Let me start of by saying that I do believe there is something out there,what I dont know,but with all the proof,there was to be something to it. As far as what I mean by copouts.I dont think Ive ever read a book,watched a documentary or a tv show without there being someone claiming to have proof which theyve since lost or whatever. Mysterious Encounters is infamous for this in my opinion. On A recent episode,folks on an Indian reservation claimed to have a great video of a bigfoot raiding a trash dumpster,they had a computer re-creation,but they said that the original had dissappeared. On another a man claimed to have shot at and hit one in his yard,yet there was no mention of a blood trail that could have been followed. Perhaps folks shouldnt make these claims when they no longer have the proof,or dont follow up on things as most people would. It just give firepower to the skeptics. If I was skeptical and someone claimed to have a video,and I asked to see it,and they said that it had been lost,what other conclusion could I come to but that they are lying.

And chances are you'd be right. I'm willing to listen to testimony and weigh evidence, but I have no time for people who say they have evidence and fail to produce, whatever their excuse might be.

That's a common and recurring theme.

I'm especially humored when it's the "Men in Black" who come confiscate the evidence.

DbV,
Your absolutely right. Many huge claims have absolutely no evidence to back them up. But then sometimes evidence is provided. Then it is up to each person to make their own conclusion based on the evidence presented!

I would have to agree. If I were to actually put a bullet between ol stinky butts eyes and dropped him graveyard dead only to have someone take it etc I would not say a word. If I dont have the body then why be labelled a liar?

Im a firm beleiver due to my own experiences but I would have to say that it seems about 90 percent or higher that claim things are doing nothing but telling tall tales.

I dont discredit folks for things that may differ from my experiences. Things like activities that occur in Washington are NOT going to be the same as here and vice versa. I hunt deer alot and I know I can move a mile or two away and the deer may have a completely different schedule etc due to natural factors like hunting pressure and food and water resources. I expect the same to be true relating to bigfoot.

What I have issue with is all the missing evidence and the evidence most give is blobsquatches and tall tales. If you can return to the same area repeatedly and get multiple pics each trip and not get anything other than blurry pics of non discernible items I think it is time for you to drag your ass kickin and screamin into the 21st century and get a auto focus camera and some lessons on how to use one.

Much like the ''orb'' photos of ''ghosts'' that proliferated with the usage of digital cameras blobsquatchs are going to make things even more difficult for serious researchers to be taken serious.

The minute I start reading of an experience and see 12 13 14 and 15 tall I quit reading. Sure something might look that big when you are dropping a load in your drawers in the presence of a sighting but I have a hard time buying ten ft much less more. Go stand under a basketball goal at ten feet and then imagine about three ft taller than the back board. Dont buy it sorry.

Now I can buy the whole 15 plus inch prints as I wear a 13 and a half ee and I am nowhere near 7ft and barely 300 pounds.

Glowing eyes......Now if light is reflecting yes.....just glowing on their own ..not gonna beleive it.

I could go on and on but I know you get the point.

DBV,
I onced (partially) read a book about bf in Ohio. There were a number of stories about investigators with videotape of bf in the woods, doing all sorts of things (use your imagination!).
But every account ended with the statement that the tape was unfortunately now "lost" or "unavailable".

The biggest head-scratcher has to be the Patterson footage,Ive seen it many times,have seen many enhancements,and I think that in all probability that it is real. Unfortunately the people involved in it have spoken up way too much and have removed alot of the credibility of it. They only give fuel to the skeptics. Mysterious Encounters is the biggest offender. They had an episode with Bob Gimlin recently,and the things he said just didnt make sense. Liike not being sure of the location. In accounts of the sighting,he claims that went looking for Bigfoot,yet he says that the film you see was the last 30 or so seconds of tape that they had with them. Cmon. How much did they bring? He said that he hadnt been back to the spot since the filming,now if I was involved in such a thing,I think Id spend alot more time there. How hard would it have been to get a tracking dog on the scent? Its just a shame that there are so many people making claims,but have no evidence.

Sez you?

Next time that episode of Mysterious Encounters is on,take a look and see for yourself,alot of what they say doesnt make any sense. They got a clip of one of the biggest mysteries of our time,yet they never went back? Wouldnt that have made a good starting point? Years ago,I saw my first evidence of a black bear out in the woods. Ive not been back there since,unfortunately theye cleared the land for houses,but I can guarantee you,I could bring you back to the exact spot.

If you'll use the search feature provided by the board, you'll see that both Mysterious Encounters and the P/G film have been discussed many, many times.

DbV,
In defense of BG, I've been down to the site twice in the last year and it looks totally different than the area filmed in the famous Patty film. The landmarks have been altered by floods,nature, and time. I'm don't think you can blame BG for that. No one is quite sure of the exact spot but most estimates are within a hundred yards.

Definately a big. fat dilemma. You have seen a sassy, but have no proof. Or, you had proof, but a couple of goons in lumpy suits from Washington Paid you a visit, and now you can't remember where you put it. Do you tell about the encounter, or keep your mouth shut for fear ofappearing a liar, and bringing even more unbelief upon those who have reported?

I have my opinion. Bet you have yours, too. But, ultimately, it is a personal decision. Sometimes we forget that we are only tiny specs on a tiny speck of a planet in a tiny speck of a galaxy in a huge universe. Because some feel differently and report (or not), will not stop the sun from rising tomorrow. You may be taking things a bit too seriously. I will tell you that there is NO WAY I would believe in BF had I not seen one. Pretty ironic that so many believe in BF, want desparately to see one, yet haven't.

If someone doesn't believe my report, so what? I probably wouldn't believe theirs either if things were reversed. Actually, I am pretty glad I wasn't put here to live up to your expectations.
BSF

"Proof" lost is not proof.

Im not saying I dont believe you,all Im saying is that when someone comes forward with a claim,but has no proof,the skeptics will just lump them all together with all the other claims of a sighting. The bar has been raised over the years as far as proof goes. Reports of sightings just arent enough anymore. If I was to have an encounter,but had no proof,I wouldnt say a thing. How many times have you heard someone say that they shot one,but it fell over a cliff and washed away.
Or that they had a tape that dissappeared? Or hair that they cant find now? Or they found prints but didnt take any pictures? It just frustrating that alot of folks make claims that they cant proove. Everytime someone makes an unsubstantiated claim its just more firepower for the critics.

Welcome to the BFF Devouredbyvermn( I take it you are a Cannibal Corpse fan ).

I agree it is very frustrating to see so many wild claims with very little if any proof. But in my opinion it takes just as much speculation to label someone a liar as it does to believe them. Since none of us were actually there with the person who has made such claims. As for the lack of evidence I'm not exactly sure why there isnt more. It could be that some people feel that the animals existence could be at stake and they feel they are protecting them. Alot of times it seems that the evidence was there but the witness was too afraid to go back to retrieve it. the list is endless. I believe there is overwhelming evidence out there but for one reason or another it is not coming to light. By the way here are a couple of links to the incidents( I believe ) that you mentioned in your first post that were discussed here.

2000 Oklahoma casino BF video


The siege at Honobia

I would just think that if someone had a good tape theyd come forward with it. Its all about money these days. Just think of the paris Hilton tape,or the Pam Anderson ones. An old boyfriend of Gillian Anderson sold a bunch of naked pics of her to a website. Videos of everything are around these days,just think of all the WTC video out there. They say that when you are outside your home,your on video 60% of the time. I understand that these creatures arent usually seen in cities,but there are cameras everywhere,if youve got a cell phone,you most likely have a camera. It just doesnt seem that hard to me to set up cameras in locations where a number of sightings have occured. I think that someday someone will locate definitive proof,someone will shoot one,hit one with a car,or video one raiding a trash can.

Vermn:
If we all took your advice, and no one reported a sighting without presenting conclusive proof, where would you suggest the camera(s) be set up? Maybe these sightings reports that we all (including me) find so frustrating, really do or can serve a purpose.
BSF

Edit: Welcome to BFF's

I probably should have made myself a little clearer. Reporting sightings to a recognized investigational group,is one thing.I meant more along the lines of running out and calling the local newspaper to report it,and yes I realize that alot of folks who dont care anything about the legend have reported sightings and they probably dont realize that there are resources that they could use to report. Like the BFRO.The BFRO has hundreds of reports taken from local papers all over the country. Which ones do they choose to investigate? If I read about a sighting,and the info was available to me who made the claim,Id try to get in contact with them and let them know about those groups who could investigate further.

I personally don't think it is a good thing to report every sighting to the newspaper, Vermn. Good point, then. But, somehow I do like reading them when they appear in the press. Frustrating, but fun.
BSF

Not really on the topic,but flippin around the site,I saw some mention of Farley Mowat,and it occured to me that over the years,I remember reading somewhere of sightings and or mention of a bigfoot creature by Leif Ericson,Lewis and Clark,and even Chris Columbus. Anyone know where I could find this info online?
Oh and by the way,thank you for your welcomes.

Regarding the Norsemen:

"The Saga of Leif Ericson in vinland" I believe it was called. I have never looked for it online, but it should be there somewhere. Actually, I read it in the early '60's. Not really a "bigfoot" creature, but a beach covered with tracks of what they took as a tribe of one-legged humans. I believe they eventually found a one-legged indian.

It's pretty interesting reading, anyway. This is all from memory, and it was at least 40 years ago that I read it. One morning the Vikings awoke to find the small river mouth where they were camped filled with small boats containing long-haired Native Americans. They thought they were being invaded by a tribe of women. When one of the Native Americans was chased into a tent of a Viking by one of their very mean cows, the occupant drew his sword and slew the Native American. It started a small battle, and the Native Americans split. The Vikings then dubbed the inhabitants of this new world "Skraelings", which roughly translates "cowardly weaklings". Of course, the Vikings tended to have that opinion of everyone, everywhere they traveled. I am not sure that they (the Native Americans) were not in deep fear because they thought these white men were somehow spirits.
BSF

Thank you for the info.Ill take alook around.

I just did a rudimentary search, and can't find the complete saga's. Just bits and pieces. My grandparents had them, translated into English, when I was a small boy. I do believe there is a book about the life of Leif Ericson somewhere. That should have the story, for sure. Great Viking chiefs had men that followed them everywhere, transcribing their exploits. I am going out, but later I will have another look. If I find it online, I will post a link. I know they called the land where they found the tracks "onamonipea" or something similar. It supposedly means "land of the one-legs" in Old Norse.
BSF

Never?

I found Bob Gimlin to be candid, convincing and sincere about his encounter. As stated before, a significant amount of time has elapsed. I must vehemently oppose anyone attacking the credibility of BG in the ME episode (that I viewed). This is a man in the twilight of life who has taken a lot of grief about his encounter, and in MHO, unnecessarily. I believe he saw Patty and I credit him for having the fortitude to stand firm in the face of countless convictions'.

Welcome to the forums, DBV. I do understand what you're saying about evidence that suddenly becomes "MIA". Frustrating.

But I do have to offer some defense for Bob Gimlin.

Regarding the film issue. Dont quote me on details here but I do believe that they had been scouting around and filming for something like 7 days prior to the Patty footage. It is a bummer that they had so little film left on that reel. But, ya know what? If it'd had been me, with my luck, I would have ran out of film about 30 seconds before Patty showed up.

Bobs inability to find the exact film site. --That is so understandable. Again, dont quote me on this, but I do believe that the surroundings in the film were the way they were because of recent floods. Everything was washed out and a lot of the ground vegetation was gone. I'm sure some trees, live and dead, were recently washed away as well. And fresh layers of silt on the surrounding Bluff Creek banks.

Now, you probably dont even have to imagine what that area would look like now. It probably looks like the footage that was on the ME episode. There would not only be ground vegetation everywhere but there would also be new trees and brush up past your head. You wouldnt be able to see logs or other distinguishable features of the exact area. It would be totally different.

As far as him not going back to the spot. Well, I do believe he had a ranch and had a hard time just getting the time off to do what he did. Can you imagine the scrutiny that he received? The things that he had to endure after the film was publicized? He did say that his wife almost divorced him over it. He had a ranch to run and a life to live. I'm sure it was a lot better one than Patterson lived. Actually, I do believe it was Patterson that had the high interest in BF. Bob just came along to help out.

Thanks for your time. Just had to add my thoughts on good 'ole Bob. I think I touched on all of your points. I'll check back and make sure.

Edit: Got almost every point. Only missed the comment about the tracking dogs. I dont know if anyone tried that or not. I dont recall ever hearing anything about it. As far as "how hard it would be"? I dont really know but probably a lot harder than you would think.

Also, I do know that there are Patty buffs that frequent this forum. I'm sure someone knows how much film they brought. I do believe they had at least a couple reels. Heck, someone can probably give you a better idea of how much time they spent. I think it was 7 days but I could be wrong.

Ive taken what you all said into consideration,and ok I was wrong.Its true,just about everytime you hear about the B.C. footage they mention that those fellas got alot of crap about it,I suppose in the same situation,Id probably never go back.Im sure it was tough for them. I think if I tape something along the lines of what they did,I dont know that Id wanna come forward either. But thats a good question.If you happened to film bigfoot,something similar to the Patterson film,whats the first thing youd do?

Call Oprah???

I'd run it for my friends.
Then I'd try to get a primatologist to look at it.
Whatever else I would do, I would not try to force anyone to view it, or behave like a nut-job...that'd have the opposite effect of what most people would want, namely an unbiased viewing by a qualified individual.

Im not sure what Id do? Take it to one of the local colleges to have it looked at maybe. Maybe send a copy to the BFRO asking theyre opinion? Im not sure.