What explains Bigfoot sightings?

[TexDanm]

I am open-minded about the possible existence of a large hairy bipedal creature that still inhabits parts of the most isolated parts of the world. I can see how a limited number of these creatures could survive in places where there are almost no human people living or traveling through.

What I have a problem with is that they are numerous enough and common enough even in heavily populated areas to account for the thousands of sightings. I understand that there are always going to be some people that so crave the attention that they will make up a story just to get attention but I just don’t believe that they make up a large enough percentage of our population to account for the widespread reports that I read about.

This brings us to trying to figure out what it is that is being seen or what is causing people to think that they are seeing these things. After a lot of consideration, I am beginning to wonder if a lot of the sightings might be ancestral memories that are tied into certain instinctive fears.

There are things that we are born with a fear of. Falling because we were at one-time tree dwellers and the babies had to hang on or fall so it is born into us still. There seems to be an instinctive fear of serpents that even babies have. Instincts happen when there is something that causes fatalities over many generations to the point that it becomes a part of the survivors to avoid these lethal things.

They are now realizing that up until fairly recently in the evolutionary sense there were many different hominid species that were all in existence at the same time. Now there is ONE. Man is a killer. We are about the only animal that kills for fun. We often travel thousands of miles to kill people that have never done anything to us.

I suspect that this may be a trait that became a part of humanity going back to our earliest ancestors and one that was probably shared with our other hominid cousins to some extent. It is possible that for several hundred thousand years the biggest killer of people might have been other more primitive “people”. Even when those other “people” were mostly gone the sight of fur clothed people that were not of our family, clan or tribe might be a cause to fear a deadly encounter.

When something surprises you and frightens you your natural instinct is to try and identify it. Your mind starts going through those things that might be a danger to you or cause you harm. You are not at all likely to suddenly focus on it like a teddy bear or giant cuddly friendly critter. You are going to first match it to the thing that most resembles it to something that you fear. I think that anything that appears to be standing upright is always going to be seen as some sort of big hairy humanoid monster because for thousands of years such things were man's most common predator. Even now, people kill more people than any other large animal.

I have to wonder about this because so many of the sightings are just not from places that a big hairy creature could exist and not be known. There have even been Bigfoot sightings in Central Park in New York City!! There are sightings in places with millions of people and that is not a place that you could have a breeding population of sasquatches and not end up with a body eventually from a traffic accident or someone that is scared shooting and killing one.

If it is not a case of misidentification then Bigfoot either has the ability to be invisible, travels into and out of our reality via some sort of dimensional doors or people are just almost universally crazy and hallucinating or lying.

 

[crux]

Ancestral memories don't leave footprints.

 

[Jennifer]

There is an enormous amount of footage of a supposed Bigfoot that are from a considerable distance. Usually it is just standing at a spot and not walking anywhere. What I have always chocked it up to be is that, if not a hoax, then it's most likely just a grizzly standing on it's hind legs either trying to reach something or trying to intimidate another creature that can't be seen in the footage. I truly believe that Bigfoot is real. But I also believe that there are people out there that desperately want to see their name in the paper, so they go out of their way to make up a video of a supposed sasquatch. Like with any other scientifically unproven cryptid (Nesie, kraken, merfolk, faeries, etc.) you have to take these videos with a grain of salt.

 

[ozentity]

I think BF is created from our fear of the realization that we too are animals,sort of a Boogey man of evolution.Tracks can be easily faked or misidentified and with zero DNA evidence I cant see this being a flesh and blood creature.I think some people are genuine in their sightings but with BF being a Tulpa type thing I don't believe it can be captured on film.

 

[Lynne]

I realize there are attention seeking people out there however I think the sheer number of reports have to prove there is something out there. The fact that similar creatures are reported all over the globe throughout history is more evidence. Add to this the foot prints that show dermal ridges and foot flexion, I’m convinced. There is also ongoing DNA research by Dr Melba Ketchem. I personally believe the Patterson, Gimlin film is real. There is just too much evidence to say it’s a figment of our imagination. Just my personal take on this.

 

[crux]

I suspect there is a lot more evidence that has been suppressed. In the same manner as UFO evidence is suppressed.

 

[Ultima Thule]

I realize there are attention seeking people out there however I think the sheer number of reports have to prove there is something out there. The fact that similar creatures are reported all over the globe throughout history is more evidence. Add to this the foot prints that show dermal ridges and foot flexion, I’m convinced. There is also ongoing DNA research by Dr Melba Ketchem. I personally believe the Patterson, Gimlin film is real. There is just too much evidence to say it’s a figment of our imagination. Just my personal take on this.

I've remained open minded about the existence of BF for all these years for many of the reasons that you cite.

The Patterson/Gimlin film is still one of the most interesting pieces of evidence. And I'm glad you mentioned it. I typically lean towards skepticism by default. However, this film and the circumstances surrounding it appear to lack the red-flags that I've come to associate with a definite hoax or unintentional misattribution. And I have not come across a single scientific or expert analysis that comes close to presenting an argument that conclusively raises the probability that this film is not authentic. Even the Wikipedia article stops short of the usual presumptive labeling that they employ in articles related to the paranormal. Of course that doesn't prove the film is authentic. But without a compelling skeptical analysis, I think it still remains as one of the best pieces of evidence that we have that a large, hairy bipedal creature is indeed still out there.

 

[Jennifer]

Then we also have things like footprints like this. As of yet, science doesn't know what kind of creature could have made such a print, even though the world does know.

And we can't forget the fact that there are new animal species discovered every single day. Typically they are insect species and insect subspecies. But that still doesn't negate the fact that there is life on this planet that we have never seen. Also it has been stated that we have only been able to explore roughly 10% of the oceans. Who knows what's lurking at the bottom. Maybe megalodon is just taking a nap with Cthulu.

 

[crux]

In 1967 the P/G film was shot hand-held by a man on horseback with a consumer level 16mm movie camera.

In 1968 the Hollywood production of “Planet of the Apes” was released. Its budget was 5.8 million dollars (over 43M in today's dollars) and utilized world-class make-up and costume experts and cinematic technicians and equipment.

To my eye there is no question that what the multi-million dollar Hollywood film shows us is simply “human actors in ape suits and make-up” while the P/G film shows us something entirely different and far more realistic.

The fact that a couple of guys with an amateur movie camera could shoot something far more realistic than Hollywood could muster at the same time with a multi- million dollar budget represents compelling evidence to me that BF is really out there.

 

[Paintman]

And if it was a hoax ,where do you go to buy an anatomically correct ape costume complete with accurate moving musculature and genitalia?
But I still believe some of this -