Skip to comments.Bigfoot exists – and I have proof, Alberta guide says
Posted on 09/03/2011 7:38:24 PM PDT by Perdogg
click here to read article
All the posts about never having seen a grizzly, or a black bear, or a wolf, or a cougar or the bones of such animals, etc. would all be very interesting, except for the fact that we have LIVE SPECIMENS of these animals in zoos all over the world. Not much doubt they exist.
Where is the live specimen of the bigfoot? (not withstanding the example currently stomping around in the white hut).
I want to see the picture. Having grown up in Montana and travelled into these areas each summer in my youth as well as having a cabin out in the ‘boonie’ by the Continental Divide, I have an open mind about Sasquatchs.
Geez, looking at that picture is almost enough to make you feel sorry for Zero.
Do you believe there are creatures on the planet yet to be identified?
There is a species of bacteria that live in the oceans. It is called Prochlorococcus.
It is kinda small.
It wasn’t even discovered until about 1968.
Which is odd, because by most estimates, it is by far the most numerous living thing on planet Earth.
Now I would admit the odds seem against bigfoot. Even if they find no bones, by now you would thing they might have found a tooth.
But I’ve seen motion adjusted computer enhanced copies of the Patterson film and I can say two things: It is OBVIOUSLY a female creature and there is NO WAY it could be a human in a suit.
Who knows? You night be talking population density figures that are so low they are borderline-extinct. Three or four individuals per hundred square miles... who knows?
Oh heck, photos of Janet Reno have been around forever.
And remember... modern humans arrived in North America what, 10 or 12 thousand years ago? And not in very large numbers at first.
It’s possible, if bigfoot is smarter than your average bear, that he realized or sensed at that time that he was outnumbered/outgunned and retreated.
Did what the neanderthals failed to do - managed to almost fade away into legend and obscurity.
This Calgary Sun story has the photo.
Unfortunately, Todd Standing has credibility issues, and even squatchers are leary of his claims. He’s made some pretty outragious claims and released video and photos that are pretty suspect. I’ll admit this creature looks more realistic than his earlier photos and videos, but without seeing movement or getting an idea of size, I’m not falling for it so easy.
Here’s a video of his other creature which looks like a cross between a wookie and an ewok. That’s Standing’s biggest problem. No two photos or videos fo the creatures really look the same.
Also in Africa were stories of elephants that live in forests (the forest elephant). The more common African Savannah elephant was know n for centuries, but stories of elephants in forests were taken by zoologists as impossible (the natives must have been high). What they didn't know is that elephants have a very soft pad under their feet, and can veritably walk in undergrowth while making very little noise. It is almost eerie.
Anyways, Sasquatch is probably imagination only. However lack of photographic evidence or bones is not proof positive 'something' is not there. It is extremely hard to find the remains of wild animals in any wilderness. Even a domestic cat (unless immediately killed by a car) will not normally be found.
Here is a Bigfoot research web site that is calling Todd Standing’s photo a FAKE. Once you’re tainted, by hoaxing or hoaxy type behavior like Todd Standing has, you’re through. Just like Tom Biscardi who tried to pass off that Bigfoot body a few years ago. Yet radio shows like Coast to Coast keep inviting these guys on.
There are documented cases of feral children,, including one young girl who was captured - but then escaped!
She was seen a few years later, but never captured again.
And most of these cases are in Europe - France and such - areas that are a whole lot more civilized and logged and open than the American west.
I know someone who had an incedent and won’t talk about it. He said he knows what he experienced and leaves it at that.
The absence of proof is not proof of absence. I came across that 13th century(?) quote in a recent article.
Me, much the same. I get tired of folks telling me to quit believing my own lying eyes (and ears).
My skepticism is not about the existence of Sasquatch. Living all my life in Washington and hearing BF encounters first hand from very respectable people, I give it a very good chance of actually being real. I have had my own encounter with something while camping in a remote area near the now famous Skookum Meadow in Skamania County, when we were woken early in the morning by very loud vocalizations.
What I am skeptical about is Todd Standing. He has tried to pass off poorly hoaxed stuff before. He is just improving on what he has done before. In the world of Big Foot research once a hoaxer always a hoaxer. His films and photos, even these latest are not being taken seriously on the Bigfoot research web pages.
The first camera made for the general public wasn't available until 1888. And what do you consider a "credible observer".
It is odd that you feel that way, especially since the Injuns ALL admit to Sasquatch, dating far before the establishment of the US. I know these folks first hand (Salish (Kootenai), Flatheads, Blackfeet, and a few N.Cheyenne). Why are these natives' observations discounted?
And I can personally attest to the bare fact that my own eyes have witnessed more than 'imagination'.
|GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach|
Consequently, I cannot see any reason to blindly discount the views of natives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.