The BIGFOOT Thread

Does a thread like this already exist?
I know there was one for Bigfoot Movies, but this one is for everything Bigfoot.

It's one of my favorite (completely irrelevant) interests!



All I can say is: either Bigfoot exists or there are an awful lot of people walking around the woods in gorilla suits (risking getting shot... yet you never hear about anyone in a hair suit getting shot).

Best Bigfoot film - Harry and the Hendersons.

Sasquatch Sunset would be my pick

I find it amusing, either the video footage is rubbish or it's clearly someone in a suit.

If I was out and saw a Bigfoot like creature and had a camera, I would run towards it pointing the camera... that might just be me.

I never get why these people interested in such creatures never risk their lives to get close up footage, or a drone camera!

Hi Nausicaa, first I want to let you know there is more and more drone footage appearing every year, apparently capturing upright walking creatures in the wild from a bird's eye view... or, as I said earlier, otherwise there are a lot of people walking around the woods in costumes (some being filmed by drones now).

I'd like to examine your choices about the video footage being either "rubbish" or "clearly someone in a suit". So, if it's NOT someone in a suit, then it's rubbish? So if it's a real creature, then it's rubbish? (Not sure I understand).

Couldn't another choice be that it's a real, undiscovered primate?

I certainly understand doubts, as I have many of my own (I find both scenarios interesting: if it's a real creature, or if it's some form of social phenomenon based on centuries' old legends from all over the world that has turned into a wide sweeping, woodlands myth that has sent hoaxers into a frenzy that has lasted decades).

I found this video pretty interesting as far as addressing skepticism about the Patterson / Gimlin film:

SIGH! There is no Bigfoot! Thats a guy running around in a suit. The footprints found are man made and even if theres more than one print they lead nowhere. There is no brush broken or any plain to the eye signs of anything to track for something supposedly so monstrously big. Theres no Yeti. Theres no Sasquatch. If there were a bloodhound would track it down effortlessly. Finding Bigfoot is the rossetta stone for scripted reality shows.

Why does this still persist? Because it sells and gets ratings. For firm believers there isnt any point that can be made to dissuade them. Its a locked-in audience like professional wrestling was in the old days for many tv channels, TBS included.

I dont know what more to say? Wheres the corpse of one? For the amount of food something that size would eat there would be obvious signs and traces of its presence. Frequent signs and traces! No this isnt gonna be a debate because we could debate Santa Clause existing in the North Pole, and flying reindeer.

Thats all I have to say about that.

'Why does this Bigfoot myth still persist?' I can answer that with two quotes from an old MoFo thread. The results, which are in the second quote were the most eye opening information I ever read at MoFo.

And that's the reason for history's myths and misbeliefs. From space aliens building the pyramids, to the lockness monster and to the spirit world where seances bring back the beloved dead to speak once again to the living. It's all illogical. It's all a bunch of hooey and like conspiracy theories once a person believes in them they fight tooth and nail to preserve that belief.

I totally agree with you about Finding Bigfoot - the show even followed the same formula of those ghost-hunter shows (they cry out "did you hear that" before every commercial break, then when they come back they reveal that what they heard was just Bobo coming back from taking a leak.)

The problem is, there is a preponderance of evidence for the existence of an upright-walking, not-quite-human, hominid in the woods (even if 3/4 of it is hoaxes & misidentifications).

A good example is footprints - they ARE easy to fake, and lots of fakes have been made, but what about those discovered with extremely tiny dermal ridges (toe prints) - which are very difficult to fake on a cast made from a print and which are always unique - just like human finger or toe prints.

I understand doubts, but I don't quite understand the belief that such things don't or can't exist (when we have many examples of unknown species or those thought extinct being discovered).

A lack of evidence does not prove non-existence. But I do understand that those making the positive existential claim bear the burden of proof.

Personally, I don't buy into any of the supernatural explanations because there are no scientific models upon which to base such conclusions. But as far as an undiscovered species... we have the African mountain gorilla that was a mythical "hairy man" that inhabited jungles until they were discovered as fellow primates in the late 1800's. So there are many models for unknown species believed to only be myths turning out to be real animals.

Another interesting video (by the same guy I posted earlier) addressing some of the most popular skeptical arguments against the existence of Bigfoot...

It depends on what you mean by "prove." The word is ambiguous. Mathematical proof requires 100% certainty. Proof for social science is generally accepted to stand at about 95% certainty. Proof in a civil trial is a mere 51% certainty. What counts as evidence in some domains is not counted as evidence in others. "Proof" is a bad word, because it is an impoverished word. There are many things which we "prove" and which we "know" which fall short of absolute certainty relative to objective standards.

Under some conditions we can and do (provisionally) prove negatives with a lack of evidence. Was a search conducted? Was the search competent? If there was something to be found, was their good reason to expect that a search would find it? I can "prove" that there is not an elephant in my living room much more easily that I can prove that there is not life on Europa. You can prove even deductively negative via modus tollens, so we're not necessarily talking probability either.

I think we can weakly disprove the existence of Bigfoot and that is all we need to put the burden of proof onto those who would claim otherwise. Presumption is a fortress and Bigfoot ain't in it. He's going to have to storm it and conquer it for us to take him seriously.
That's circular AF. Scientific modeling presupposes an ontology (i.e., materialism) which excludes the non-material and an epistemology (i.e., naturalism) that denies the validity of non-material evidence (i.e., "super-nature"). You basically said, "I don't buy non-scientific explanations, because they're not scientific."

You should reframe this as an argument for your preference for scientific explanations rather than a demand that supernaturalist should do that which is conceptually impossible to satisfy you.

Not sure I understand.

"Proof" of Bigfoot's existence would be easy (and virtually 100%) if there was a body or remains that could be tested.

What's wrong with what I said about not buying into the supernatural theories due to the fact that the very definition of supernatural means it cannot be subjected to the scientific method in any conclusive way, while anything natural can be?

There is no scientific model for discovering magical beings - as no such conclusion has ever been made, while there is a profusion of models for animals being discovered to exist that were previously thought to be only legendary or extinct.

You'd need an extraordinary amount & quality of evidence to prove something exists and is supernatural (if ANY amount could ever rule out alternatives with a natural explanation) than you'd need to prove an animal exists (all you need is a little DNA).

My point is: the model for discovering new, unknown species with the conclusion that these animals are real is redundant - it's happened many times (in other words, such discoveries are as common as mud... well, maybe not THAT common, but it's happened enough to not be some fantastical idea), while discovering "magic" or supernatural things has never been done at any conclusive level and even things that appear to be supernatural may not be able to be proved to be such (whereas proving say Pandas - previously thought to be mythical - are real animals; all you have to do is find one and capture it or test a sample of its biology.)

I will not believe in the existence of Bigfoot unless I meet him face-to-face. And even then, I'm probably going to need to see some ID.

Just for the record, I neither believe nor dis-believe. I simply don't know.
(Much like how I am with religion. I don't know, but am open to possibilities.)

I do find the evidence so far intriguing and I will admit to a sense of delight at pondering the unknown and considering the possibilities that there might be distant relatives of man inhabiting the wilderness that still have not been officially discovered.

P.S. I do love the debates over this issue because, as I said in the OP, its a completely irrelevant topic (unlike, for instance, social issues) to anyone's life (excepting maybe those seeking confirmation for what they think they've seen or avid hunters who might increase or decrease their activities if the creature was proved to exist).
It's a fun topic where any conclusion in any direction, isn't really going to effect most people's day to day life in any major way.

You mentioned the difficulty of proving non-existence. Specifically,
This speaks to the problem of "proving a negative" which we encounter in popular cultural slogans such as "you can't prove a negative." I am making the point that we actually can (weakly) prove a negative under certain conditions. We can even "prove" via lack of positive evidence that Bigfoot does not exist such that the burden of proof rests with those who claim otherwise.

This is a more powerful refutation that the formal pattern of presumption you invoke (i.e., one who asserts positively, must prove positively), because the stance I propose involves scientific inquiry into this domain. It's not just that pro-Bigfooters haven't proved their claim, but that we also have good evidence to conclude otherwise. It's not just that Bigfoot must produce some positive evidence, but that Bigfoot must deal with the evidence we have to the contrary (failed searches, debunked evidence, suspicious conspiracies needed to float the plausibility of large hominids meandering about North American forests in an age of ubiquitous surveillance, etc.).
I agree. I am making the point that you are right. I am supporting your flank with cavalry. Tally ho!
Literally everything. What you said is a paradigm case of circular reasoning. By the same method I can prove that God exists, because the Bible tells me so and that I can trust the Bible because it is the word of God.
That's the problem. That's exactly the problem. Science begins with assumptions, not pure observations. It assumes that all that is real is what you can touch and what you can feel and that the only evidence which is respectable come from this domain. Naturalism is non-falsifiable by science, because it is a pre-commitment of science. Science can only falsify claims which are downstream of its assumptions.
Models? Such as... ...what?

Examples? Yes. Animals fit in the container of naturalism and thus claims about them are subject to falsification by scientific means. Gods and ghosts don't fit in this container, by definition, (i.e., they are SUPER-natural, outside of nature) so they cannot be falsified by scientific means. We falsify the Bigfoot theory scientifically. We cannot scientifically disprove the God hypothesis, however, in a non-circular manner. Rather, we have to shift to a meta-discussion about the virtues of our explanatory backgrounds (naturalism vs. supernaturalism).
What evidence? If it is supernatural, it is OUTSIDE of nature. The only evidence the scientist accepts is INSIDE of nature. At most, science can naturalize what was formerly believed to be supernatural. If we can find natural evidence of a phenomena, it is a natural phenomena.

Suppose, for example, we were talking about ESP, right? On a supernatural account of ESP something entirely outside nature communicates information to the a person with ESP. If so, we cannot scientifically prove or disprove that which science does not observe and which it assumes does not exist. On the other hand, suppose we found that brains emit an odd frequency of electro-magnetic radiation which enough neurons fire in a given way and that these waves can be sensed by people brains structured with certain neuronal structures. We have scientifically proved the existence of ESP at the cost of naturalizing it. That is, it is not immaterial ghosts doing the work, but testable natural processes. The supernatural is thus deflated to the natural in this example. That's all science can do. It's a hammer. It drives nails.

Complaining that supernatural explanations do not pass scientific muster is like complaining that squares are not circles or that you can't fit the square peg in the round hole.
Yes, within the container of science, naturalistic claims can be falsified or verified (although not absolutely because the realm is empirical) naturalistically. This is the easy (non-circular) case.
It's not that it hasn't been done, it's that it can't be done. Full stop.
And in so doing you will naturalize it. Science cannot prove (or disprove) the supernatural. Rather it can only naturalize what was previously thought to be non-existent.

Consequently, you cannot fault a supernaturalist for failing to meet non-supernatural criteria. However, you can press the supernaturalist to explain why we should accept his background in the first place (i.e., we have to climb up a level of abstraction).

A lot to unpack there, Corax. I think we agree on most things (but are just expressing the ideas differently) such as the fact that something being supernatural cannot, by definition, be proved by science. If it could be proved by science, it would cease to be supernatural.

Lifeforms such as germs & bacteria are a good example - at one point mankind had no concept of micro-organisms and thought illness was caused by demons, devils, witches, curses, sins or God's anger. Now we know a lot of illnesses are caused by germs. Something once thought to be supernatural in origin was discovered to have a provable cause that became observable & testable once advances in technology made it possible.

And I'm not saying that if something is "super-natural" it can't exist, only that it can't be measured scientifically until it is in the realm of the natural, either via technology that can measure it or by a measurable manifestation (and I think that's what you were saying as well).

I'm still not following how adhering to the scientific method is a practice in circular logic.
"Circular logic" makes it sound like a practice with no outcome (it just goes round & round forever), yet science & its method has produced astounding outcomes.

How is it circular logic to believe that undiscovered animals CAN exist because (like in the case of gorillas and pandas) they were once only thought to be folklore, but were discovered to be real animals? But it's not so easy to readily believe in the possibility of interdimensional spirit beings with the ability to teleport since there has never been any evidence of any such thing ever existing or being discovered?

The first is a model that's produced results many times, while the latter is not even a model because it's concluded nothing.
So how is adhering to models as examples of things that are possible an exercise of circular logic?

Right. If anything, I am arguing that you have better grounds than you may be claiming.
If we're agreed about that much, then I do think you were in a circular moment upthread.
Except paper cuts. Those are definitely the Devil.
So far, I am following and agreeing.
Reconsider your statement that

Personally, I don't buy into any of the supernatural explanations because there are no scientific models upon which to base such conclusions.

Given our agreements, we can only interpret this as meaning, "Personally, I don't buy into any non-scientific explanations, because they aren't scientific."

This is fine as a description, but not a justification. It's perfectly clear as a description, but your statement appears positioned as a justification (e.g., the use of the word "because" seems to offer a reason for us to agree with you). As a description, it's fine, because it identifies you as scientifically-minded. As a justification (how I read it), it says, "We should reject the non-scientific because it is non-scientific" which is a matter of definition, not justification. To leverage it as a justification would be circular logic.
It's non-circular when it stays in its lane. When a scientific theory is put to the test and verified or falsified (and there are philosophical problems with both ideas, but let's just roll with it), it does as you say it does. Hammers are good at pounding nails.

Mathematical theorems, however, are not "nails" and cannot be hammered (rigorously proved) via the hammer of empirical testing. Math is a precondition of science. It makes science possible. We don't, generally speaking test math with science (save for questions, for example, whether we ever see a particular geometric shape in nature), but rather we test science with math. CERN is not purposed with proving Pythagoras. On the contrary, Pythagoras and countless others developed the math that made the engineering of CERN possible.

Purely supernatural conjectures are not nails either. Science cannot prove or disprove the immaterial and immeasurable fairy hovering over my shoulder. Whether it is there or not, science cannot say. It proceeds from the presupposition that such things do not exist or partake of good explanations, so proper scientists don't detain themselves with such questions.

This isn't to say that science can't debunk supernatural claims. If it allegedly has effects in the real world, then those effects can be observed and potentially explained by other mechanisms. Thus, we can rule out the "God hypothesis for 'X' natural phenomenon," but not the "God Hypothesis itself (not within the frame of pure science). At most, supernaturalist may argue that God willed that the natural universe be structured in a way to produce that result or that divine will supervenes on the natural in this case (e.g., God doesn't have to get off the couch, because natural law happened to produce the result he wanted anyway).
It's not. So long as we're in the frame of naturalism (science staying in its lane), there is nothing circular (i.e., a presuppositional categorical rejection of a possibility).
No, it's not that it's "not easy." Rather, it is that within the frame of science, it is impossible. You have to step beyond the frame of science to even entertain the idea of supernatural spirits.

I think your thinking is basically solid. I am banging on about a nuanced, but (I think) important point.

This must be one of the elusive drone footages
We have Bigfoot everything in western Washington state, including BigFoot Java which I just drove by today. I also seen this guy today selling handcrafted engraved wood signs along the roadside with different things on them, including the image of Bigfoot from that old famous movie clip. I like Bigfoot as a mascot and as a familiar face selling everything from overpriced espresso drinks to credit union services.

Question for anyone: Is Bigfoot advertising/images common everywhere or just here in the Pacific Northwest?

So (to Corax) you're saying I have a naturalist view of the possibility of Bigfoot existing.

Yes, and I've explained why - we have examples of new animals being discovered while we have no conclusive evidence of interdimensional teleporters ever existing anywhere at any time.

I'm still not sure if you're critical of my scientific view... or if you agree with it.

And just to make sure we're on the same page... again, I'm not asserting one way or another the existence of Bigfoot, but only the possibility of the existence of Bigfoot. (As Henry Fonda asked in @Citizen Rules' "favorite" movie: 12 Angry Men... "Is it possible?")

But it's well known that there are different philosophical camps when it comes to the possibility of the existence of Bigfoot or the assertion of the existence of Bigfoot.

I fall into the scientific / naturalist camp that says an undiscovered hominid existing in the great wilderness expanses of the world is possible and IF it does exist, then it's some kind of bi-pedal primate.

While there are a myriad of other camps that postulate theories about spirit beings, time travelers, chronologically-displaced cave men, dimension-hoppers, aliens, alien passengers, alien pets, alien robots, the results of alien experiments on proto humans, or even the theory that Bigfoots are the current zenith of homo sapiens that would have inhabited this planet if not for alien experiments that turned Sasquatches into us.

I don't know of any Bigfoot advertising in NJ (although there may be some in or around the Pine Barrens that I'm not aware of - one of the few, large areas of dense wilderness in NJ that's allegedly been a hot spot for cryptid sightings). So, yeah, I'd say Bigfoot advertising is far more prominent anywhere that is purported to be "Bigfoot country".

Yes, several municipalities seem to regard Bigfoot as an actual animal officially.
In other words some of the signs aren't intended as jokes or entertainment, but as public service / safety warnings no different from deer crossing signs.

There's a whole story about Mt. St. Helens and Bigfoots. According to some conspiracy theorists, the 1980 explosion of the volcano left Sasquatch corpses & wounded creatures around the mountain. Black Ops government agencies allegedly employed parts of the military to come "clean up" the carnage and "cover up" all evidence. (I don't remember many details such as whose claims or what evidence this idea is based on, perhaps the link below will provide further info).

https://sasquatchthelegend.com/blogs...XnQwaLU5YYazPy