So the thousands of people who have seen Sasquatch through the

Yes, or they saw a bear.

>>17301973
> /thread

>>17301973
Pretty much this.

File: monster-inc-characters-monsters-inc-cartoon-hd-wallpaper-2880x1800-7990.jpg (875KB, 2880x1800px) Image search: [Google]

875KB, 2880x1800px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mL7TQ3dlras

>>17301970
The question to me is "is there a great North American land ape?". I don't think there's a good answer to that question yet.

>>17302236
And if there is, how did it stay isolated for so long, why do cameras only take blurry pics of it, and why does it only leave easily faked evidence? This ape is some kind of ape god, sent to harvest YLYL threads for bananas.

I used to believe, but it amazes me how EVERY single bigfoot photo and video is the absolute worst quality from someone who can't operate a camera efficiently. The camera is always flopping all over the place, the zoom doesn't work, it's only a 1 megapixel camera with 240p quality, and the color is distorted. Never, and I mean NEVER, has there been a clear video of bigfoot other than the supposed patterson film.

So no, I don't believe anymore.

>>17302424
Innawoods is big. And what other evidence could a fucking animal leave besides its carcass

>>17302236
There is actually a very good answer to that question. The answer is absolutely, completely, and totally: no.

There is no Bigfoot, Sasquatch, or Yeti. There would be undeniable scientific proof publicly known over a century ago if one existed. People who genuinely believe that they have seen this sort of creature likely saw a bear or, in the case of my mother and sister, a man delivering a package across a road while dressed in a UPS uniform. It is entirely impossible that such an animal could go unproven. People who make the whole "bear bones are never found in the wild" argument are not only relying on fallacy, they are completely wrong. Remains of every medium to large animal are constantly found in the wilderness.

This is not a debate. It is known that Bigfoot does not exist. If you continue to keep a truly open mind about its presence, then you are deluding yourself.

>>17302557
but, Sasquach has a paranormal element to him, so its not like ever creature.

I don't see why it's such a stretch to think it existed. There have been plenty of species of animals that stayed hidden from us for a long time before we discovered them. The wilderness is a large place, and it doesn't take long after death for the forest to reclaim a body via scavengers and the like. Maltese tigers, colossal squids, and several others were thought to be nothing more than stories for a long time before we found them.

Kinda related, it's cousin the skunk ape (usually spotted in Florida, Alabama, and Georgia) seems to have migrated a bit north over the past few years. There's been a few sightings of it in the woods of East Tennessee, myself being one of them.

>>17302557
lol are you serious?
>There would be undeniable scientific proof publicly known over a century ago if one existed.
You say this based on what? Why would we have already had proof a century ago?
> It is entirely impossible that such an animal could go unproven.
Oh, so you think that every single species of plant and animal on earth has been thoroughly proven, classified, and understood? So there's NOT several thousand new species of life discovered on a yearly basis? By your logic, everything that hasn't been discovered simply does not exist because, for some arbitrary reason, we should have already discovered it. Going by your logic, then in the 1700s the Platypus just straight up didn't exist. Or the Komodo dragon didn't exist in 1900 because "we would have found it already." You need to get a better understanding of logic. The only one deluding themselves here are you, if you are truly arrogant enough to think that humans know everything about every living thing on this earth and that we have nothing left to discover.

>>17301970
It is just as likely they have been lying as it is they have actually seen a bigfoot. When general population of bigfoot encounters are rednecks that says something.

>>17302557
>"bear bones are never found in the wild"
You misunderstand the argument being made by woodsmen. That argument is in response to "we would have found a skeleton". The bear argument is stating that, despite there being many many hundreds of thousands of bears, you will very rarely find a skeleton accidentally, If there is a large intelligent bipedal primate in the americas, very small in number, the odds of stumbling across ones skeleton are very slim. Compound that with the idea that they may ritually bury their dead (a fact made even more likely by recent discoveries in homo naledi) and you will likely never find a skeleton. While we HAVE found bear bones and the bones of other large animals, the argument is simply a statistical one. This creature clearly (if it exists) has a very small population, and happening across its remains is unlikely.

The argument could also be made that we have repeatedly found its bones, but it has been misidentified, either as a well preserved ancient hominid, or as a completely different species.

I wish, I could see Bigfoot, to bad every time I go hunting, I only get a couple of deer.
I really want a Bigfoot fur jacket!

>>17302557
I don't find "we would have found them by now" to be a compelling argument.

Vast amounts of land in North America have never been trodden upon.

>>17301970
>So the thousands of people who have seen a Sasquatch through the last century and never obtained any physical evidence have all been lying bullshitters?

Where's the feces, hair, corpses, living ones caught in bear traps?

File: 51-8ekaFmnL._SX383_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (58KB, 385x499px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 385x499px

>>17302449

https://youtu.be/l8zv4WCCtrY

https://youtu.be/W-eCzLmV-tM

Pic related- 384 page book my gf got me for christmas, pretty interesting read. Still not sure where I stand though.

>>17302656
Rednecks or potheads. Rednecks are rare in the Pacific Northwest.

>>17301970
Literally millions of priests claim to hear God's voice. They are all lying.
>>17302637
Bigfoot is a species in and of itself. What would it evolve from? Because if you didn't know this is how research to discover new species is done.
>pick a creature (example spiders)
>choose an unknown species with certain traits you wish to find
>examine known evolutionary patterns and traits of spiders in different locales
>investigate a locale that is a probable match

So tell me, what the fuck could you actually investigate in the case of bigfoot? The only thing a creature like it could evolve from is apes and surprise surprise, no evidence for it.

As are the billions who say there are gods.

>>17302637
youre a fucking moron and youre arguments are fucking ridiculous. If a giant fucking ape creature was roaming the north american wilderness, enough if them that thier foot prints are everywhere and videos and pics of them are captured all over then there would be real evidence. Anyone that honestly believes in fucking bigfoot in this day and age is a goddamn fool.

>>17302724
Hey genius, people arent making the claim that there are animals that live in areas weve never been to. All the "evidence" is from areas people go to frequently, even their back yards you dipshit. Thry are supposedly common enough and in enough areas of north america that people are spotting them and thier footprints constantly but no hard real evidence? There is no ape creature in north america. We have fossil records of dinosaurs that lived millions of years ago but nothing to support the claim of bigfoot? Get over yourself and grow the fuck up.

>>17302236
In a country like US with 330 million people and more guns than people, how would have the sasquatch gotten away all this time without one single specimen being shot and killed or captured? Can someone explain this shit to me please...

Ninja sasquatch?

File: Strange+Wilderness+6[1].jpg (22KB, 504x266px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 504x266px

>>17301970
Not likely. There would have been plenty of reportings all throughout history all the way back to the original 13 colonies. Not only reportings but killing of them for their fur and possibly meat.

Also, Google satellite maps would have caught something you'd think. Nothing that big can be that elusive. More than likely people are seeing walking bears from a distance.

>>17302449
>glimpses are fleeting at best
>person likely shitting themselves

It's not that far fetched.

>>17303481
Ebil gubbermemes are hiding the bodies in oreo 51

>>17301970
nobody on /x/ lives near the woods so they'll say otherwise.

>>17302424
how many people do you know that carry around a fucking 6000 nikon with them? what kind of quality do you expect from cell phone cameras? they barely have a zoom function and when you see something like that you arent thinking about taking a picture unless thats why you went out there. you're thinking oh shit what the fuck is this, and then its gone

>>17304678
not true mister implication ejaculation

>>17303131
While its obvious it doesn't exit, you could say bigfoot is a pre evolved human or more evolved ape (Probably proven wrong, cause evolution). It could be some sort of different human species that never evolved properly and stayed on earth hidden for its malformed low self esteem. The sightings always involve it being on two legs walking like a human and ape. There's those skulls that where found where the people had long heads, could be one of them. Tbh it slightly resembles some Aboriginals. Could be an alien

Its late and I'm high

>>17302610
True. Yet most people glaze over this and get stuck going down this biological road of existence, Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Yeti, what have you, is probably much closer to Mothman, than it is to the Missing Link. It's not of this plane. It doesn't play by our rules.

>nobody on /x/ lives near the woods so they'll say otherwise.
Forget all that "anonymous" bullshit. Obviously it's this easy to know where everyone fucking lives.. fuck!

>>17304689
I know enough people nowadays carry hd cameras in their pockets and there are enough people in the woods every year that if there were a Bigfoot, someone would have gotten a decent fucking picture. Not a great one, not a detailed one, but one that's passable by any photo standards today.

And yet, nothing. Nothing that's not fuzzy or shaky.

File: 352-highest-quality-2.jpg (337KB, 1600x1130px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 1600x1130px

>>17303481
A shy primate, assuming it isn't a supernatural being, would avoid humans.
The video from that still frame is most likely fake.

>>17305556
/x/ philes will cringe at this text, for it only acknowledges flesh-and-bones entities as real, but the author of the text surely has a good point.
You might like it.
http://web.archive.org/web/20141013164353/http://www.forteantimes.com/features/commentary/4003/the_monster_manual.html

>>17302765
this thinkerthunker guy is a fucking moron.

>>17308420
>>17308420
He is the single most gullible person I have ever seen. He says he leaves the truth of the videos he analyses up to the viewers but every single one, no matter how ridiculous or obviously fake, is just him comimg up with 100 reasons why youd be a fool not to think its real. As far as hes concerned a fake video of bigfoot doesnt exist and anyone who doubts is stupid.

>>17302637
In the last decade there were three types of animals that were found of which existence was previously unkwown:
>deep-sea creatures
>insects
>critters

Also sea animals aside the rest was mostly found in jungles or desert areas. I think you notice the common theme, these animals are small and also in most cases they resemble other animals that to a non biologist they dont really look like another type of species.