• Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version.
  • Super Maintenance

    Xenforo Cloud upgraded our forum to XenForo version 2.3.4. This update has created styling issues to our current templates.

    Starting January 9th, site maintenance is ongoing until further notice, but please report any other issues you may experience so we can look into.

    We apologize for the inconvenience.

  • X/Twitter

    Due to recent news involving X, formerly Twitter and its owner, the staff of SuperHeroHype have decided it would be best to no longer allow links on the board. Starting January 31st, users will no longer be able to post direct links to X on this site, however screenshots will still be allowed as long as they follow Hype rules and guidelines.

    We apologize for any inconvenience.

Bigfoot corpse to be unveiled?

Why is it that every photo/video of bigfoot etc. Is a blurry mess?:dry:

Well in some cases it's an obvious hoax. In other cases most people are afraid when they see it. You mean to tell me if you saw a towering ape running in your direction you'll be calm?
 
Top 10 Reasons Why There Isn't More Footage

1) Very few people in rural areas keep a camera handy at all times.

2) Witnesses consistently describe initial confusion and fear during their sighting.

3) Sightings typically last only a few seconds. A camcorders' auto-focus, by itself, takes a few seconds to adjust.

4) Very few people go out looking for these animals for the purpose of photographing them. Most bigfoot researchers are "arm chair" researchers.

5) Sightings in a given area are usually rare. Sasquatches may be on the move most of the time.

6) The only practical opportunities for footage or photos with everyday cameras are situations where a sasquatch is observed out in the open, in the day time, from a distance, for several minutes. Those situations are rarely described.

7) The typical habitats are dense, brushy, quiet forests, where human intruders can be heard well before they get within visual range. In those environments a person can be completely invisible to someone standing less than 10 feet away.

8) Sasquatches are likely nocturnal. Hunters and fisherman almost never hunt after dark without a flashlight or lamp.

9) Sasquatches are likely intelligent. Just as their bodies are much larger than humans', so, apparently, are their heads, and presumably their brain cavities as well. They don't live like humans, but they are certainly more complex than other ape species.

10) They may be the most elusive land mammal species of all, yet they receive the least amount of effort or attention from the government
 
There's no solid evidence. No bones, no excrements, no dead animals...only eyewitnesses and blurry photos/videos. And if bigfoot existed, there would have been even more sightings.
 
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The existence of Bigfoot is plausible. Unlikely but still plausible.
 
Awesome, here we have a couple of locals in the vast forest of NORTHERN GEORIGA and they come upon the legendary creature Bigfoot:

" Look Bobby Joe OMG it's Bigfoot here in Northern Georgia LETS SHOOT IT ".
 
There's no solid evidence. No bones, no excrements, no dead animals...only eyewitnesses and blurry photos/videos. And if bigfoot existed, there would have been even more sightings.




I agree with that. We are basically led to believe sasquatches hide the bones of their deceased and are masterful at concealing themselves.
 
It would truly be amazing if this turns out to be actually real, but as usual, it's probarbly just another hoax.
 
Here he is Bigfoot.


bigfootyd3.jpg
 
There's no solid evidence. No bones, no excrements, no dead animals...only eyewitnesses and blurry photos/videos. And if bigfoot existed, there would have been even more sightings.

Actually that's not true. If you research the findings of Sasquatch you'd know they've found scat, blood, hairs, saliva, and dermal ridges all pointing to the existence of an unknown primate. It's true that no real physical remains such as a body has been found.

But let me give you an example. Bears, for instance, are very real and we know bears exist. But did you know that the findings of an actual bear remains are at 0? Because when an animal such as a bear, a deer, or possibly a Sasquatch dies they go to a remote area where either their mates conceal their bones or nature itself conceals the remains. You have to take into account that the sun, rain, wind, insects, and other animals eat away at dead animal remains and leave nothing except grass, dirt, leaves, and so forth.
 
I agree with that. We are basically led to believe sasquatches hide the bones of their deceased and are masterful at concealing themselves.

If Sasquatch is real and I do believe they are, they are obviously more intelligent than your average animal. Part of the reason why you also don't see more of them dead is when people see them they think it's a man at first.

Every single encounter always states "It looked so much like a man."

I think people need to be more open to the possibility that there things in this world that are beyond our understanding.
 
For those who are skeptics I ask that you watch these videos and listen to the information that's provided by scientists.

[YT]j9OFqp647uM[/YT]

[YT]nGoxZfIySbU[/YT]

[YT]H5auC7_1Q5Y[/YT]
(The third video is of alleged Bigfoot vocalizations. Majority of them have been studied by scientists and results indicate that no human or animal that is known could make such sounds.)

[YT]_7-1K6fpPKE[/YT]
(Updated information came to the conclusion that the Skookum Cast was made by an Elk. This was confirmed by the Bigfoot Research Organization.)
 
Actually that's not true. If you research the findings of Sasquatch you'd know they've found scat, blood, hairs, saliva, and dermal ridges all pointing to the existence of an unknown primate


Hair and blood samples have been recovered from alleged Bigfoot encounters. As with all the other evidence, the results are remarkable for their inconclusiveness. When a definite conclusion has been reached, the samples have invariably turned out to have prosaic sources-"Bigfoot hair" turns out to be elk, bear, or cow hair, for example, or suspected "Bigfoot blood" is revealed to be transmission fluid. Even advances in genetic technology have proven fruitless. Contrary to popular belief, DNA cannot be derived from hair samples alone; the root (or some blood) must be available.

In his book Big Footprints, Grover Krantz (1992) discusses evidence for Bigfoot other than footprints, including hair, feces, skin scrapings, and blood: "The usual fate of these items is that they either receive no scientific study, or else the documentation of that study is either lost or unobtainable. In most cases where competent analyses have been made, the material turned out to be bogus or else no determination could be made" (125). He continues, "A large amount of what looks like hair has been recovered from several places in the Blue Mountains since 1987. Samples of this were examined by many supposed experts ranging from the FBI to barbers. Most of these called it human, the Redkin Company found significant differences from human hair, but the Japan Hair Medical Science Lab declared it a synthetic fiber. A scientist at [Washington State] University first called it synthetic, then looked more closely and decided it was real hair of an unknown type. . . . Final confirmation came when E.B. Winn, a pharmaceutical businessman from Switzerland, had a sample tested in Europe. The fiber was positively identified as artificial and its exact composition was determined: it is a prod- uct known commercially as Dynel, which is often used as imitation hair." In his analysis, Winn (1991) noted that another alleged Bigfoot sign found at the site, tree splintering, had also been faked.

http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-03/bigfoot.html
 
Those audio sounds were creepy.

What was that story of that family a few years ago that came out and said their father had faked bigfoot?
 
Those audio sounds were creepy.

What was that story of that family a few years ago that came out and said their father had faked bigfoot?

Are you talking about the Patterson footage? If so that has never been proven to be a hoax.
 
Actually that's not true. If you research the findings of Sasquatch you'd know they've found scat, blood, hairs, saliva, and dermal ridges all pointing to the existence of an unknown primate. It's true that no real physical remains such as a body has been found.

But let me give you an example. Bears, for instance, are very real and we know bears exist. But did you know that the findings of an actual bear remains are at 0? Because when an animal such as a bear, a deer, or possibly a Sasquatch dies they go to a remote area where either their mates conceal their bones or nature itself conceals the remains. You have to take into account that the sun, rain, wind, insects, and other animals eat away at dead animal remains and leave nothing except grass, dirt, leaves, and so forth.

show me some kind of evidence or an article, or i don't believe any of this.

that entirely sounds like BS, to me.
 
show me some kind of evidence or an article, or i don't believe any of this.

that entirely sounds like BS, to me.

Look at the videos I just posted. I'll be happy to provide more evidence.

Original Source: www.bfro.net(Bigfoot Research Organization)
The short answer: Yes, there is quite a bit of physical evidence. Tracks, hairs, scat, and tree damage are all "physical evidence." People tend to misuse this phrase when they really mean "physical remains."

For an updated overview of the scope of evidence, please refer to the Wikipedia article about bigfoot evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_regarding_Bigfoot
Evidence vs. Remains

The assertion that there is absolutely no physical evidence is absolutely false. There is more physical evidence than most people realize. Physical evidence is found every month in various areas across the country. Distinct tracks that do not match other animal tracks, hairs that match each other but no known wild animals, and large scats that could not be made by any known species, are all "physical evidence."

The presence or absence of "physical remains" is a wholly different matter. "Physical remains" means body parts, or fossils of body parts. Though mammals may leave tracks, scats and hairs behind, they do not leave body parts behind very often. Body parts of mammals are only available when they die. Thus availability of physical remains is initially determined by population size and lifespan. A rare species with a long lifespan will leave very little physical remains, collectively, for humans to find. The probability of humans actually finding and collecting and identifying those remains before they are completely reabsorbed into the biomass complicates the "physical remains as evidence" equation dramatically.

The sections below address scenarios such as natural deaths, road kills, and hunter kills.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The short answer: Because "we" have never looked for these kinds of remains.

Nobody Looks for Bigfoot Remains

No serious work has ever been done to look for remains of surviving wood apes in areas where they are rumored to reside. No one should expect remains of such an elusive species to be found, collected and identified without some effort.

Very few remains of ancient wood apes have ever been found in Asia, where they were much more abundant. Millions of gigantos (a branch of the wood ape line) lived and died in Asia over the ages. All the remaining physical evidence we have of them could fit into a few shoe boxes. Fossils of any land animal are very rare.

Remains do not become fossilized very often, but unless that happens, all the remains will, in time, become completely reabsorbed into the ecosystem. There would be remains of animals everywhere if remains were not naturally recycled, including bones and teeth.

Fossils or preserved bones of wood apes may exist in the Americas, but they will be exceedingly rare, because these animals are rare to begin with, and only a tiny fraction of that population will die in locations and soils that will preserve bones somehow. Odds are slim at best that any bones (which are normally fragmentary) will be found, collected and identified unless a focused effort is made to look for them. Until efforts are made in many places, over a long period of time, no one should be scratching their head wondering why "we" don't have any physical remains.
 
More video evidence. Mr. Credible I suggest you look at the videos I provided, the information I'm providing, and etc. There's nothing suspcious or ******** about the info.

The short answer: Bigfoots are extremely rare and extremely cautious--so much so that the odds of a roadkill have not caught up with any yet.

The Roadkill Potential

Only a very small fraction of the thousands of credible sighting reports describe near-misses with vehicles. No substantiated reports describe a collision with a bigfoot.

Every other large mammal in North America is far more abundant than bigfoots. Hundreds of near-misses happen with other animals before an animal is hit. Some species are hit more often than others. Deer often get "dazzled in the headlights" and stand paralyzed in the paths of trucks. Bigfoots seem to be far more intelligent than that.

Those who have gotten closest to bigfoots say an analogy of "intelligent ape" is not as accurate as "hair-covered aboriginal man." Around humans their typical behavior is to flee or hide. They try to stay out of view or at least in the shadows when near people or moving vehicles.

Many roadside sightings describe them hanging back in the shadows of a tree line and waiting for a vehicle to pass before crossing the road. In almost all of those sightings a passenger spotted the figure first. Because of that, it's reasonable to extrapolate that a whole lot more lone drivers never notice when this behavior occurs, because a driver's attention is usually on the road ahead.

Waiting for a vehicle to pass before stepping out of the shadows to cross, merely demonstrates the same pattern of cautious behavior they exhibit in other encounters with humans.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[YT]vTEXWx51RCE[/YT]
(In this video they're debating the Skookum Cast. It was before they were informed that the ridge was made by an elk that sat down.)

[YT]9rZZzR-3HwY[/YT]

[YT]9BLKEW5OC_U[/YT]
 
Bigfoot can't be real -- he lives in Imagination Land.

See? ---------------V
imaginationland15oo3.jpg
 
For those who are skeptics I ask that you watch these videos and listen to the information that's provided by scientists.






(The third video is of alleged Bigfoot vocalizations. Majority of them have been studied by scientists and results indicate that no human or animal that is known could make such sounds.)


(Updated information came to the conclusion that the Skookum Cast was made by an Elk. This was confirmed by the Bigfoot Research Organization.)



interesting
 
Yeah, I had to turn the **** off cause I've heard some sounds and **** verrrrrrrrrrry similar to what they're talking about.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"