Normally I’d say the idea of a large biped hidden in the Pacific Northwest to be a bunch of hot air but I have read some stories from credible witnesses including “Survivorman” Les Stroud. (link: http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2011/06/repost-survivor-man-les-strouds-bigfoot.html). On my other board one of the members described an experience with some sort of creature in 1978 so I feel confident “something” is out there.
Whatever it is is extremely intelligent and very good at staying hidden.
BTW, I think the Patterson film was a fake and most other encounters are fakes and hoaxers.
Come on, Gigo. I have big feet and I am most certainly real.
Honestly, though, I think this xkcd comicsays it best: Everyone has a damn good camera and video recorder on them at all times. With all of the “away from other people” hiking and stuff that goes on in the PNW, we’d have fairly good treasure trove of information built on that sort of thing by now.
I think it’s possible but pretty unlikely. There’s no reason to think this is any more than stories until someone finds a live (or dead) bigfoot.
The Yeti (or Abominable Snowman) is probably a bit more likely, only because the Himalayas are far less settled than the Pacific Northwest, but there’s still no reason to believe without physical evidence.
By now, one would have fallen off a cliff and onto a highway, and we’d have the body. If they’re so reclusive that they never leave their caves…then how would they gather food?
It would be wonderful if they were real, but it just doesn’t seem to work. We can’t search every square foot of the Pacific Northwest…but the areas not yet searched are getting smaller and smaller.
If a population large enough to be viable existed, some physical evidence would have turned up by now.
Not only has no current physical evidence turned up, but not even the Native American groups that have lived in the region for thousands of years have preserved a single identifiable bone or fragment of hide. If a giant manlike being had existed in their area, they would know it well, and any remains that were found would have been preserved in a medicine bundle or shaman’s kit. As far as I know there are no alleged remains of this kind.
What would they eat? You can’t have a viable population of giant ape like creatures without them having a readily available source of food. If they’re eating vegetation, what kind? If they’re eating animals how are they hunting them?
Extremely unlikely. We have skeletons of things that have been extinct for millions of years and have undergone the extremely rare process of fossilization, but no skeletons from these things that are allegedly still running around? Sorry, no.
An honest question, but how many skeletons of animals do we have that we didn’t kill (usually for the skeleton/embalmed body)? From what information I have read over the years, animal bodies/skeletons are fairly hard to come across, even when we are studying the animals.
To bring it to a more personal level, do you ever see, for instance, squirrel skeletons? I live in an area with enough squirrels to choke a squirrel and I’ve seen a dead squirrel twice in 20 years (including one someone shot, as evidenced by the bullet hole). So, while my personal experience frame may be way too narrow in this regard, not finding a body across the Pacific Northwest where people are sparse doesn’t seem like a whole lot of evidence against having a bigfoot there.
Don’t get me wrong, I won’t believe it until we can find one/find a body either. I just don’t think that line of reasoning is one to hang a hat one.
I live in suburbia, have (I think) 2 squirrel families living in my back yard, and I get at least one dead one to clean up every year. So far this year, it’s been 2 already.
With bigfoot, we are talking ZERO direct physical evidence of any kind after decades of deliberate looking.
I am willing to concede that humans coexisted with gigantopithecus, which stood 9" tall, and may have gone extinct in Nepal and China only 100,000 years ago, and that could easily be the source of the Yeti legend. Or, at any rate, people probably found skeletons, or fossilized skeletons of gigantopithecus, and made up the Yeti legend.
However, what could be the source of a bipedal animal in the Pacific Northwest? Apes migrated here from somewhere, left no populations between their original place, and what is now Washington State, yet established a population there that has continued, viably, for thousands of years, despite being a very small group? That just doesn’t happen. Small groups either dwindle away, or expand (save for the intervention of something like the WWF, that maintains them on the brink of extinction). It happens because that’s the way genes work. A small population over many, many generations is weakened by inbreeding.
Unless “bigfoot” isn’t a primate, in which case, it’s the occasional bipedal walking bear. You do get an occasional bipedal bear, that has deformed front paws, or some kind of problem with its hips. I’ve seen a photo of a female adult bear that was followed by naturalists for a while. She was missing one forepaw, and walked bipedally a lot.
Encountering a bear on two feet, for whatever reason-- it was trying to see over a fence, or it has learned to intimidate people that way, is probably really scary, and if you don’t expect to see a bipedal bear, it may register on your memory as primate-like-- something you do expect to see on two legs. Human memory is not a camera.
The term “bigfoot” comes from a hoax; some guy made fake feet, and used them to make huge footprints, and that started the whole story. Save for that hoax, we wouldn’t use the term “bigfoot.” We might still argue about whether there was something bipedal living in the Pacific Northwest, but without the need to try to reconcile bears with the idea of something with big, human-like feet, I think it would be a lot easier to accept that what people see are probably 80% bears, 18% deliberate hoaxes, and 2% something else that stands up to a perfectly reasonable explanation other than an unknown large species-- like for example, a cold-weather hiker wearing fur, or a small animal casting a large shadow.
