Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They've been looking for Bigfoot for years and other than some grainy garbage videos or smudgey heat signature stuff (and don't tell me there isn't money to be made faking it....lol).
So now, with all the trail cameras, night vision cameras, hunters etc etc etc. how many years (more) to we wait until the lack of hard proof makes people conclude it's a myth?
I've kept an open mind over the years but to me, the lack of DNA evidence (oh wait, there have been hoax attempts there too) as judged by reputable scientific analysis....no body....really? Nothing that can really stand up to scruity has ever appeared.
To make matters worse, we now have hosts of TV shows where guys wander around in the woods claiming every racoon fart is "clear signs of bigfoot activity".
So, how much longer are you guys humoring this? I'm pretty much done.
As long as people go camping in the woods and get spooked there will be a belief in Bigfoot. Anything unknown will be scary and full of monsters thanks to millions of years of evolution, since thinking that way is what kept our ancestors alive for so long.
For the people who WANT to believe beyond the lack of all evidence and reason ... there is no expiration date.
For people who have examined the evidence and analyzed what kind of environment would be needed to support such a creature ... I'd say around 1975.
Back in 1976, I was a grad student studying terrestrial ecology at a major Eastern university, and a fellow student and I approached a prof about the feasibility of getting a grant to do an ecological study of Loch Ness (which meant a study of the Loch's systems to see if it could support a large predator). He discouraged us, saying there was little hope it would bear fruit, but then showed us his files on bigfoot. He believed the fertile ecosystems of thr Pacific Northwest could very well support a large unknown primate ... I still see nothing wrong with this assessment.
At that point in time, I would have given maybe a 60% probability of there being a large primate up there behind the stories, including Native American traditions. Ten years ago, I would have said 40%. Today, I'd give it something like a 5% probability (certainly no higher than 10%), primarily because of the proliferation of technology like trail cams in recent years and a lot of interested people actively seeking bigfoot, with zero concrete evidence as a result. Cryptozoological energies spent on hunting bigfoot would be better spent on seeking evidence of critters like the thylacine and the orang pendek, in my opinion.
but then showed us his files on bigfoot. He believed the fertile ecosystems of thr Pacific Northwest could very well support a large unknown primate ...
What would a breeding population of large primates eat in the Pacific Northwest? Pine needles aren't that nutritious.
What would a breeding population of large primates eat in the Pacific Northwest? Pine needles aren't that nutritious.
Deer, supposedly. Come to think of it, what do deer eat in the Pacific Northwest?
I have been told of an account in which this person did see one. He wasn't looking for one and wasn't prepared for what happened and didn't tell anyone who would pay for the information. Then again, his account as relayed by me is only hearsay or anecdotal evidence, i.e. no evidence at all. Was the man making the whole thing up? Maybe, maybe not. Who knows what he actually saw but whatever it was it through rocks at him and chased away the deer he was hunting. So as long as these reports keep coming in there will be interest in the phenomenon.
But wouldn't it take A LOT of food to feed a Bigfoot?
For instance, brown bears eat up to 90 lbs. of food a day. They make a significant impact on their environment and as such, are noticed. Bigfoots (that makes me laugh but I do remember Bobo admonishing viewers that "they're not Bigfeet") are supposed to be larger than large bears - that's one of the things that people who say they've seen them use to prove that they couldn't have been bears. (There are others, of course.)
A Bigfoot would eat a lot of food, it would have to travel in order to find that food (as bears, deer, etc. do), it would be leaving a lot of feces and so on. It's supposed to be covered with hair - nobody has yet found a hair sample that wasn't proven to be some already-known animal. There would have to be a fairly significant number in order for them not to have died out yet. Yet the very few times they're seen, they can't be tracked or traced and not one very clear picture has ever been taken, even in the modern age with first very good nature cameras, and now, everyone and his brother carrying around a cell phone to take pictures with (and my husband's iphone took better pictures than my Canon, I just upgraded cameras and still sometimes these are neck-and-neck).
Supposedly, no Bigfoot has been found it's smart enough to hide. Other animals are quite smart, and naturally will want to hide, but still are seen just because of the above factors: they're ranging to find food, they leave feces, hair and the like. How could it be possible that Bigfoots are smart enough to cover their own trails literally everywhere they go?
No dead Bigfoots have been found. None. Some people theorize that Bigfoots bury their dead. Even when humans, with human technology, bury our dead, there's evidence of that. There is NO evidence of buried Bigfoots, zero.
If these creatures are that intelligent and advanced (capable of hiding their tracks the overwhelming majority of the time, leaving no feces, no hair and burying their dead in a way that's imperceptible to even humans who are "hunting" their existence) - which would, actually, put them at a more advanced level, for these factors at least, than humans - why do they lumber around and bang on trees rather than having actual shelters and the like? Even many animals create at least rudimentary shelters (and some, quite intricate and even waterproof ones) and certainly primates are capable of this. Bigfoot stalkers find two logs at angles and declare that a "Bigfoot-built shelter." Yeah, because they couldn't have fallen that way. Or been pushed around by other animals. Or by humans.
If they're advanced and wily enough to predict when humans are coming and hide themselves perfectly, bury their dead with the intent to hide those locations, collect their own feces and hair so they won't be found, why does their weaponry still consist of a log being banged against a tree and tossing stones inexpertly and nowhere near their apparent intended mark?
The fact of the matter is that we love legends and we love monster stories. Those will never die out. That's fine, but trying to prove them true just isn't going to work out, folks. They're not there. I may as well start my "The Search for the Pink Unicorn" show and every time I hear a snap in the woods or find a dead deer or hear a call or moan, add it to my "growing body of solid evidence" pile. You know, I'll bet I'd get viewers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They're not there. I may as well start my "The Search for the Pink Unicorn" show and every time I hear a snap in the woods or find a dead deer or hear a call or moan, add it to my "growing body of solid evidence" pile. You know, I'll bet I'd get viewers. 