Watch: Bigfoot: Man or Beast
Check out this oldie: Robert Morgan leads an expedition into the Mt. St. Helen's wilderness in search of the elusive Bigfoot. Morgan had his first Bigfoot sighting in 1957 and began full time research into the creatures in 1969. He has been involved in numerous expeditions to find Bigfoot, and in 1974, he founded the American Anthropological Research Foundation.
Neither. Myth.
ReplyDeleteHard to get financial backing for that.
Delete'Robert Morgan leads an expedition into the Mt. St. Helen's wilderness in search of the nonexistent Bigfoot.'
I'm done with the pathetic excuses. If that many people are seeing it and finding it's tracks we should have much better proof by now.
You can't have it both ways.
Case dismissed.
That's super you've appointed yourself World Judge and have delivered us your verdict from on high. Youre ego is remarkable, a veritible wonder of nature. Congratulations.
DeleteSo prove him wrong. Produce a specimen.
Delete^^^ How about you just leave. Nobody appointed us to enlighten your dumb ass. It's America, we can believe what we want.
Delete...I get what 9:11 is saying: The more sightings and prints the more likely it is to find physical proof or take credible photos...That is probably why Meldrum recently said most sightings are false: large numbers don't jibe with lack of proof.... On the other hand if we say most sightings are lies or wrong and most tracks bogus then we have to explain why the few that remain are better than the ones that are tossed from the record...
Delete12:13. Just trying to provide some friendly advice. You're free to continue your belief system. Don't let us threaten that.
DeleteRobert Morgan, has been "Researching" big foot, "Full time" since 1968. and he has proved? boy! he must be good!
ReplyDeleteThink about it?
If a 'Full time' researcher, can't show us any proof, after50+ years, then how can the hordes of 'part time" Hobbyist researchers show us any thing?
________________________________________________
Delete(insert ridiculous excuse for not being able to find proof of bigfoot here)
The best one is when footers pretend that they know what cameras are. Hilarious.
DeleteWhat's really amusing is folks that don't believe in such things, but they're obsessed with sites such as this. Pretty weird shite.
DeleteAgreed! ^
DeleteWhy do you watch fictional films if they are not real? Get a grip.
Delete10:48, I'm here because I find the psychological/sociological phenomenon of bigfoot interesting. I don't come here to see quality evidence of bigfoot or validate my beliefs about bigfoot.
DeleteEveryday this site validates my beliefs that bigfoot is bullshit.
DeleteNo validation required. Its already a given.
DeleteI found my way to this site because I think there might be something to this subject. However, that went out the window when I realized two things. 1. 99% of bigfoot "researchers" are self serving attention whores trying to make a buck. 2. I can't pass up poking the fanatics with a stick. The Joe's of the world will turn anything into proof of sasquatch. DNA is human? Bigfoot is human. Man in a suit? Can't be. Because you don't have the suit. Speaking of Joe. Is it just me or when Joe is MIA, a few other "regulars" seem to disappear at the same time? Co-incidence? I'm starting to think not. I recall a while back someone pointed out that Joe's IPO was at an Air Force base in Texas? Not Wales. Does anyone else remember this?
Delete...How would someone besides Shaun know Joe's IPO?..From what I read here, Joe and some others correspond via email, so maybe they discuss important evidence that way...Bigfoot after all is a secret...
DeleteFrom what I understand, certain nerds specialize in ferreting out frauds on the internet. It seems bigfoot ain't the only secret around here. And really? "important evidence"? If it isn't a effing body on a slab, it ain't important.
DeleteCase close. The skeptards have no lives. Who obsesses over material they don't believe in, day in and day out? Serious attention seeking whore trolls. Sad.
DeleteWhile it often appears that science knows pretty much everything there is to know (or that is worth knowing), the fact is that science is always in a state of flux, as one hypothesis is abandoned in favor of another or new discoveries come to light that rewrites everything scientists thought they knew to be a fact previously. Therefore, it is unwise to maintain with anything approaching certainty what is and is not possible–much less what could still be out there waiting to be discovered. With this in mind, then, it is important that people remain objective to the possibility that Bigfoot could exist, for without that objectivity, it makes getting to the truth of the matter all the more difficult. Why? Because if I “know” there’s no such thing as a Bigfoot, I’m unlikely to look at the evidence that there is, much less look for the creature itself. In essence, my faith in my own knowledge prevents me from acquiring any new knowledge.
ReplyDeleteIt's true that science does not know everything but that is no reason to start believing there are 9 foot apemen roaming north america undetected.
DeleteThey have been detected. Many witnesses.
DeleteIncorrect im afraid.
DeleteEye witness stories do not hold any weight in the scientific arena.
10:58 your comment and opinion hold no weight in the scientific arena, or here.
DeleteThe fact that many tribes–especially those from the Pacific Northwest–maintain similar legends of large, hairy men needs to be taken into account, especially since many of these legends appear to have arisen independently among various tribes that had little or no contact with each other, eliminating the possibility that one culture simply copied stories from another culture and made it their own. (Known as cross-cultural contamination.) While each tribe has its own twist on the legend and their own name for the beast, they all appear to be talking about a similar creature that existed long before whites ever arrived. Many tribes, in fact, maintain the truth of these legends to this day, insisting that they are based on a real creature and not mere superstition.
Delete^ Correct I am afraid! lol!
DeleteWas meant for 11:10 but also applies to 11:17
DeleteWhile the term “Bigfoot” wasn’t coined until the 1950’s, reports of the hairy beast go back centuries, challenging the notion that it is purely a modern phenomenon. Additionally, there have been literally thousands of first-hand reports collected by various investigative agencies over the years regarding the animal (and, we can assume, many more thousands that go unreported), often by credible witnesses (most significant among them being professional hunters, who are intimately familiar with a region’s native fauna and so should be difficult to fool) . While undoubtedly there are hoaxers contained within this mix and a number of people who misidentify known animals for unknown ones (bears being the most common) to assume that absolutely every single report is wrong is unreasonable. Clearly, people are seeing something they haven’t seen before, and not every one of them are a bear walking on its hind legs or hunters wearing camouflage suits. To dismiss them all is foolhardy.
ReplyDeleteFor me, the problem is the "investigative agencies" themselves. They seem to be more interested in Youtube hits than anything else.
DeleteThe job of science is to evaluate existing data and/or collect new data and use that data to draw objective conclusions and/or to inform future methods of data collection and evaluation.
ReplyDeleteScience cannot prove that bigfoot doesn't exist. But science can evaluate existing data and determine that there is not sufficient data to support the existence of bigfoot. The best data is objective (not easily susceptible to differing interpretations) repeatable (can be corroborated or replicated by anyone). Existing data (eyewitness accounts, footprints, tree structures, woops, knocks, blurry videos and picts, legends, etc) are not objective and repeatable. It doesn't mean that those things can't inform decisions on what science should study. Sometimes eyewitness accounts may point science in a direction and further investigation results in quality data, and confirmation of a new phenomenon. But eyewitness accounts cannot result in a conclusion.
If better data comes out (like a specimen), science would be all over it! Science can be informed by new/better data. But there has to be new/better data. Rehashing the same stuff we've seen for years is not going to result in proof of bigfoot's existence.
..A specimen is proof..I would like to know what you or others would consider good or compelling evidence that is short of proof..thanks..
DeleteThat is a great question. You would get my attention with video if:
Delete1) high quality (clearly shows detailed bigfoot features and activity)
2) taken on more than one occasion and/or over a period of time
3) from a credible source
4) validated with some kind of physical evidence
5) there was an objective review by mainstream science
That wouldn't be definitive proof but would be big.
...Thanks for that excellent response..
DeleteNow that gay magician J Randi has relinquished his forum to another skeptic religion organization and there is no more JREF, do you JREF butt plugs want to be called just butt plugs ?
ReplyDeleteAd hominem much?
DeleteWhy are you obsessed with butt plugs? Serious question.
Delete^^^ because you jerks are always up somebodies ass about something you SUPPOSEDLY don't believe in.
DeleteSo you all must be dicks, butpluggs or both!
Buttplugs ---- ha aha ha ha ha hah hah ahah ahh ahahahh a ha hah ah ahhahaah!
DeleteWhy does it matter that Randi is gay? Oh yeah, this is kindergarten
DeleteWe have club that makes fun of this bigfoot business. so far, we reported over 150 encounter/sightings to the BFRO and they are all lies, all made up stories, and were accepted into the BFRO database!
ReplyDeleteWe even had club members as 'Eye witnesses, at the Finding Big foot show's town hall meetings!
We made numerous hoaxed Big foot videos, many on Youtube, but 2 were used in the Finding Bigfoot show!
Dr. Jeff Meldrum, has several of our "Faked tracks" plaster casts, in his collection, Cliff Barackman has 6 of them! All deem authentic
My club is full of the best liers there is. They lie with a straight face! As goods as Dyer, Standing or Biscardi!
Boy! Are you footers dumb! Dumb, dumb, dumb! and Pathetic!
It would be fun if you can authenticate this and aren't just making it up.
Delete