To say it's been a little boring in Bigfootdomâ„¢ lately is an understatement. As is my saying I still enjoy talking about it here regardless.

Anyway, considering the virtually complete lack of anything anywhere to the contrary, I'm just not that hopeful anymore there really is a Bigfoot. As ignorant as I may be at times, I've still heard/read/discussed all the stories, contemplated all the arguments and seen all the pictures. Yet, IT'S just never quite there. "Well it was here, I think. I don't know where it went." Okay sometimes it's there, but in only fleeting moments of time too short to measure...and then nothing again. Eight feet tall & 1000 pounds, yet leaves nary a blade of grass out of place as it stalks the shadowy pathways of the world. Oh there's a footprint, or a video, or a sound clip once in awhile, but without fail almost everything can get traced back to 'Burt's Suit Rentals' (byline: If It's Not A Burt, You're Gonna Get Hurtâ„¢) by a misplaced suit rental receipt or something. "But I saw him man, he was right there damnit, I saw him." Sure ya did. No really. Did you also happen to notice the 'Dry Clean Only' tag on its butt?

People, THERE IS NO Bigfoot. We are sick and twisted. An elusive hulking hairy man-ape walkin' around the countryside? What the HELL were we thinkin'?

Thanks. I thought I was the only one!

I believe there is.

So i Guese What i saw three times was just imagination or illusion of darkness. Nope! For Me they are very real and know one has to believe me.It is easy for someone who has never seen one to say "There is no Bigfoot"but it is harder to come out and say that yes I have seen one without being luaghed at or ridiculed.But for each his own.I really hate to say it but one does need to be shot and killed to be studied.The only problem with this is that no one is willing to pull the trigger for either of fear of prosecution by the law if it turns out to be human in origin.
Mark A

That could make make baby Jesus cry.

If there truly is no sasquatch we're still left to come up with a solution to the very real phenomenon, which is a proposition that at this point would seem even more vexing than finding an animal as the source.

Yup. Something has been happening.

And the lack of current reports is a phenomenon in itself..........

I honestly don't think there is any lack of sightings occurring to date (at least not from the information I receive). A lack of reporting and publishing perhaps, but not due to a lack of occurrences.

Mike (watch1) just recently posted some new reports and a field investigation report that was very interesting (Thanks Mike!). There were also quite a few new BFRO reports added in just the last week. I don't know exactly what is occurring and certainly don't have all the answers (if any), but there are far too many credible people (including members and moderators of this forum) who have had encounters to just dismiss it all as nothing. Something is going on... no one knows just what that is yet.

"So deeply rooted are some errors that ages cannot remove them. The poisonous tree that once overshadowed the land, may be cut down by the sturdy efforts of sages and philosophersâ€â€�the sun may shine clearly upon spots where venemous things once nestled in security and shade; but still the entangled roots are stretched beneath the surface, and may be found by those who dig....Still, it is consoling to think, that the delirium has passed away; that the raging madness has given place to a milder folly; and that we may now count by units the votaries of a superstition which, in former ages, numbered its victims by tens of thousands, and its votaries by millions"

Nice searching allegorical response! Dood, you are the king!

One of my favorite books of ALL TIME!

I've literally worn out several copies of it.

OK, please give me the source of the quote mspstomper. It is so familiar, but I can't quite place it at the moment.

Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds

...a classic for those with an interest in the Markets, or group-think dynamics.

Of course. I'm familiar with it and a classic indeed. Thanks much.

But what of the mind set of the thread starter?

Has HarryHenderson's head held fast to this notion? Or is there still yet a chance that the last glimmer of possibility has not been eliminated totally? Not still even a shadow of a doubt? A shadow hidden mostly. Rarely leaving even the slightest of hint that it's there?

Human kind may very well be sick and twisted, but I don't think that has anything to do with bigfoot in the long run. He either exists or doesn't...and yet human kind will likely continue to be sick and twisted! I am fortunate enough to live with someone who has seen it for himself...therefore I harbor no doubts. And I've evidence for myself...including prints in the middle of nowhere. No one can predict the future, but I HOPE that sometime soon we'll all know for certain.

I hear ya, Harry…loud at least, and clear I think. Many nights I drift off, the perfect sasquatch trap laid dreamily in my head only to wake up with the bait gone and an inconclusive ass print, not to mention my wife and friends, pointing at me and laughing. A recommendation for a teacher’s certificate from the university I attend has become at least as elusive as our hairy friend, but I continue to concoct dreams of discovering the animal, heroically dropping a caged specimen at Saskeptic’s doorstep...and maybe one at Dr. Meldrum’s too.

Really, what hasn’t been tried? Really, we haven’t hit one of these animals with a train/logging truck/other vehicle? Really, this is a legitimate phenomenon and there is not even a piece of a specimen to study? Really, you saw one? You really couldn’t bring yourself to shoot it?

I T A I N ' T R E A L !

…and that…combined with this…


I T ' S G O T T A B E R E A L ! ***(not putting words in BM's mouth)***

…makes the sasquatch phenomenon one of the more frustrating things in my life…which I admit is sad.

Look, the one thing that I find most lacking in Bigfootdom (all the credit for this wonderfully romantic term goes to HarryHenderson) is people that remain in the field for an extended period of time.

Am I wrong?

Christ, if some places are as hot as some people claim them to be, I volunteer to sit in the bush with some decent camera equipment until I get some good damn footage of these flesh and blood creatures…just somebody please provide me some food. I’m a poor student who doesn’t care much about making money in the "real world." I’ll sit out somewhere and wait…I’ve been hungrier in East Lansing than I will ever get in the bush.

Time and dedication is what it takes to find large apes (humanoids, whatever) right?

Nobody? Nobody can afford to sit out in the PNW or elsewhere long enough? Who has spent an uninterrupted week or more seeking proof of these animals? Not that it matters to most people here, but an answer to this question would go a long way toward my belief/skepticism of this elusive hairy giant SOB.

IMA

-to be clear, this post is not a claim that nobody spends extended periods seeking BF, but maybe a request to find out just how many do...

What's reality, anyway? Is there one set reality, or does each of us create our own? Let's discuss. (The study of reality, for you big-word lovers, is known as epistemology.)

I think an entire thread, maybe in the member's lounge, could be dedicated to such an engrossing topic.

Reality is comprised of the meaning generated by an object (item, subject) within its context. The meaning is derived by the observer of the object within its context, so it is a three point system.

Indeed.

BM you hit it on the head, it would take hundreds of people to fake that many foot prints, hundreds of idiots running around in the middle of the night scaring campers, hunters with guns, hikers in day light.... oh sure, that makes much more sense to me now

Reality, conventionally is what is sensed by one of our five senses. I sense it, therefore it is real. Take outer space, reality is based on what is 'sensed' solely by what we see. When my son was finishing his math prerequisites, a current argument was black holes. His professor (at a community college here, but arguably the most respected and published) was involved in the study of black holes. My son mentioned that studying is very difficult because 'looking' into a black hole just revealed a bunch of nonsense. I suggested it was just a basic vortex type phenomenon, whereby they were seeing through to the other side. But, astronomy is sensed by our eyes. So, reality is something that can be sensed by one of our five senses.
(Anyway, our universe is but a chain of molecules in a blade of grass, on the fringes of heaven, heehee)

NO offense HH, but could this be the problem: "I've still heard/read/discussed all the stories, contemplated all the arguments and seen all the pictures." Have you never been out there looking?

For me, its not even about the finding HH, its being out there where very few ever go, and with the odd things that happen in the wilderness, that its VERY POSSIBLE BF exists. I know that with all the wilderness out there, millions of acres for forests untouched, that there could be thousands of BF out there and many that have never seen a human. Sightings are mistakes on the part of the BF or curiosity.

For those of you can't or don't want to hike, camp or actively look for BF, its hard to explain the feeling you get when out in the middle of nowhere, its amazing, you come away with feeling like I do that BF could easily exist out there. Its alot easier to beleive that, than someone is faking all the evidence.

I'd be happy to debate this conventional idea of reality anywhere else...

I'm very interested in responses to HH's original post...

A. I, too, believe it to be an engrossing topic. Thank goodness someone as engrossing as I am here to address it.

B. I believe it's relevant to this discussion because the thread is entitled "There Is No Bigfoot." We must define what it means when one of us says "there is (or is no)" something. To those such as...whoever it was who said that s/he saw bf three or so times...sasquatch is as "real" as a platypus, even if...whoever it was who said that s/he saw bf three or so times...has never seen a platypus. I've never seen either, myself. In other words, if bigfoot trips over a branch and falls in the woods, and nobody hears it grunt in frustration, does it make a grunt?

And yet, what if one hasn't sensed a particular something before, something like a sasquatch? I know you're saying that something is real if it CAN be sensed, but how does one know something CAN be sensed unless s/he has such an experience? Simply because a book says so? (I was rereading The Mothman Prophecies by John Keel the other day, and, about ten or so pages into it, Keel says something to the effect of "we know that some people have psychic powers, blah, blah," (emphasis) and I thought to myself, "Whoa! We do? Someone tell the AP! [But don't tell James Randi, at least not until someone's taken $1,000,000 from that smug know-it-all!]" Unless he was lying, apparently Mr. John Keel [unless he's dead] walks around all day certain that psychic powers are real.) I guess that, in the end, if I haven't experienced something with one of my five senses--even something as prosaic as a certain species of frog that, I'm told, lives in the Amazon--then I have to have some modicum of faith that it exists based on the findings or reports of what I consider a reliable source.

I'm not picking on you, mano'thesea. I'm just trying to demonstrate how much more complicated the subject matter is than we usually stop to think.

I guess I didn’t take HH’s original post as an implication that no bigfoots exist, even in the minds of certain fanatics…I took it as there really aren’t any. Defining what really constitutes as BF evidence on this here thread (I am guilty of attempting such myself) is useless IMO.

Anything really real can be changed by hitting the "back" button…or it is too complicated to discuss here:blink:

This all reminds me of the story (first heard on What the B!@@p do we Know) about native Americans not being able to see the ships that Columbus sailed b/c they didn’t believe in ships…irrelevant to the reality of ships.


To be clear...all my OPINION.





Precisely...I had a psychology professor aver that dogs could see auras around people...until I challenged her...


but even if they could...what does that mean to our own perception of the world?


Nothing... yet...

Alot of believe didn't believe what Einstein proposed either, do we dare doubt him? (Except that silly part about black holes) Those brave heroes who volunteered themselves in the Apollo missions had never proved (themselves) the theory of space flight. But they strapped themselves in and flew straight into history.

Einstein had much more than black holes wrong...can we please return to BIGFOOT?

Can't wait 'til they find 'Gacy's cache' at the foot of the sphynx. My question is, did he (gacy) suffer substantial electrolyte loss during his periods of intuition.

To paraprhase what someone said:

The sightings aren't held by a specific demograph (i.e.; crazy people), they're geographic, happening in large, specific areas of the United States. It's not like just pot-smokers, hill-billys and wackos see sasquatches, every type of person sees them.



Also, I am very much saddened by your OP, HarryHenderson...

I'm pretty sure Harry has his tongue firmly planted in his cheek with the title to this thread...

Hell... everyone knows there is lots of bigfoots... please...

If you don't agree... don't read this... too late... you already read it... snort...

I don't think that it matters that it's not just our overalls-wearing, cracked-jug-full-of-blackberry-wine-with-"XXX"-written-on-it-drinking, shotgun-shooting-in-the-air-to-celebrate-a-cousin's-wedding-to-her-other-cousin, twelve-toed, chromosomally-challenged Sons of the Soil seeing bigfoot. It IS a wide spectrum of individuals who report sightings. But it's a relatively wide spectrum of people who report UFOs, ghosts, "shadow people," abduction by aliens, lake and sea monsters, mothfolks, and who believe that a conspiracy was involved in the death of JFK ; they can't all be right, either. The only thing this subset of individuals has in common is that it consists of humans, all of whom can be swayed by faulty logic, groupthink, irrationality, fear-induced misconceptions, etc. So, unfortunately, I don't think the claim that "a lot of different people have seen it/them" works, although it's tempting not to fall back on that argument sometimes.

& there lies the problem though Harry, the people that will take to the grave with them, memories of actually seeing them..

I'm not sure if Mark/Julio is telling the truth & this post isn't actually about that but there are many many people who believe that they have seen them, are they ALL lying ??? is it all a big conspiracy ???

I don't think they are & i don't think it is somehow...

I understand where you're coming from with your post Harry but to say they don't exist is a bit strong..

Maybe they have become extinct over the past decade, i don't know, but there's more proof of BF's existence than there is for Alien life forms but we'd be very naive to think that there are no Alien life forms out there, i think we'd both agree about that wouldn't we ???

Going a little bit off topic, have there actually been any Footprint finds or credible ( i can't define credible unfortunately ) sightings in 2007 as i can't recall seeing a great deal at all ??

Just found 4 reports within the last 3 months in the Seneca Rocks area of WV so it seems as if there are still things going on...

You, and others like you are the reason we are here. My 'mind' might not believe it, but something in me says people are seeing something out there. I refuse to believe that all of these accounts are nothing but miss identifications or blatant lies. The truth is out there. (sorry for the cheesiness)





Exactly. There's something going on out there.

I don't have a problem of pulling the trigger on a bigfoot. They are not human. They are just a big monkey.

The only people that think bigfoot have any human qualities are those that have never seen one.

HH,

I feel your frustration, brother, but there are ongoing incidents, many sightings, etc. going on all the time. Look at some of the other forums for this info, and you will see a lot.

We can't prove they exist because no one, I repeat, no one who has seen one, and is armed with a high powered rifle, has the cajones to pull the trigger. The damn things look too close to humans.

What we really need is some guy who has no compunction whatsoever about killing anything or anyone to do it. Trust me, I understand the potential tragic consequences of this scenario, which brings us back to square one.

How is it that people seem to think that a person could actually put them into a gun's sights, but not a camera's viewfinder? I'm just curious since the assertion that we could find one to shoot but not to photograph seems to be contradictory. I also hear lots of talk about wishing to tranquilize it, but again it all depends on a reserachers ability to find one and get close enough to nail it, which has never been demonstrated even a little bit. Can someone in favor of taking a BF for study explain a little about their techniques to actually get close enough to identify and shoot the specimen? Maybe using those same techniques one could get close enough to take a picture on occasion.
I wonder if a large group were to mount an old fashioned "drive", as ecologically disasterous as that sort of experiment might be (at least in the near term sense of the word) it might produce an unparalelled inventory.
These hunting drives were the way that many humans harvested the abundance of wild animals before the widespread introduction of the hunting gun which allowed individuals and their families to live apart from the rest of the tribe.
I read of one in one of Pennsylvania's long valleys which naturally created a suitable geography for this kind of harvest way back in the early 1700s, long before the modern study of wildlife biology, and included in the description of what was taken was something called a "mountain devil". Huh? The presumption is that they were wolverines. Yet another indicator of just how much the original ecosystems have changed since the early days of the holocene: chestnut trees, bison, lions, wolves, passenger pigeons, eskimo curlews...extinguished.

Well, one method produces a photo that will be accused of being a hoax.

The other method produces a body that will solve the mystery.

I just love quotes like this, seriously Harry - you crack me up !!!! But often is the time, I think the very same thing. I swear you know what I'm thinking.

But, even if there is no Bigfoot, there is still a larger question. What are people seeing that makes them think they are seeing a large Bipedal Hairy looking animal? I cant answer that question. If reports were happening daily now - I would be more inclined to think people were trying to create something with no basis - but numbers of reports remain roughly the same, and all with the same description - so I keep looking.

I personally check my own sanity often. I still don't think leprechauns exist - or fairy's, so I think I'm good, and personally I think my job will drive me to drink before this research will ... But, the invitation does stand - if at any point I start posting stuff that sounds crazy - you may drive directly to my apartment, and smack me in the head - then leave.

I hear what your saying - and I often wonder myself, and I think its good to ask this question Harry - its a good thing every so often for people (including myself) to check in on where we stand.

Of course, this thread could have been started by Harry just because he was bored and it has been a really slow summer for reports...
Perhaps he's sitting back right now reading the thread with a smile on his face and saying to himself, "I knew this would create some lively discussion!"

Sorry if I'm misinterpreting Harry, but from reading your posts, it is kind of hard to tell with you. And, you are the "Misunderstood Funny Guy".

(P.S. Always enjoy your posts and the particular comedic spin you place on things, so don't go anywhere!)

The pattern of the evidence suggests that Bigfoot exists--

Sometimes.

Bigfoot IS A REAL CREATURE.

I rarely find myself on this website, but having said that - I find it so amusing (and somewhat disturbing) how many people are involved with (or "live" on) this website due only to curiousity etc... I do not know you, Mr. HarryHenderson, and I apologize for offending you, or anyone else for that matter, by making this comment.... but it just gets to me (sometime) how people can sit back and make a comments like this when they have no damned idea what they are talking about.

I know you probably meant for your post to be easy going and funny, and most likely a simple conversation starter but when I read the words: "People, THERE IS NO Bigfoot." My blood gets moving a bit.

Sorry for the venting.

- Anon

TXBIGFOOT,

So, are you implying that I have no life? How dare you, sir!

Even though it's true...

S'allright, TXBIGFOOT. We all vent, at some time or another.

And welcome to the forum!

I would politely suggest TXBigfoot supply his proof - so we can all get back to having lives.

I didn't mean to ruffle anyone's feathers... I too understand the frustration involved with this "phenomenon." - Trust me.

I wish I did have proof, Melissa. - BTW, love your show.


"The damn things look too close to humans. - What we really need is some guy who has no compunction whatsoever about killing anything or anyone to do it. Trust me, I understand the potential tragic consequences of this scenario, which brings us back to square one."

Amen, Robert.

Im sure you didnt. But, I think the better question and someone like yourself who claims to have knowledge the animal does exist should be asking is:

Why cant we find PROOF of this animal - why cant we get it documented? You know, maybe thats why some of us spend so much time discussing the issue.. Whether it be online or face to face. We have no answer to the question I just posed, and for some that is just as frustrating as the question Harry posed - but at least he had the guts to post it, and start the conversation.

My comments are not personal either. But, instead of throwing barbs around, maybe these are things that need to be discussed rather than pretending questions like the one Harry posted are not important. If your willing to offer up thoughts - I am sure you will have a group of people willing to discuss it.

"If your willing to offer up thoughts - I am sure you will have a group of people willing to discuss it."

I'm sure I would, Melissa, and I appreciate everyone on this board. Those of you have been around awhile, I'm sure, know much more on this subject than I do, other than what I know from experience. It is my from my own experience that I base my comment(s) on. I could/would discuss topics on the subject but I am not one to discuss my personal experience openly.

My experience has been documented, but I wish not to divulge anymore about it (in efforts to conceal my identity).

Sorry.