Bigfoot: Real or Hoax?

[TomKirk]

Technically, "bigfoot(s)" used to exist. Homo giganticus was a large bipedal species of human thought to have lived in Eastern Asia tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years ago. They died out, however, and whilst some may have crossed into North America, no fossil evidence has been found of this.

However, for the current Bigfoot/Sasquatch, I'm not a believer.

The name Homo giganticus was a misnomer: everyone who discovers any kind of primate fossil wants to claim their pet discovery as a human ancestor, so Gigantopithecus was briefly misclassified in that way, when they were not only outside the human genus, but outside the family of anthropoid apes altogether. We don't know when or whether they died out.

[Abatael]

I believe in bigfoot! And I want to hunt it down and kill it. Then I will say it was self-defence and collect the $10,000,000 reward.

Where is this "reward" offered? And, why do you believe in this fictitious creature?

[Tlaceceyaya]

I do not believe that bigfoot is real. Should credible evidence come up, I will believe.
I have seen the show "Finding Bigfoot" a couple of times, and though it does raise some good points, it ultimately fails to provide conclusive proof.

So, one item of "credible" evidence would convince you "Bigfoot" is real, despite any form of negative evidence, or the otherwise extreme lack of supportive evidence?

No, not one item. I want something repeatable and irrefutable. Something that couldn't just be someone in an ape costume. I want reputable biologists to verify that it is real.

[Abatael]

Technically, "bigfoot(s)" used to exist. Homo giganticus was a large bipedal species of human thought to have lived in Eastern Asia tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years ago. They died out, however, and whilst some may have crossed into North America, no fossil evidence has been found of this.

However, for the current Bigfoot/Sasquatch, I'm not a believer.

We don't know when or whether they died out.

They are not extinct, nor are they extant; they never have existed, because they are non-existent.

[AiliailiA]

Well, if somebody legally changed their name to "Sasquatch"...

Their name would be "Sasquatch." They would not be the cryptid commonly referred to as "Bigfoot."

Unless they changed their second name to "Bigfoot" and married someone. Then they would be one of the Bigfoots.

Sasquatch Bigfoot. Practicing speech therapist, hairdresser and podiatrist.

[Abatael]

Their name would be "Sasquatch." They would not be the cryptid commonly referred to as "Bigfoot."

Unless they changed their second name to "Bigfoot" and married someone. Then they would be one of the Bigfoots.

Sasquatch Bigfoot. Practicing speech therapist, hairdresser and podiatrist.

Except that would be a nominal issue, and they would not be a cryptid.

[Costa Fiero]

I would say I believe they exist. Call me all the names you want, but considering that science discovers and rediscovers animal species all the time in remote parts of the world.

And remember that even a small population of a few hundred or thousand individuals could live in the areas claimed to be populated by them and be seldom seen. Remember that human beings only numbered a few hundred thousand globally a few thousand years ago and the chances of seeing another human being outside of your own family group/clan would have been as rare as seeing a bigfoot.

[Van Dalia]

I would say I believe they exist. Call me all the names you want, but considering that science discovers and rediscovers animal species all the time in remote parts of the world.

And remember that even a small population of a few hundred or thousand individuals could live in the areas claimed to be populated by them and be seldom seen. Remember that human beings only numbered a few hundred thousand globally a few thousand years ago and the chances of seeing another human being outside of your own family group/clan would have been as rare as seeing a bigfoot.

We discover new species all the time, yes. We do not discover new large land mammal species all the time.

[Tlaceceyaya]

I would say I believe they exist. Call me all the names you want, but considering that science discovers and rediscovers animal species all the time in remote parts of the world.

And remember that even a small population of a few hundred or thousand individuals could live in the areas claimed to be populated by them and be seldom seen. Remember that human beings only numbered a few hundred thousand globally a few thousand years ago and the chances of seeing another human being outside of your own family group/clan would have been as rare as seeing a bigfoot.

So, bigfoot exists because scientists are discovering new species (Pointedly NOT bigfoot) and there's a lot of area in forests to hide?

[AiliailiA]

Unless they changed their second name to "Bigfoot" and married someone. Then they would be one of the Bigfoots.

Sasquatch Bigfoot. Practicing speech therapist, hairdresser and podiatrist.

Except that would be a nominal issue, and they would not be a cryptid.

My dictionary didn't have "cryptid" in it, so I took that as a typo. My apologies.

[Costa Fiero]

We discover new species all the time, yes. We do not discover new large land mammal species all the time.

There is still a possibility. This has more credibility than those with so-called "psychic" powers.

[Costa Fiero]

So, bigfoot exists because scientists are discovering new species (Pointedly NOT bigfoot) and there's a lot of area in forests to hide?

I don't see why not.

[Mavorpen]

I believe in bigfoot! And I want to hunt it down and kill it. Then I will say it was self-defence and collect the $10,000,000 reward.

Make sure you kill him in Florida.

[Abatael]

I would say I believe they exist. Call me all the names you want, but considering that science discovers and rediscovers animal species all the time in remote parts of the world.

1.And remember that even a small population of a few hundred or thousand individuals could live in the areas claimed to be populated by them and be seldom seen. 2.Remember that human beings only numbered a few hundred thousand globally a few thousand years ago and the chances of seeing another human being outside of your own family group/clan would have been as rare as seeing a bigfoot.

Yes, science discovers, and re-discovers animal species, not all the time, in remote parts of the world, where they can live.

1. Maybe if they lived in a remote area, but the places they are claimed to be seen are not highly remote.
2. No, no it was not. At AD 1, the population was circa 200 million, not a "few hundred thousand." And, the chances of seeing people back then were not as rare as seeing a "Bigfoot."

[Tlaceceyaya]

So, bigfoot exists because scientists are discovering new species (Pointedly NOT bigfoot) and there's a lot of area in forests to hide?

I don't see why not.

So leprechauns exist because scientists are discovering new species and there's a fair bit of area in Ireland to hide?

[TomKirk]

We don't know when or whether they died out.

They are not extinct, nor are they extant; they never have existed, because they are non-existent.

No, the fossils show that they did exist, although they were never common. It is probable that they died out long ago, but not certain.

[Abatael]

We discover new species all the time, yes. We do not discover new large land mammal species all the time.

There is still a possibility. This has more credibility than those with so-called "psychic" powers.

I do not consider people with psychic powers very credible, or true.

Except that would be a nominal issue, and they would not be a cryptid.

My dictionary didn't have "cryptid" in it, so I took that as a typo. My apologies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptid

They are not extinct, nor are they extant; they never have existed, because they are non-existent.

No, the fossils show that they did exist, although they were never common. It is probable that they died out long ago, but not certain.

What fossils show that "Bigfoot" existed?

[Van Dalia]

Gigantopithecus =/= Bigfoot.

[Costa Fiero]

1. Maybe if they lived in a remote area, but the places they are claimed to be seen are not highly remote.

Some of these places can be accessed by humans, but then so is basically every single location on the planet. Remember, these places include incredibly vast tracts of forest with few or none permanent human inhabitants.

2. No, no it was not. At AD 1, the population was circa 200 million, not a "few hundred thousand." And, the chances of seeing people back then were not as rare as seeing a "Bigfoot."

I'm not talking about modern times. I'm talking about times before the earliest civilisations, when the human species almost became extinct. By AD 1, the population had recovered more or less. I'm talking about climate events more than 60,000 years ago. I may have not been clear enough, but surely someone with such an educated opinion as yours would have known about said near-extinction?

[Severania]

I want to hear the story of the person who claims they saw it

[Abatael]

1. Maybe if they lived in a remote area, but the places they are claimed to be seen are not highly remote.

Some of these places can be accessed by humans, but then so is basically every single location on the planet. Remember, these places include incredibly vast tracts of forest with few or none permanent human inhabitants.

2. No, no it was not. At AD 1, the population was circa 200 million, not a "few hundred thousand." And, the chances of seeing people back then were not as rare as seeing a "Bigfoot."

I'm not talking about modern times. I'm talking about times before the earliest civilisations, when the human species almost became extinct. By AD 1, the population had recovered more or less. I'm talking about climate events more than 60,000 years ago. I may have not been clear enough, but surely someone with such an educated opinion as yours would have known about said near-extinction?

The time before the earliest civilizations was not a few thousand years ago. A few thousand years ago, Rome existed.

I am not certain about the "near-extinction" of humans. Provide an article, or something that is written about this "near-extinction" please.

[AiliailiA]

My dictionary didn't have "cryptid" in it, so I took that as a typo. My apologies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptid

I know it NOW, thank you very much. The first time you said it I took it as a typing mistake, or typo, for "cryptic".

The second time you used the word, I realized it was not a typo and I looked it up for myself. So, thanks for trying to help but save yourself the effort next time.

[Costa Fiero]

I am not certain about the "near-extinction" of humans. Provide an article, or something that is written about this "near-extinction" please.

National Geographic has one. So does Scientific American.

And yes, I did point out that I wasn't clear enough with the timeframe.

[Abatael]

I want to hear the story of the person who claims they saw it

You will get no truthful story, as "Bigfoot" do not exist.

I am not certain about the "near-extinction" of humans. Provide an article, or something that is written about this "near-extinction" please.

National Geographic has one. So does Scientific American.

And yes, I did point out that I wasn't clear enough with the timeframe.

Okay, thank you for that, but how does this relate to the non-existence of "Bigfoot?"

[Costa Fiero]

Okay, thank you for that, but how does this relate to the non-existence of "Bigfoot?"

What my "theory" (if you can all it that), is that these creatures live in small family bands or groups and there is not a substantial population for them to be conclusively proven in science. It says in that article that the global human population at one stage dwindled to perhaps 2,000 individuals. Image a similar size population across the entire North American continent, perhaps even the world. How often would people see one or even evidence of one?