Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Society & CultureMythology & Folklore · 8 years ago

Is big foot real? Or just a fake?

Like they found Osama so why can't they find Bigfoot

12 Answers

Relevance
  • Favorite Answer

    Bigfoot is not real. For any species of that size to actually exist requires shelter, food, and warmth.

    A community of primates has to breed to continue their existence, and the numbers necessary for species viability preclude any single small community of Sasquatch. Such a species would need to breed in order to maintain population levels and to offset the death rate from age, sickness, accidental death, and even homicide.

    Such a large community would require massive amounts of food to sustain, and even if they were strictly vegetarian they would strain the resources of any given area within weeks and would be constantly on the move, foraging and gathering. Yet there is no forensic evidence of any kind of a nomadic primate tribe anywhere. Instead of finding one or two isolated “footprints” we would have come across whole trails of Sasquatch prints, and such trails would be stripped completely bare of any edibles, and would also contain piles of droppings and fur samples caught on the trees and bushes.

    No such evidence has ever been found. Supposed hair samples of “unknown origin” have been long held up as “evidence”, yet I cannot find one actual report from any scientific lab about such hair samples.

    As for warmth, even a Sasquatch would find it difficult to stay warm in the Pacific Northwest during the rainy seasons. Even a core temperature drop of just three to four degrees can result in hypothermia and death. This would mean that any sizeable community would invariably seek shelter of some type during inclement weather, and any member of the community that died would have one of two things happen to their corpse: one, they would be left behind where they died, or two, if the community was carnivorous the corpse would simply be eaten. However, all stories indicate that such creatures would be vegetarian or omnivorous at best, and not aggressively carnivorous.

    The reason for this is because there are no attacks. A carnivorous community would doubtless find it much easier to raid a human dwelling and carry off the inhabitants for food, especially during winter. Such behavior would be on par with bear learning that it is easier to raid villages and garbage cans than to hunt for themselves. After all, it would be much easier to attack an isolated home than to run down deer through snow.

    The fact that there are absolutely no corpses found means only one thing: there are no such things as Sasquatch. We have already ruled out carnivorous disposal of deceased members, and such creatures would likely not “bury” their dead, as they could only dig with their hands and any such “grave” would be shallow at best. Such creatures would not be intelligent by any stretch of the imagination, at least not by human definitions, because even Cro-Magnon man made and used tools. Yet not one sample of a Stone Age tool has been found in the woods that isn’t an actual relic from the Stone Age, certainly nothing made in the last two hundred years that wasn’t easily identifiable as having Native American origins. No shovels, no hammers, no axes, no spears. So if they are not intelligent enough to use tools, then they are certainly not intelligent enough to completely conceal their existence or to dispose of their dead in such a manner as to preclude discovery of the corpse.

    With the numbers needed to maintain genetic viability of such a community, nutritional requirements, and the need for shelter as well as forensic evidence, it is flat-out impossible that we would not have found or captured a living Sasquatch by this time, especially with the sheer number of hikers, campers, hunters, ATV enthusiasts, forest rangers, Bigfoot “hunters”, people who live in homes deep in the woods, scientists, etc. etc. etc.

    There is only the flimsiest “evidence”, consisting mainly of easily faked photos and video footage, usually blurry and at a distance, and isolated “prints” again easily faked, that are never part of an actual trail. Any outdoorsman worth his salt would find it easy to track such a large creature, especially considering that in order to have survived all these millennia it would require a large community to maintain species viability.

  • JimZ
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    In fact we have numerous occassions when multiple footprints have been found. There is a trackway of the famous Cripplefoot individual in Washington State that came out of Rooservelt Reservoir and travelled for over a mile and then back into the reservoir. The famous film had numerous tracks and in fact have some of the best tracks ever casted.

    http://www.google.com/search?q=patterson+film+lave...

    I could provide numerous examples like this but the previous answerer will continue to copy and paste the same response and ignore the actual facts and claim that all the tracks are found separately instead of trackways. In fact my brother and I found a possible trackway very near to where the famous film was made. It was melted in snow and therefore not too useful but there were at least 30 individual tracks. This is typical. Finding individual tracks is not.

    The Laverty track is special because it indicates features of the foot that are consistent with what a bipedal creature would need if it grew large. It has a flexible foot that bends at the midtarsal break which allows it to walk with a compliant gait. It has a shortened forefoot and an extended heel. Enhanced versions of the film confirm these features.

    Osama bin Laden was hiden by enemies of the US (Pakistani intelligence). We still got him in the end. We have found bigfoot but in fact the evidence indicates it is an extremely large (often over 8 feet tall) and reportedly extremely athletic and fast. We can't keep up. When dogs follow it, which is seldom because they are too terrified, they generally end up killed. For those like a previous answerer who pretends to be an expert, facts like these are unknown but in fact they are actually pretty consistently reported.

    I think that Dr. Melba Ketchum is very credible and she claims to have DNA proof of 3 bigfoot individuals from over a hundred samples submitted to her. She had no interest in bigfoot and didn't believe it existed until David Palides submitted numerous samples to her and they kept getting positive human results from non human hair. It turned out that detailed genetic study (they have three complete genomes reportedly) that bigfoot is a hybrid and the mitochondrial DNA is human because apparently the ancient hominid hybridized with a human female about 15 thousand years ago and of the three individuals which she had positive results, they all shared her mtDNA but the nuclear DNA is quite distinct. It is different from Denisovans and Neanderthals. Denisovans are more primitive hominids than Neanderthal and one of their massive teeth and finger bone found in a cave in Siberia indicated DNA of a species that lived to fairly recently (20 thousand years ago). The bigfoot like creature that bred with the human female was even more distantly related than H. heidelbergensis so I would imagine it must have been H. habilis or H. erectus. Any further back and the hybridization is less likley but I digress since the DNA is still undergoing peer review and the details haven't been released yet. I would imagine that when it is, some fo the self proclaimed experts that suggest bigfoot couldn't be real will feel pretty ignorant.

  • 4 years ago

    Is Bigfoot Real Or Fake

  • depace
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    there is greater info for a sasquatch or unknown primate type creature alongside the strains of gigantipithicus than the different cryptid. Unidentifiable dna (got here back as "unknown primate") from a nail interior the porch of a searching cabin on an island of the coast of British Colombia, alongside with the popular Patterson photos, that when modern-day computer prognosis instruct that it type of feels to be official (or a minimum of a impossible hoax). The gait, head strikes and span between steps have been analyzed by primatoligists and that they are apelike, and noticeably confusing to replicate, in spite of rather more desirable kenetic tech (prosthetics, and so on).

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 8 years ago

    There are people still trying to prove he is real. Over the years there has been sightings of Big Foot. Some believe he is the missing link. There has been evidence to show a animal with human DNA. I believe Big Foot is out there just no one has ever captured him on film or in photos

  • Honest
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    Both Bin Laden and other monsters escape notice every day behind the Wall Street Journal.

    If you paid more attention you'd see the camel or something more nasty at transit stations.

  • 8 years ago

    They did not find Bin laden he's hiding in Saudia Arabia or Iran he's too valuable an asset to kill btw Bigfoot is not real he's an urban myth

  • 8 years ago

    Obviously fake

  • 4 years ago
  • 4 years ago

    Real

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.