Top 10 Reasons to Believe in Bigfoot


There’s no doubt that the big, lovable ape we know as “Bigfoot” is controversial, serving as fodder for both serious study and great hilarity, with people generally divided as to whether it actually exists or not. Mainstream science generally comes down on the side of the skeptics, maintaining that without a body, there is no reason to believe the beast exists, no matter what other evidence one might produce. A few scientists, however, are at least open to the possibility that a large, unidentified primate may indeed be stalking the forests of the Pacific Northwest (as well as dozens of other localities around the world). Certainly, it has acquired more credibility as the years go by, which at least suggests there may be something to the idea. So what sort of “evidence” is there to suggest the big guy is really out there? Here is my top ten reasons why you should–if not believe–at least remain open to the prospect that Bigfoot is more than just a myth or a salesman for beef jerky.

10. Scientific uncertainty


While it often appears that science knows pretty much everything there is to know (or that is worth knowing), the fact is that science is always in a state of flux, as one hypothesis is abandoned in favor of another or new discoveries come to light that rewrites everything scientists thought they knew to be a fact previously. Therefore, it is unwise to maintain with anything approaching certainty what is and is not possible–much less what could still be out there waiting to be discovered. With this in mind, then, it is important that people remain objective to the possibility that Bigfoot could exist, for without that objectivity, it makes getting to the truth of the matter all the more difficult. Why? Because if I “know” there’s no such thing as a Bigfoot, I’m unlikely to look at the evidence that there is, much less look for the creature itself. In essence, my faith in my own knowledge prevents me from acquiring any new knowledge.

9. Historical precedence

Primates Tree

I’ve always wondered why science is so quick to reject the notion that there could still be a large and, as yet, undiscovered primate living on this planet–especially when one considers that homo sapiens and large primates have lived side-by-side on this planet for tens of thousands of years. In fact, in the over quarter of a million years that man has been on earth, he has shared this world with numerous now extinct primates–some as big or even bigger than Bigfoot–making it hard to understand why such is impossible today. Were it actually true that there are no large primates around today, it would be the first time in human history that homo sapiens and large primates did not coexist!

8. Gigantopithecus


Here was an animal that would be a real-life Bigfoot were it alive today. Existing between nine million years ago until as recent as 100,000 years ago, Gigantopithecus was a massive primate that may have stood as much as ten feet tall and weighed over half a ton. So why does it serve as a reason to believe in Bigfoot? Because, once more, there is precedence for large primates existing today; in essence, this beast proves that primates are capable of getting as big (or, actually, even bigger) than modern descriptions of Bigfoot suggest. (In fact, Bigfoot is rarely thought to get taller than eight feet, making it puny compared to Gigantopithecus!) While the fact that there used to be monster primates doesn’t prove that there are today, it does suggest that if there is such a thing as a sasquatch, it would not be inconsistent with what we have seen in the distant past regarding primate physiology and evolution.

7. Discovery of the Modern Gorilla


The gorilla was largely unknown to modern science until the mid-nineteenth century, and the mountain gorilla wasn’t identified until 1902, so it’s not unreasonable to imagine that a similar creature may well be capable of hiding well into the twenty-first century–especially if it’s considerably smarter than a gorilla and nomadic (and largely nocturnal) in nature. Additionally, the discovery of the mountain gorilla begs the question of why, if it’s possible for large primates to exist in Africa today, it’s impossible for large primates to exist elsewhere on the planet? Is there something unique to Africa that makes it special in this regard? Clearly, logic suggests that if large primates are possible anywhere, they should be–at least potentially–possible elsewhere. Additionally, the fossil record shows us that large primates were evident throughout much of Asia as recently as a few tens of thousands of years ago, demonstrating that Africa isn’t the only place they existed.

6. The Bering Land Bridge


We are all familiar with the theory that early man may have migrated from Asia to North America via the Bering land bridge that connected the two continents together about twenty thousand years ago (when, due to glaciation, the ocean levels were hundreds of feet lower than they are today). Not only did humans make the crossing, but so did many other animals, including wooly mammoths, saber-tooth tigers, and a whole host of critters. The question that needs to be asked, then, is if humans and other large animals were able to migrate across this connecting point, why couldn’t other creatures–especially any large primates that may have been around at the time–not have done the same? This would, after all, rather neatly account for how a large primate like Bigfoot could make North America its home and yet leave no trace of itself in the fossil record.

5. Native American Legends


While one is never wise to put too much stock into Native American folklore, one would be equally unwise to casually dismiss all of it as well. The fact that many tribes–especially those from the Pacific Northwest–maintain similar legends of large, hairy men needs to be taken into account, especially since many of these legends appear to have arisen independently among various tribes that had little or no contact with each other, eliminating the possibility that one culture simply copied stories from another culture and made it their own. (Known as cross-cultural contamination.) While each tribe has its own twist on the legend and their own name for the beast, they all appear to be talking about a similar creature that existed long before whites ever arrived. Many tribes, in fact, maintain the truth of these legends to this day, insisting that they are based on a real creature and not mere superstition.

4. Eyewitness evidence


While the term “Bigfoot” wasn’t coined until the 1950’s, reports of the hairy beast go back centuries, challenging the notion that it is purely a modern phenomenon. Additionally, there have been literally thousands of first-hand reports collected by various investigative agencies over the years regarding the animal (and, we can assume, many more thousands that go unreported), often by credible witnesses (most significant among them being professional hunters, who are intimately familiar with a region’s native fauna and so should be difficult to fool) . While undoubtedly there are hoaxers contained within this mix and a number of people who misidentify known animals for unknown ones (bears being the most common) to assume that absolutely every single report is wrong is unreasonable. Clearly, people are seeing something they haven’t seen before, and not every one of them are a bear walking on its hind legs or hunters wearing camouflage suits. To dismiss them all is foolhardy.

3. Hair samples


While rare, a number of hair samples have been acquired over the years portending to be from Bigfoot, and while the majority of these prove to be from known animals, there are a small number of samples that remain unidentified to this day. Often these unidentified follicles prove to be remarkably human-like–though thicker–suggesting that the creature they came from may be is more human than animal. Unfortunately, since there are no known sasquatch samples to compare them to, they can’t be identified as belonging to a sasquatch, which forces them to remain in the category of “origin unknown” which, if you think about it, is pretty interesting in itself.

2. Footprints and other evidences


Bigfoot got his name from the size of the massive tracks he makes, so it’s not remarkable that the best evidence for his existence remains these tracks. While a number of prints have proven to be hoaxes, there are a substantial number of what are considered “authentic” sasquatch prints that need to be taken seriously. Perhaps the most compelling of these are those contained in the collection of Idaho State University primatologist Jeff Meldrum, who has one casting that contains dermal ridges (the foot’s equivalent of fingerprints) that run in a completely different direction than those seen on human feet. Would a hoaxer really be able to both create such ridges and, even if he was, would he think of making them so different from human feet? There are other evidences as well, such as twisted off branches, possible sasquatch “dens” and audio recordings of the creature, but these are less easily subject to analysis (though some of the recordings have proven to be compelling when submitted for audio analysis).

1. The Gimlin/Patterson film

Shot in northern California in October, 1967, the brief film shot by Bigfoot enthusiast Roger Patterson of an alleged female sasquatch walking across a dried river bed remains the high water mark for Bigfoot researchers. Though dismissed by most in the scientific community as some guy in a “monkey suit”–a charge that has never been definitively proven–the footage, if genuine, is the best piece of evidence that Bigfoot exists (or, at least did in 1967). In it, we see what appears to be a creature at least six-and-a-half feet tall and weighing a good 400 pounds moving with a natural, fluid motion difficult to replicate even by modern special effects artists today. (Modern efforts to replicate the creature in the photo, along with its unique gait, using stunt men and the best special effects materials and techniques available today–none of which an amateur like Patterson would have had available to him in 1967–repeatedly fall well short of replicating what’s seen in the original.) Additionally, pain-staking, frame-by-frame analysis of the footage shows musculature movement and other features extremely difficult to replicate, as well as allow for precise measurements of the animal, which consistently show themselves to be inconsistent with those of a human. Even skeptics have to admit that if the Patterson film is a hoax, it’s one of the best fakes in history, and one that has somehow managed to withstand the test of time.
Jeff Danelek is a Denver, Colorado author who writes on many subjects having to do with history, politics, the paranormal, spirituality and religion. To see more of his stuff, visit his website at

Other Articles you Might Like
Liked it? Take a second to support on Patreon!


  1. Bigfoot doesn’t exist but if people really want him to exit, logic and lack of evidence won’t sway them. But pfft, what dos mainstream science know 😛

  2. The truth is not one of the 10 reasons given here is a reason to actually believe that bigfoot is alive today however every one is a reason a child would believe a fairytale (like Santa Clause or bigfoot).

  3. I will celebrate if and when convincing proof of Bigfoot is found. Until then ideas,legends, a few strands of hair, and a film that my 5 year-old- grandson giggled at will not make me a believer. If this creature is out there, why has no one found anything that doesn’t fall apart under scrutiny? No bones, no nothing……but my mind stays open.

  4. Bigfoot…….. Bigfoot….. real, or not? My question is, WHY do people fake their shows on Bigfoot? Why? And, such as Finding Bigfoot and Mountain Monsters, are real? Their is pretty much enough proof bigfoot is alive (maybe there needs to be more?), but people keep risking their lives to prove that he is real. Why they do it? For money. That’s why. If someone were to kill a REAL Bigfoot, they would probably get about 10,000,000 (ten million) dollars! But I’m just sayin’, I like watching these shows so keep up the good work, and I hope you recover fast Trapper (from Mountain Monsters), I can’t wait to see you back on the Bigfoot fields! 😉 😉 Love you AIMS team (your show, and partly you guys because you guys are awesome),!!

  5. pacific northwest on

    The hair is the right color in presumed to look like picture- but it has hair all down the front also .
    The head is more of a cone shape then what picture here shows. It stands up and walks. It does tree knock and throws rocks some big rocks. If your crowding its space. Bends trees over and yes smells real sour. The one i personally seen was up the bogishiel river bottom on a hill side. The other was up the upper solduck river and one behind joice school here in Washington on the coast. Other people see them and get side hilled followed by them. They dont seem to aggressive. 3 seconds is about all ya get to view them.

  6. Looking at the bigfoot phenomena from a ‘fortean’ perspective, if the creatures don’t exist – how then can we explain the thousands of sighting reports, the piles of bigfoot books, and the mass of TV specials on Hunting Bigfoot?
    If biggie is no more ‘real’ than dragons, unicorns or faries – we should see a similiar level of attention to dragons, unicorns & faries. When was the last time you heard of a report of a fire breathing dragon being sighted? How ’bout a unicorn? Anybody? Come on, you bigfoot debunkers, show me something that puts some ‘mythical’ creature in the same league as the bigfoot phenomena.
    Of course, you can’t. No one is coming out of the woods saying they saw a fire breathing dragon in there – at least I’ve never seen the report in the papers! Logic would dictate that there’s something there that puts the bigfoot phenomena in a different catagory than dragons, unicorns & faries…namely the catagory of “Things That People Are Actually Seeing”.
    Frankly, I’m tired of debating this with ‘scientists’. I’ve been told that the ‘data’ does not provide enough food sources for such an animal to survive in our woodlands. Since there’s plenty of ‘non-scientific’ eveidence that these creatures are doing just fine in the woods – their ‘dubious data’ can be discounted!

      • I sure like stories too!

        ‘Ghosts’ fall into that murky area of things we can’t ‘conjure up’ at will so they can be studied. All we have is a long history of ‘personal experiences’, and while I find it unlikely that the phenomena is real – I can’t pontificate one way or the other. But I sure hope I get to see one…

        As far as the subject of UFO ‘s goes…I risk being labeled one of the ‘UFO kooks’ due to my own sighting, back in the ’80’s. Up until then it was only a subject I’d read about and found interesting. Then, one night at 4:00 in the morning, while I was lying in my backyard, looking to catch the tail end of the Perseid meteor shower, when ‘seeing a UFO’ became one entry I was able to cross off my own Bucket List!
        UFO’s are in the catagory of Too Many Sightings, By Too Many Folks, for there to be nothing ‘real’ behind the phenomena. Even our retired astronauts are admitting to the UFO sightings they had while piloting our spacecraft.

        And then there’s the Wikileaks UFO State Dept. cable:

        The cable states: â??It is critical all embassy staff understand that they are not to discuss under any circumstance concerns DOD has with UFOs entering orbit, once again the seriousness of this matter cannot be overstatedâ??

        There is more ‘weird reality’ in the world than you might think!

        • What I wanted to say is that sightings alone do not prove very much. People tend to see all kinds of wierd stuff, especially when other people before them claim to have seen something similar.
          People are easily decieved, since everyone of us wants to be decieved in some kind of way. (“Mundus vult decipi”, as an old song says: the world wants to be decieved) We want certain things to be true and interpret our surroundings to match our wishes to a degree.
          Bigfoot is just one example. Fifty years ago, people in my area still claimed to have seen mythical creatures like house dragons, forest people and fallen angles. This died out because those are rather silly believes. Bigfoot isn’t that much, so there are still people seeing it. Or take Iceland for example, where you’re actually not seen as insane when you claim to have daily conversations with elves and trolls.

          But in my opinion, Bigfoot is still the most far-out believe. It’s claimed to be a physical creature living in areas that are very well inhabited. Still, we lack any physical evidence and even good pictures or videos. But something would be found, especially since there aren’t few people looking for it. With ghosts or aliens you could still claim that they can’t be photographed or have the means to get rid of the evidence, or the alien conspiracy does so. But I’ve never heard the claim that someone is covering Bigfoot up.

          I’ve seen a ghost once. Or something most people would claim to be a ghost. It was the breif appearence of a glowing green cloud next to a barrow, accopmanied by a cat-like scream. It could have been a ghost, but more likely it was a cat screaming and a bit of fog reflecting light being exeggerated by my mind – since I believed in ghosts back then.

        • Re: ghostly encounters…Recently an article appeared in the Washington Post about a sighting that happened in the DC area several years ago. A workman was preparing an old house for demolition, making way for a swim club building. The house had a history of ghostly goings-on, I believe. He was in the basement when he turned and saw the ghostly image of a young girl, in period dress, sitting on the stairs,
          The encounter ended predictably, when he bolted from the building, quite terrified.

          Now, perhaps I’m more than a little weird, but I don’t find little girls, ghostly or not, to be something I need to run away from. And I find the whole attitude of “Run! It’s a ghost!” to be counter-intuitive. I mean, among all the mysteries in the world – Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, UFO’s – is not the greatest: “Is There Life After Death?” That’s what I want to know! It’s the only question that affects me personally. And there, right in front of him, was the opportunity to gain some insight into that very question.
          So he runs away.
          I really don’t understand this Fear Of Ghosts thing.

          About putting Bigfoot in the same category with elves & trolls…some of my best friends are trolls, so be careful what you say…
          But seriously, elves & trolls are part of many cultures mythologies, so it’s natural to feel you’re interacting with them, seen or unseen. Bigfoot has no place in the white man’s pantheism, as it is in First Peoples mythology, so there’s no reason for us to ‘see a bigfoot’ when there’s not one around. But I suppose even that’s changing, with the saturation of the Finding Bigfoot TV specials on our psyche – perhaps now it is part of our mythology. Perhaps now we can see a Bigfoot behind every tree…

  7. There is a great deal wrong with the author’s logic in this post. First and foremost, it should be pointed out that possibility does not equal probability. Thus, the land bridge, the existence of Gigantopithicus, the discovery of modern gorillas or even Neanderthal DNA is not an argument for anything other than the existence of those things. As to the first point, the failure of an hypothesis does not equal the success of a subsequent hypothesis. The only thing point one argues for is the success of the scientific method.

    When using mythologies as a point of reference it is always wise to remember that they are mythologies. Ideas and mythical components arise homogenously all the time, but that doesn’t argue for the factual acceptance of these myths. Dragons have been a part of disparate and diverse cultures the world over, but you’d be hard pressed to convince anyone of the existence, contemporary or in the past, of dragons. Elements of Christianity have precedence in other religions, but you can’t use that fact to argue the truth or falsity of the reality or falsity of Christian or preceding stories. And when you look atone relatively small areas these tribes inhabited the cross-pollunization of mythical elements is inevitable. Further, there are countless ways a Bigfoot myth would arise, including the very ways a modern Bigfoot movement is prevalent.

    Citing any source as an authority of an undiscovered animal is disingenuous at best. A professor who has studied Bigfoot evidence is not more or less knowledgable of something that may or may not exist than any paleontologist, biologist or zoologist. When making an appeal to authority you must take into account the counter views of authorities in the same relevet fields. Individual researchers have been shown to be too invested in the topic to remain objective all the time.

    Finally, those who argue that lack of physical evidence is due to rarity and the vastness of the terrain, I’d remind you that there have been unsuccessful Bigfoot hunters for decades. Given the sheer numbers of groups and individuals seeking this beast, and the relatively small area they’ve been combing for the last forty or so years not to mention the growing sophistication of methods and tools, it is extremely hard to conclude that the lack of compelling physical evidence isn’t due to the lack of an actual Bigfoot existence. In fact, the discovery of the modern Gorilla is a good argument against the existence of Bigfoot rather than the other way around. Stories of the animal were met with initial skepticism, but eventually acted upon. Though the terrain was difficult and inhospitable the creature was found because it existed. This is the opposite of what has happened with Bigfoot. Countless expeditions by groups and individuals who want to find any kind of evidence have provided nothing but ambiguous unconvincing scraps- unidentified hair and plaster casts of footprints.

    I’m sorry but this list is nothing more than logical fallacy, wishful thinking and misidentification of “evidence”. The only reason to believe in Bigfoot at this point is because you want to, and if that is the case great!

    • Hey look-B8ovin!
      Probably is generally more likely to happen, vs possibly meaning there’s a chance it will happen.
      So, tell me. Is there really that much of a difference between the two words? It might be likely to happen .vs there is a chance it might happen! Splitting hairs are we? “As to the first point, the failure of an hypothesis does not equal the success of a subsequent hypothesis”……..REALLY? WOW, I’m so impressed! So, what is the scientific method? I’ll save you the trouble. Scientific method is: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. Sounds to me that your definition of a “scientific method” is different then the definition from the Merriam-Webster’s’ definition. To me it sounds like the true definition is a: INVESTIGATION INTO SOMETHING THAT IS POSSIBLY OR PROBABLY SCIENTIFICALLY PROVABLE!!!!
      You are brining religion into this? Nice try! “Citing any source as an authority of an undiscovered animal is disingenuous at best”. Did you say “ANY” source? Think about what you are saying. A scientific journal……you know, the ones that are investigated and peer approved. Didn’t Darwin receive a shun from the scientific community at first? Maybe thought as “mythology” perhaps? Or, do you not believe in that FACT that all living things must evolve in order to propagate and ensure the survival of their species…..including us humans.
      About Dr. Meldrum: he and few others possess the intestinal fortitude to say what they think, and have done extensive research on! By the way; Dr. Meldum does and continues to use the “scientific method” to come his “hypothesis”. Other scientists who have shown varying degrees of interest in the possibility of BF are: anthropologist David Daegling field biologist George Shaller, Russell Mittermeier, Daris Swindler, Esteban Sarmiento, Grover Krantz, and…….Jane Goodall. Yep, the one-the only JANE GOODALL! Ya that Jane Goodall is full of @!$!, man. (Dumb and Dumber: referring to John Denver about the Rocky Mts). Is that disingenuous enough for you? By the way, as seen below you should refer to Jeff Meldum as Dr. Meldrum. Oh and check out the last paragraph in this citing of Dr. Meldrums biography:
      Meldrum received his B.S. in zoology specializing in vertebrate locomotion at Brigham Young University (BYU) in 1982, his M.S. at BYU in 1984 and a Ph.D. in anatomical sciences, with an emphasis in biological anthropology, from State University of New York at Stony Brook in 1989. He held the position of postdoctoral visiting assistant professor at Duke University Medical Center from 1989 to 1991. Meldrum worked at Northwestern University’s Department of Cell, Molecular and Structural Biology for a short while in 1993 before joining the faculty of Idaho State University where he currently teaches.
      Meldrum has published several academic papers ranging from vertebrate evolutionary morphology, the emergence of bipedal locomotion in modern humans and Sasquatch and is a co-editor of a series of books on paleontology. Meldrum also coedited From Biped to Strider: The Emergence of Modern Human Walking with Charles E. Hilton. He edited the textbook From Biped to Strider (Springer, 2004)

      Meldrum has attracted media attention due to his interest in Bigfoot. Which is good for the believers and the skeptics! *****Skeptic Brian Dunning writes that “The work of responsible scientists like Dr. Meldrum is exactly what true skeptics should be asking the Bigfoot community for, not criticizing him for it.*****

      By the way are you a paleontologist, biologist or zoologist? “When making an appeal to authority you must take into account the counter views of authorities in the same relevant fields.”
      Like I have said before- intestinal fortitude. Most scientist will not say anything contrary to the scientific opinion because the are concerned about their careers, and they should be! Take the time to check out this link. “RIDICULED DISCOVERERS,
      Another quote by B8ovin:
      “Finally, those who argue that lack of physical evidence is due to rarity and the vastness of the terrain, I’d remind you that there have been unsuccessful Bigfoot hunters for decades. Given the sheer numbers of groups and individuals seeking this beast, and the relatively small area they’ve been combing for the last forty or so years not to mention the growing sophistication of methods and tools, it is extremely hard to conclude that the lack of compelling physical evidence isn’t due to the lack of an actual Bigfoot existence”. What small area are you talking about? Bigfoot, known in Canada as Sasquatch, has been spotted in many parts of the world: For example, in Nepal and Tibet the creature is called Yeti or the Abominable Snowman; Australians call theirs Yowie. The Johor Hominid has been sighted in Malaysia, Viet Nam reports a Jungle Man, and in China, it’s a Wild Man. There are frequent Bigfoot sightings in Ontario and British Columbia and in the Pacific northwest of the U.S., although sightings have been reported in all 50 states and several countries in addition to those named. So, basically the world is a “relatively small area”? You must have “gone where no man has gone before”! Are you a astronaut? Must be; because if the world is a small area to you then you are either a giant, or someone that is from “A galaxy far, far away”. Oh, the numbers of groups and individuals seeking this-cryptid/hominid-( sorry I substituted your referral to “beast”) are, for the most part; self funded. If you are talking about the Finding Bigfoot show……it gives anybody who takes BF seriously a nauseous feeling in their stomach! Matt Moneymaker is a embarrassment to any serious person that believes. But, most of these people are not paid, nor funded, and have no resources, but their own funds. So, the growing sophistication of methods and tools is really not available to the majority or BF researchers/hunters.
      I’m sorry but your rebuttal is nothing more than illogical fallacy, wishful thinking and is a misguided thought process by the skeptics; like yourself. The only reason to not believe in Bigfoot at this point, is because you don’t want to, and if that is the case great”! Touché!

    • As an avid, lifelong, deer hunter I used to think Bigfoot was a joke. One calm day in October 2006 while sitting in a deep woods treestand, my beliefs were forever changed by an immense aggressive creature that haunts me to this day. All the point/counterpoints mean nothing to me anymore, I know Bigfoot is real

  8. I would like to throw out a few facts to the skeptics to consider. Again I respect all of your opinions, and I enjoy reading good arguments for and against BF! Has anyone heard the saying “Behind every legend there is a bit of truth?” With that being said; if one person out of the thousands of reports taken over many-many years is legit, and is the truth; we have a obligation to investigate these claims. (Except the obvious crackpot claims and the clearly faked photos and footage.) There has been many respected people such as Police officers, Dr’s, community leaders, scientist’s as Jeff Meldrum, and many others have either claimed to see, or have done extensive research on BF. You guys have any idea how bad this could be for these folks? Ridicule, damage to their credibility, not to mention a career ender, and these guys know this before they decide to come forward , but they do it any way. Why would any of these professionals go ahead and share their stories? I think it is simply because they have seen something that they cannot explain. For example: lets just take the cops that believe that they have had an encounter with BF. Police are professionally trained observers. Ya, I know; there are bad cops that have said they have seen things while under oath to get a conviction in court. We have all heard of this. But, why on earth would they say they have seen a BF knowing the ramifications of their claim? Too much risk to their careers to try to fake a sighting or see a dark shadow and announcing it to the world that they saw a BF. I’m sure they gave it a considerable amount of thought before they came out and made themselves public. They would have had to of been absolutely convinced that they had seen a BF. OK, next. I have read a bunch of comments about BF bones not being discovered. Animal and human bones do not last very long in the wild. To many critters utilize the protein from the meat and calcium from the bones. Nor do the bodies last in the ground. (This is one of the reasons for embalming). So, just consider this. What if Bigfeet bury their dead? Many cultures throughout history have rituals and practices to honor and dispose of their dead. Why wouldn’t Bigfeet use this practice as well? If they have made it this long; I believe that there is intelligence here. I really don’t think they want to be discovered by us humans, so this is one way that they use to try to ensure this. How many people go missing in the wild, and no trace of them are ever found? Obviously the human population is immensely larger than the BF population. The last population count of humans on earth that I have heard of is somewhere around 6 billion…..I think. Yet there are 100’s of people that go missing and/or die in the woods, mountainous regions, and remote areas every year; leaving no trace, and this is only in the U.S. So, why would we expect that a small population of BF would be a common occurrence being found dead? Being born, raised and have lived in the woods all their life, and the intelligence they have (which I believe that BF possess); I think it would be quite easy for them to stay away or hidden from us. This is a reason why so few people see these creatures. Plus their isn’t a lot of people that venture or live in BF country, if you will. Since we are on this subject; how many of you have stumbled across a human body in the woods, or even in the urban areas? I’m not talking about an open casket funeral, or anything like that. I was a fire fighter/emt for a while earlier in my life. In 4 years I only saw 10-12 bodies. Mostly in automobile accidents, drug overdoses, a few natural caused deaths. So, with that being said; you would think that a person in this type of career would see more bodies than that. Of course the amount of the population is directly linked in the amount of deaths. More people=more deaths. So a small population of intelligent living creatures living in very remote areas, and do not want to be found by humans would be very low if not at all. Here is a link of a world map of areas/sightings that BF have been documented. All these cultures and people throughout the world are seeing a creature unknown to science that are very similar, and inhabit the basically same types of geographic locations with similar types of weather. Kinda makes you think. Here is a list of 10 new mammals that were previously unknown to science, and have been verified by the scientific community in the last 10 yrs.
    *The lesula, or (Cercopithecus lomamiensis): A new species of monkey has been identified in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
    *Goodman’s Mouse Lemurs (Microcebus lehilahytsara).
    The species was discovered in August 2005 in Madagascar.
    *The three-toed pygmy sloth (Bradypus pygmaeus), is endemic to Isla Escudo de Veraguas, a small island off the coast of Panama, and was identified as a distinct species in 2001.
    *A previously unknown primate species was discovered during a WWF expedition into the rainforest in Mato Grosso in Brazil in 2010. The new species of the genus Callicebus monkey was found in an area of pristine Amazon rainforest. It is the second new monkey species to be discovered in Africa in 28 years.
    *A new species of blossom bat was discovered in the Foja mountains of Papua New Guinea in 2010.
    *In September 2011 a new species of dolphin in Victoria’s Port Phillip Bay, Australia. The dolphins, (Tursiops Australis), which can also be found at Gippsland Lake, have a small population of 150 and were originally thought to be one of the two existing bottlenose dolphin species.
    * The saola, a small deer; was originally identified as a new species from remains discovered in Vietnam in 1992 but a live animal wasn’t discovered until 2010.
    *A new species of mouse, (Mus cypriacus), identified in 2006. This mouse, which has a bigger head, ears, eyes and teeth than other European mice, is found only on Cyprus Island.
    *The Sundaland clouded leopard, found in Dermakot forest reserve in Malaysian Borneo’s Sabah state. The Sundaland clouded leopard was classified as a new species through genetic studies several years ago but on 15 February 2010 this little-understood species of big cat was caught on camera and filmed.
    *A newly discovered “toothless” rat, (Paucidentomys vermidax), was found in remote rainforest on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi in 2011. Keep in mind that these are only the mammals that have been discovered that we know about, and have been verified by science. I’m sure that there are more, but the jury may still be out on these ones. My point is; science is still finding new mammals…….including primates! Kinda cool, huh?
    Yes, I know that some of these new mammals have been discovered in some very remote places in the world, but if you think about it. Remote areas is were most BF encounters have occurred. In a previous post by AMercer “North America has parts that are sparsely populated but they are not unexplored.” Which I gave a counter argument along with his other attempts to debunk the top ten list. This observation by AMercer ( because if he would have done his research he probably would not have included this in his comment #7). This is a complete fallacy. I’m not talking exploration by Google Earth either. Large areas of Northern Canada and Alaska have never had a human set foot there. In my own backyard here in Washington State there is an area on Hurricane Ridge that has never had humans explore. This is located in the National Olympic Rainforest located on the Olympic Peninsula; which is a national park. Also, there are parts of the Olympic Rainforest National Park that has yet to be explored. This is just WA state! When you think about BF sightings what state or area first come to mind? Could it be Washington State? South Western Canada? The Pacific NW? No, none of my thoughts or opinions “prove” the existence of BF. I know this. But, considering some of these facts that I have laid out for you to digest. Don’t you think that is at least possible? Try to open your mind, and think about the what if? -Thanks- I look forward to any comments back from any of you!

  9. Best argument to counter @FHM. If you came upon a random animal bone while taking a walk through the wild, would you automatically recognize as say a bear foot or deer femur? As stated earlier, the only reason we know Gigantopithecus is because of 3 teeth and half a jaw bone found in a Chinese apothecary, that was being sold as dragons teeth. Secondly Bear carcasses are intensely hard to find due to the rate of decay and not to forget that a dead animal in the forest is a free meal to another animal. There’s a few vids on youtube from Discovery channel experiments recreating a carcass’ decomposition in an uninhabited part of the forest. Within 22 days it was unrecognizable what the animal was (it was a deer).
    The argument against Native stories is again just a bunch of imperialist/colonialist high-minded prejudice. The reason the Gorrilla wasn’t discovered until 1902 is because no one believed it was a credible story to follow up on (also taking into account the sheer amount of land to be covered and the jungle density, and even then they had to use the Natives to know where to go). The native tribes had legends of a man-like animal that was fierce when provoked and had a massive amount of strength, but the majority didn’t believe it as more than native tales…and they were proven wrong. Secondly, if you read into the Native legends most of them also show that some level of interaction would take place and the nature of these interactions made the people forcibly separate themselves. The elephant and rhino are plains/serengeti animals that also don’t make sense as forest dwellers, but they are. The bipedal ape theory would work for me if the animal was migratory between mountain plains in the north of North America to the south, using the forests mainly as a corridor for travel. As well, if Native interactions do go back to the first habitation of North America, and these interactions were more often than not negative for the less intelligent animal, they could be preconditioned with a sense of danger at any sign of homo sapiens.

    Now I don’t necessarily believe that Bigfoot can exist in North America anymore but may have existed at one point as a remnant population but was mostly extinct by the time the Europeans came. If it exists, it most likely is on its last legs BUT if a population does exist then these animals must have enough intelligence to be able to hide themselves or have skills in terrain we wouldn’t. I think if, in the world, there was a chance of finding an undiscovered hominid it would be the Orang Pendek of Sumatra. There you have a multitude of credible, naturalist professionals with sightings and a never ending list of interactions with the creature, from violent to mutually beneficient (using trade and barter).

    • I’m not very aware of the history of Orang Pendek / man interaction, only sightings & a few investigative trips by amateur researchers. I’ll have to find out more…
      As far as Bigfoot being on the verge of extinction – if there were any more of them in Anne Arundel County. Md, we’d have to have a ‘managed hunt’, like they do with deer, just to thin out the population!
      I had my own experience on Easter Sunday, 2012, hiking in one of the areas set aside as an ‘environmental area’ (too wild & hilly for development). Just the breaking of large tree liimbs, warning me I’ve come close enough to his patch of woods…better hike in another direction!
      Also, my nephew found bigfoot tracks along the Severn River several years ago (he says he still doesn’t believe in bigfoot). With plenty of woods to cavort in, this part of Maryland is hopping with the big fellows!
      I don’t get the impression they’ll be going the way of the dinosaurs any time soon.

    • I’m pretty sure that the previous comments were meant to refer to myths and legends of all cultures, not solely Native American beliefs. The point is that throughout the history of mankind, there have been numerous myths and legends by various peoples of the world, some similar to others, but that isn’t actual evidence that such a myth is true.

    • Why do people use Gigantopithecus as an argument that much. That species has been extinct for a long time – and yes it was identified by very little evidence. So Bigfoot could be too. Saying that a rotten carcass is extremely difficult to identify is not a very good argument, too. Someone would find a skull, for example. Or a shin-bone and mistake it for a human one and think of a crime. A half-rotten foot, some teeth… But now, every single person that ever found a piece of bigfoot no matter how fresh or decayed it was mistook it for a bear. Sure.
      In my area, wolves are extinct. Still, one was found, probably coming from across the border because a hiker took the rotten carcass with him. But something like that could never happen with any part of Bigfoot. Sure.

      No, calling the native American stories not true is not imperialist. I studied enough folklore of different countries to see that stories are very often just stories, no matter who believed in them. There is no Bigfoot as well as there are no Trolls in Scandinavia, no Leprechauns and even no black panthers in Great Britain even though people see them each summer.

      I think deer, squirrels and wolves might have a much better chance to hide away from people than a two-meter high, heavy-built ape. Just think about it.

      • You’re first paragraph doesn’t do anything to support your argument, if anything its supports my argument of extant populations of extinct animals.

        yes it is. if you’re european you have your ancestors to thank for that because the majority opinion of most cultural groups is that the opinion of a european on indigenous stories holds no weight and lacks context. I think i’ve figured it out now, you’re one of the people that jsut enjoys debunking anything that doesn’t conform. I disagree about the large cats in the UK, there is more than enough photographic evidence to at least open the door to scientific reasoning on that question, if at least as small breeding populations of feral exotic pets.

        yes deer, squirrel and wolves have a good chance at hiding, but we know they exist. no one has definite proof, either way, on the issue of whether BF exists or not, so there is again no way to prove or disprove your statement. again, though, as a counter argument, I argue that if there were such a creature as yet unknown to biologists in North America, it would be a seasonal nomad that summers in the northern plains (Alaska, Yukon), likely using the western forests as a corridor to travel to winter in the southern plains (Dakota, Montana, Oklahoma, etc) (*southern in reference to the whole of NA)

  10. You Bigfoot debunkers have nothing to worry about! Regardless of how many bodies are discovered, the creature will forever remain a legend, an embarrassment, a joke. The government has a vested interest in denying it’s existence, since the animal is basically harmless; not a threat to anyone, thus no ‘public safety issue’ is involved, and, by it’s own admission, the government has good reason to expect ‘social disruption’ if bigfoot’s existence is admitted – including calling out the National Guard!

    And if a discovered body were kept out of the hands of Big Brother and offered to “science” to study, what scientist, besides Jeff Meldrum and perhaps one or two others, would dare take on the dissection & publication of this new species? I can see the headline in the supermarket tabloids: “Scientist says: I’ve Got Bigfoot’s Bones!”. Ouch…there goes that teaching offer from Cal Tech!
    It’s a career killer, as any scientist knows. And the government would let it be known that no new research grants were likely to be forthcoming to any institution that employed such a ‘reckless’ researcher!
    Thus is Real Life. Bigfoot, though he lives, will forever be a legend, an embarrassment, a joke.
    Bigfoot debunkers, in the end, will rule the day!

  11. Best counter argument: Lack of any physical evidence. True, new speices ar found every day, but those are either small animals, or animals where we allready knew but didn’t take as a seperate species. An animal as big as bigfoot would leave a carcass somewhere. In North America especially, one might get run over by a truck or accidently die close to inhabited areas. A carcass would be washed up on the shore of a river. Bones of a specimen would be found, even if it died hundreds of years ago. Some crazed hunter who would like to become famous would shoot one.
    But instead, what do we have? Footprints, videos and hair – and a lot of those! There is the problem. There are so many witnesses that it’s hard to believe that this animal is never found dead.

    • More than likely not in Canada bro, there is A LOT of unexplored space. Also, footprints and hair count as physical evidence but without an established reference their use is moot.

  12. Many things could be possible but science can only account for what it can test and till then Big Foot stays a myth

  13. Lookingglassman on

    If Bigfoot really existed then it would have to be immortal because only a few are actually “seen”. If this thing really existed there should be hundred of thousands, if not millions running around because they have no known predator, especially in America to reduce their numbers. I don’t believe in Bigfoot.

  14. Oh he’s real alright. And we know it here in Oklahoma. Well, us Naitve Americans know at least. He mostly lives in the deep southeast parts of the state where it’s more foresty and thick with undergrowth. He’s also been spotted on the northeast part of the state as well. (close to the border with Akansas)

    Some of my co-workers live in smaller, more remote “country” towns here in Oklahoma. (I work for Indian Health Service. Lot’s of Native still live in small towns.) They have to travel far to get here to OKC. Anyway, one of them happens to live in a place called Mt. View which is in the Southeast near Anadarko going towards Lawton, and let me tell you, she has some stories. There’s this particular area in the town where no one goes. It’s pretty much quarantined from people despite it not having any sort of sign that states that. It’s a known area because BF happenes to travel through there on occasion. She speaks about it to us and on the phone sometimes to friends. “Hey, did you hear about last night? Yeah, someone said they spotted him. Well, I’m not sure but they said they could smell him…”

    Those tv shows about finding BF will never catch him because he doesn’t want to be catched. They don’t know how to respect mother nature. BF is a “sacred” type of creature that pretty much all Native American recognize. You don’t go out there and mess with him. Same was said for Grizzly Man who was ultimately killed by the animals he so cherished.

    BF is the real deal. Believe the hype. That thing is real and is the ultimate hide-and-seek champion.

    • Yeah, but the main difference with the Grizzly Man and BF searchers is that Bears actually exsist. And can touch them.

  15. None of these are reasons to even entertain the idea that a bigfoot might exist.

    #10. If you apply the logic of #1 then you might as well believe in leprechauns. No evidence there but if you don’t believe they might exist then you might ignore the real evidence when it comes along. Science does not work that way. Science only entertains the idea that something exists once there is enough evidence. Bigfoot does not have near enough evidence to overcome the flaws in the story.

    #9. Humans and other primates have existed together. So what? That is not a reason to believe that a bigfoot type creature exists.

    #8. Yes, there are Giganthropithicus fossils. However, there are also fossils that match other cryptids. Do we have to believe they all exist because there are fossils of creatures that match them? Heck, the legend of the cyclops is thought to have came from misidentified maston bones. Should we believe in cyclops too?

    #7. Yes, modern gorilla was discovered and there were people who said it would not be discovered. However, it was discovered in a remote region where people had done very little exploration. North America has parts that are sparsely populated but they are not unexplored. They are constantly filled with visitors who should have been able to accumulate far more than just glimpses of the creature. Consider this, no matter how good a bigfoot would be at hiding, the wolverine would be better. Very elusive creature. However, it is spotted all the time by biologists and hunters.

    #6. Berring Land Bridge is not evidence to support the existence of bigfoot. At best it would be an explanation for how bigfoot arrived in North American if it is found. However, that sentence depends on that IF. Bringing up the Berring Land Bridge is putting the horse before the cart. It is not evidence to support bigfoot.

    #5. Are you going to say that all Native American legends are true? Every single one of them? For instance, the Cherokee creation myth?
    Myths are a starting point of research but they are not evidence. Myths can be pervasive and false. They are not reasons to believe something might exist.

    #4. Eyewitness evidence is the worst kind of evidence. Really, it is. People are very easily fooled. Combine that with the people who gladly make up their sightings for profit or attention. Combine that with people who are not exactly sane. Eyewitness evidence without corraborating physical evidence is worthless. If you try to rely on shaky cameras or easily falsified evidence then that will not work.

    #3. I have yet to read about a hair sample that the bioligists cannot identify. Even if you find one, that just means there is an unidentified hair. That is not evidence of a bigfoot. Just means that the biologist could not identify the hair. Could be there was an issue with the hair that prevented good analysis. Could be that it was from an animal from another area that was brought in to fool the biologist. Could be the biologist was not the best biologist for the job. Could be the equipment was not up to par. An unidentified hair is not evidence to support existence. It is just an unidentified hair.

    #2. Plaster casts? Really? And yes, a hoaxer can create the ridges. In fact, a hoaxer would have quite a lot of incentive to do so.

    #1. The video is a hoax. Gimlin himself now believes it was a hoax.

    In the end, your arguments are not substantial. You do not show any evidence but instead tread into areas of poor logic and rationalization.

    • Your statement on #5 is ignorant because you don’t take into account culture. People believe what they believe, and as for Native Americans, WE believe in what we want. Thus, for what we believe, to us, that makes it true. Just about every tribe has their own creation story, and like all of their creation stories, they are vastly better than what society probably believes. Oral tradition and the wisdom of the elders. Stories passed down since the beginning of time. You don’t mess with tradition. That’s why us Native Americans hold on so dearly to our roots.

      What traditions do you have? What’s your story? Do you have any culture? Can you stand up proudly and describe the beauty of your people? Or are you only stuck behind a computer and nothing else?

      And yeah, BF is real because we believe that he is real. He’s out there and he’s known to us.

      • No matter who you are, believing in something or not is never relevant for the existence of anything. Things that aren’t there won’t be there just because of honest believe and things that exist won’t be bothered if you don’t believe in them.
        In my area, people believed in little tree people living in the forests, just fifty years ago. Those weren’t real either.

    • #9, the logic holds that if at all other times in history man cohabited with in all parts of the world with other species of primates or cousins of homo sapiens, then this point in time, not having any would be the anomaly and statistical improbability.

      #7 I don’t think you actually know how vast North America is and unexplored a lot of Canada is. Especially the rainforests from Washington all the way to the Yukon and Alaska. There are road’s that were laid down, but that didn’t involve any type of exploration. it’s cut a swathe and put a road down straight ahead.

      #5 already gave a pretty good answer below

      #3 The fact that you’ve never heard about them doesn’t mean they aren’t around. Everytime there’s one found, Discovery network makes a documentary about bigfoot analyzing it, theres at least 3 since 2006 using that premise during the show. Not saying that the unidentified hairs are BF because without a known sample to compare to its a moot point anyways. Just saying that there are literally thousands and thousands of pages of information to sift through, which is more than one person probably can handle, so the fact that you haven’t heard about it carries little to no weight.

      #2 Whats the problem with a plaster cast? Clearly you must know next to nothing of naturalist research because that is one of the main ways to initially identify an animal (known or unknown). Jeffrey Meldrum is actually a world renowned podolgist and has a collection of around 200 unique “Bigfoot” casts (aside from his several thousand cast collection of various animals), which was actually the evidence that turned him on to the possibility of a new animal. He can readily demonstrate his ability to differentiate between fakes and what subtle differences in the muscle impression left by the foot can describe about the animals height, weight, gait. The study of hand/feet imprints (dermal ridging) is a complex science. On top of those reasons, you also have the remote locations that prints have been found in which while not supporting Bigfoot at least give the possibility that it was be very unlikely and would require an extreme amount of effort to place the prints in the hopes that someone MIGHT find them. Lastly, the sheer number of samples eliminates the possibility of every single one being a hoax (even if you completely disregard the credibility of the witness).

      #1 You have Gimlin and Ray Wallace confused. Ray Wallace was a Bigfoot hoaxer that claimed involvment in the Patterson-Gimlin film. When he died, his son showed off the wooden feet he was said to have used. Gimlin maintained that he thought what he saw was real, until his death.

    • #10. So, what you are saying is…..that the “logic” in #1 is a reason to believe in leprechauns? Wow! I better keep my Lucky Charms in a safe place! Let’s talk about science. Science is:
      1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
      2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
      3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study. Hmmmmm, let me think……ok done thinking. My simple mind is telling me that science is an investigation into things that us humans don’t have the ability to understand yet (except for the aboriginal peoples that have been here long before us) , or have not found a complete understanding of. Here is something else for you to chew on. Check this out. NATIVE TRIBE TRANSLATION’S FOR BF.
      Yi’ dyi’tay Nehalem Tillamook Indian “Wild Man”
      Sasahevas Halkomelem Language Salish Indian “Sasquatch”, “Wild Man of the Woods” Xi’lgo Nehalem Tillamook Indian “Wild Woman”
      Sc’wen’ey’ti Spokane Indian “Tall Burnt Hair””
      Skanicum Colville Indians “Stick Indians”
      Choanito Wenatchee Indian “Night People”
      Ste ye mah Yakama Indian “Spirit hidden by woods”
      Seatco Yakama/Klickitat/ Puyallup “Stick Indian”
      Seat ka Yakama Indian Not Available
      See’atco Coast Salish Indian “One who runs and hides”
      Tsiatko Puyallup/Nisqually Indian “Wild Indians”
      Steta’l Puyallup/Nisqually Indian “Spirt Spear”
      Seeahtkch Clallam Indian Not Available
      Qui yihahs Yakama/Klickitat Indian “The Five Brothers”
      Skookum Chinook Indian “Evil God of the Woods”
      At’at’ahila Chinookan Indian Not Available
      Omah Yurok Indian Not Available
      Oh Mah Hoopa Indian “Boss of the Woods”
      Bukwas Kwakwaka’wakw Indian “Wildman of the Woods”
      Tsonaqua Kwakwaka’wakw Indian “Wild Woman of the Woods”
      Tah tah kle’ ah Yakama/Shasta Indian “Owl Woman Monster”
      Sne nah Okanogan Indian “Owl Woman”
      Rugaru Turtle Mt Ojibway Not Available
      Qah lin me Yakama/Klickitat Indian Not Available
      Windago Eastern Athabascan Indian “Wicked Cannibal”
      Wetiko Cree Indian Not Available
      Chiye tanka Lakota (West)/Sioux Indian “Big Elder Brother”
      Chiha tanka Dakota (East)/Sioux Indian “Big Elder Brother”
      Matlose Nootka Indian Not Available
      Neginla eh Alutiiq/Yukon Indian “Wood Man”
      Nantiinaq Kenai Peninsula Indian Not Available
      Nant’ina Dena’ina Indian Not Available
      Urayuli SW Alaskan Eskimo Not Available
      Get’qun Lake Lliamna Indian Not Available
      Kushtaka Tlingit Indian “Otter Man”
      A hoo la huk Yup’ik Indian Not Available
      Gilyuk Nelchina Plateau Indian “Big Man with little hat”
      lariyin Hare Indian “Bushman”
      So’yoko Hopi Indian Not Available
      Ot ne yar heh Iroquois Indian “Stonish Giant”
      Ge no sqwa Iroquois/Seneca Indian “Stone Giants”
      Ge no’sgwa Seneca Indian “Stone Coats”
      Miitiipi Kawaiisu Indian “Bad luck or disaster”
      Yahyahaas Modoc Indian Not Available
      Tso apittse Shoshone Indian “Cannibal Giant”
      Toylona Taos Indian “Big Person”
      Atahsaia Zuni Indian “The Cannibal Demon”
      Boqs Bella Coola Indian “Bush Man”
      Goo tee khl Chilkat Indian Not Available
      Loo poo oi’yes Miwuk Indian Not Available
      Kala’litabiqw Skagit Valley Indian Not Available
      Madukarahat Karok Indian “Giant”
      Nun Yunu Wi Cherokee Indian “The Stone Man”
      Kecleh-Kudleh Cherokee Indian “Hairy Savage”
      Esti Capcaki Seminole Indian “Tall Man”
      Mesingw Lenni Lenape Indian “The Mask Being”
      Misinghalikun Lenni Lenape Indian “Living Solid Face”
      Wsinkhoalican Lenni Lenape Indian “The Game Keeper”
      Saskets Salishan/Sahaptin Indian “The Giant”
      Yayaya-ash Klamath Indian “The Frightener”
      Manabai’wok Menomini Indian “The Giants”
      Nu’numic Owens Valley Paiute “The Giant”
      Tse’nahaha Mono Lake Paiute “Giant”
      Gogit Haida Indians “Not Available”
      Tsadjatko Quinault Indians “Giants”
      Hecaitomixw Quinault Indians “Dangerous Being”
      Skukum Quinault Indians “Devil of the Forest”
      Slalakums Upper Stalo Indians “The Unknown”
      Na’in Gwich’in Indians “Brushman”
      El-Ish-kas Makah Indians “Not Available” Well….dadgum!
      If you haven’t picked up on this yet; this is a incomplete list of Native peoples names for this scientifically unproven creature. Most of these tribes mentioned are in Washington State! What about the other tribes in other states? I am not a native, I live in Whatcom County in WA state. I have many friends from 4 different tribes mentioned in the list of native dialect names for BF. You my friend have a very closed mind if you think that all of these tribes who had lived, interacted , and respected nature, and have been here a hell of a lot longer the the European descended peoples. Made all these names up with the similar english translations thousands of miles apart describing the same creature? Really? That list is proof in its self. Ok, nuff said about the natives.

      #9 Hmmmmm. Ya know, I just watched a show on the PBS NOVA SCIENCE
      (there is that word again) NOW program, “What Makes Us Human?” The SCIENTIFIC program gives an overview of how modern humans and Neanderthal’s interacted. The scientist proved after 4 years of mapping both the human and neanderthal’s DNA/genome, that both species interbred with each-other. We modern humans survived and the neanderthal’s went extinct, but passed their DNA to us. Ya, they proved that we carry Neanderthal’s DNA in us! So, here is my simple mind thinking again. Sorry for the wait. What if when the interbreeding between us and them; created another species of the human/neanderthal mix, and the new species made it? What would they look like? Where would they live? How would the have evolved? So, could this have happened? Ya it could. Do a little research if you feel to do so. You will find the scientific proof that this has occurred in species similar to one another in the past.

      #8 “Do we have to believe they all exist because there are fossils of creatures that match them?” I’m not pickin up what you are thowin down, if ya know what I mean. Fossils are scientific……aren’t they? As mentioned in my response to #9. We have the technology now to analyze DNA. Did you know that the DNA of birds are the closest DNA found to resemble the dinosaurs? Birds are genetically closer to dinosaurs than modern reptiles! P.S. Cyclops……REALLY???

      #7. This comment is a dandy! You believe that there are no places in North America that are unexplored? Sorry, you are way off base here bud. Washington State has places yet to be explored. Where did you get the info that ALL of N.A has been explored. I’d like to read this for myself, and if you will be kind enough to direct me to a legitimate/scientific source, and this is true; I owe you an apology. You said “Consider this, no matter how good a bigfoot would be at hiding, the wolverine would be better. Very elusive creature. However, it is spotted all the time by biologists and hunters.” Have you personally seen a wolverine in the wild? I have not, also I have never personally seen a zebra, gorilla, panda bear, etc-etc-etc. but, I have seen them on T.V. Oh, and one other creature I have never seen……yep you guessed it a Bigfoot! But, I have seen them on T.V.

      #6. Ya, you are right. The Berring Land Bridge is not proof of the existence of BF. Even though many-many species including humans utilized this route to arrive in N.A.

      #5-See #10

      #4 People have been convicted of murder and put to death on eye-witness testimony, not to mention a multitude of other crimes.

      #3. DNA analysis my friend………..DNA.

      #1 & #2. Not even gonna comment.

      I’m not trying to bust your balls here. You are are entitled to your opinion, and I respect that. You probably know what I think about BF. I am a believer. I personally know 4 people that have witnessed a BF, and these guys are legit. There is absolutely no way they would have made it up. 3 of them are avid hunters, so its not a matter of misidentification. I agree that there are a whole lotta people who lie, and claim to see BF for publicity. But, if you personally know someone that has had a sighting, and you know them as well as the guys that I mentioned above you might be a believer as well.

    • Louis Alexandre Simard on

      This is what I wanted to write first. A point by point reply stated all the logical fallacies and innacuraties in this list but although yours is exhaustive and thorough its still doesn’t manage to tackle everything that is wrong with this guys reasoning so I concluded that it was a waste of time. Although I must say that I greatly appreciated reading your comment. You talked about every point and didn’t use any of the previous arguments in the comments. Well done. Sadly it is again the comments on a LV list that end up being the source of entertainment. And please nobody tell me to write a list and stop complaining. First of all I am writing one and second of all its not a valid argument. I can’t build a smartphone from scratch but I can sure see when one is sub par and have the right to complain about it. Last time I complained at Starbucks that my latte as cold or burnt or whatever nobody told me to come in the back and do it myself.

      • Louis Alexandre Simard on

        I want to apologize to toptenz for mistaking them for LV. I guess I’m so used by known with LV less than stellar lists lately that in my comment about this one particular toptenz list that isn’t good but on this site is a exception that I must of forgot I was on toptenz and not LV. Although a lot of signs should’ve helped me. Like the lack of trolls in the comments on toptenz compared to LV.

        • HI, Louis. No need to apologize, but thanks for doing so. And thank you for the comments about vs LV. I moderate all the comments so hopefully I weed out the trolls and negative, aggressive people. Sorry that this list wasn’t to your liking, but we are glad you feel that is the exception.

    • Re #1 I’m sure the PG video is a hoax in your and many others’ minds, but to state it as fact when there is no evidence other than saying there is no such being makes it a false statement.
      May I see the reference that includes Gimlin saying he “believes it was a hoax”?

  16. Louis Alexandre Simard on

    OK I’ve just finished reading number 6 and there are to many logical flaws in the authors writing to continue reading. First “logic suggest that if large primates are possible anywhere they should potentially be possible elsewere”. Nobody is denying that large primates could live elsewhere its just that there doesn’t seem to be any and again you’re comparing gorrilas and gigantropithecus with Bigfoot who is by all accounts bipedal which is completely different. Second how does the possibility that a giant bipedal ape crossed then Bering land bridge explains that there is no fossil record. Its actually the opposite. There would be a fossil record just like for every animals that crossed.

    • First, I don’t think there are “bigfoots”, but I don’t think every animal that existed necessarily has had its fossils uncovered and documented. I’m pretty sure in the future, someone will come across a new unknown species of an as yet unknown critter, then another after that, though I doubt it will be a bigfoot specimen. Every generation, we seem to think we know it all merely because we know more than those before us. But if a rare species has not yet been unearthed, I wouldn’t use that as evidence of it never having been.

  17. The dinosaur has been extinct for millions of years and we are constantly finding dinosaur bones. Where are all of the bones of dead Bigfoot’s? Maybe they vanish in a puff of smoke when they die.

    • Primate bones don’t fossilize well at all. Gigantopithecus is known only from piles of teeth found in Chinese apothecaries, and several fragmented jaw bones. Although I’ve always likened Bigfoot more to Paranthropus than Gigantopithecus, but whatever.

      • Sorry, but this is total bogus. First, there is no difference in the fossilization. Second: what about more recent bones? We find Neanderthal bones, we find early human bones. Don’t you beleive that there would have been one major piece of a bigfoot skeleton found somewhere?

        • but you also forget the rate at which these bones are found. for example there are two completely different hominid species only identified by a jaw bone of one and a femur of the other. plus fossilization requires a set of conditions that wouldn’t be easily replicated in a living forest.

        • I live in Portland Oregon and hikers occasionally find human remains in the forest. They have not found Bigfoot remains.

        • human remains are different than fossilized remains. you need to consider the time scale, weather, rate of decomposition.

        • Well, but bigfoot would be so radically different, that a single bigger bone would be enough, wouldn’t it? Gigantopithicus was identified by nothing more than a few teeth and jawbone fragments. And this species is extinct.

        • Furthermore, there are chances to get fossilized structured from forest animals, otherwise we wouldn’t know about many, many extinct species. And at last, do you know how long fossilization takes? It’s nothing to really brag about when that species is said to still exist. Bones can survive millennia without being fossilized. So we would be bound to find some remains of an animal that is very big and often seen close to inhabited areas.

        • Oh my goodness FHM, such a long winded response with absolutely nothing of consequence said. Yes I do know how fossilization works yet apparently you do not. conditions for fossilization vary immensely depending on the composition of the animal, conditions surround death, shelter from elements, not least of all considering the behaviour of other animals towards a carcass in the forest. here’s a video that can demonstrate on a small scale the rate of decomposition

          even with regards to human fossils, of every example of an ancient primate species that has been found, most of them are know from very few examples of specimens, (for example Homo Flores, X Lady, Homo Denisova). One only has to look at the Gorrillae fossil record to understand how hard it is for primate bones to fossilize in the jungle.
          here’s a little article on the likelihood of being able to find fossilized hominid bones in non-arid environments:

          So now down to the jawbone. Yes it is amazing that gigantopithecus was identified from a single jawbone BUT that itself require 3 things 1) An expert, able to identify hominid and primate bones on sight 2) Being in the correct apothecary, in the correct market, in the correct part of China to come across the bone but even so further study requires 3) An interest in the subject matter and a yearning for a deeper understanding. All of that only happened in one instance by chance, only after an enterprising apothecary bought the dragon bones.

          Each of those events has such a small statistical probability that when put together makes the whole chance of even that discovery almost impossible. I’m not saying that I agree Bigfoot lives (and is in North America). I’m saying that the rejection of a hypothesis, that has a factual basis, due to personal/environmental bias, limits the chance to conclusive findings.

          You CLEARLY need to read more and more thoroughly, YES we do find hominid bones but the circumstance and rate at which they are found, not forgetting that the farther we go back chronologically the less likely it becomes to come across tangible evidence of a living being.

          Finally one last thing to consider barring all the scientific reasons we may not come across a bone, the one most often overlooked is a cultural reason. Humans think that we are the only ones as animals that, for example, commemorate the dead but this has been disproved again and again, the most common examples are elephants, chimpanzees, dolphins and even rats. We also have to consider that if there is an existing hominid that has gone into hiding to avoid competition with the other more dominant primate then they must show at least some degree of intelligence and wariness that would be passed down from parent-child. The other possibility, since I see the “well if they buried them, we would have found some” coming along, is that upon death the body is consumed because, well, protein is protein in the forest and it is not uncommon for animals to cannibalize/scavenge one of their own after death. Even this would have some historical precedence from evidence of Neanderthal hearth fires in Europe.

    • How often are grizzley bones found on the wilderness? Or even deer? Fresh animal bones are quickly consumed or scattered and decimposed-even of KNOWN animals. If we had to PROVE the existance of grizzlies by bones found in the wilderness it might be difficult.
      Proportionally, out of millions of dinosaurs only a very small, often incomplete, percentage has been found. Your logic is flawed

  18. Louis Alexandre Simard on

    Actually bipedalism would hinder animal the size of Bigfoot in a forest. He can no longer climb as well as other apes and his size makes him hard to miss for his prey. He would most certainly have to be able to fabricate and use relatively complex tools in order to hunt and that would make him very intelligent and with that level of intelligence comes curiosity so why does he and his group stay hidden in forest. He (when I say he I mean the whole species) is probably aware that another social, bipedal and very similar animal (humans) lives at the edge of his forest habitat yet contact if true is very rare. So without completely excluding the possibility of the existence of a yet undiscovered bipedal forest ape I remain highly skeptic.

    • he has no need to climb trees as other apes do though younger ones have been reported in trees.[see new york footage].as an apex predator bigfoot is both stealthy and fast making him a capable hunter stalking and running down deer or elk as has been for human/bigfoot contact/interaction one only has to look at the infringement of humans into evermore wilderness areas and the reports of tracks and bigfoot sightings including tree breaks and other environmental signs of a large animals presence. having had an unambiguous encounter with 15-20 other wittnesses ,one fellow at less than 20 ft with no obstruction i can say with no cavets bigfoot is real. we saw what patterson filmed.

  19. Louis Alexandre Simard on

    About number 9 its important to keep in mind that Bigfoot is not just described as a giant ape but a bipedal “ape”. Our early ancestors became bipedal when they left the forest for the plains which also coincided with a increased cranium size and intellingence creating stronger social bonds in families or groups. If Bigfoot exists why is he bipedal and a forest dweller. There are no real advantages to bipedalism in a forest creature.

    • Jonathan Bailey on

      There is a good reason that bipedal primates could still live in the forest: seclusion. Being distanced from man. The woods offer thick cover and concealment from being seen or detected. Bigfoot wants to be left alone and have nothing to do with the human lot. Some humans, bipedal primates, today even prefer to dwell in the woods to get away from the concrete jungle of modern society though we can’t climb trees as well as monkeys.

      • Jonathan Bailey on

        Deer live in the forest and they have HOOVES, you know! We know hoofed animals are no tree-climbers.

        • Jonathan Bailey on

          Why do deer live in the forest?

          concealment from hunters, predators

          It is very hard to spot a deer in the woods. Natural camouflage. I went hunting with a guide and he spotted the buck only by the white ring around his nose!