Northwest of the US. This is even ignoring the possibility of a population of these kinds of creatures. If ancient legends of the Himalayan settlers include creatures such as the Yeti, there can't be just one or two fumbling around in the wilderness these days (assuming they're not going extinct). Everything we know about animal populations suggests that if such creatures are real, we shouldn't have to strain to find them. There should be more than one. We should find bones and fur that don't match any known animals, fecal remains, odd habitats, corpses, etc. We have none of that despite years of legends. In cases such as these, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

---

I have answered all these in previous posts. Sightings of Bigfoot have happened all over the united states, including Virginia and Florida, though in Florida he is called the skunk ape. I used to live in Virginia and it was in all the papers that someone claimed to have saw Bigfoot in the area that I lived. I made a joke to my brother that he needed to stop streaking in the woods, because he is 6' 4" with thick, dark brown hair :), and people in my area tend to drink, but I do know that plenty of people who don't drink have sighted Bigfoot in Virginia. I also gave a list of all the different Bigfoots all over the world, and explained how people have found tufts of hair that were from and unidentified creature and footprints that were proven not to be fake. I also remember that fecal remains have been found too possibly from Bigfoot. Bigfoot has been so studied into and searched for so much that they gave creatures like him a name, Squatches, and have figured out his behaviors, like how they communicate with knocks on trees and yowls.

There's also sightings in Alaska too, Darkk--they are called Yeti up here, as I said in my other post. Well, SOME up here call it yeti anyway; I prefer Bigfoot because I prefer one term to describe the same animal.

No, they are still called Sasquatch in Alaska. Yeti live in the Himalayas.

Huh, weird Time-Dragon, I've heard Alaskan's use the term too. Borrowing I guess :p