Colorado train passengers capture Bigfoot on video

I think most people are so awestruck when they see one that they don't even think of shooting it. Why kill something that is so incredibly unique and extraordinary? Would it even be considered moral to kill one? If they are close enough to humans it might be considered murder.
I didn’t post to kill one, I’m saying tagging them with a tranquilizer gun, like is often done to examine lions or tigers, etc…then at least we would have a “specimen” to analyze. I give more grace when it comes to UAP’s because of their distance, allegedly unusual speed and seemingly mysterious velocity. It’s a very different thing to compare a faraway UFO and a creature that has been seen walking through wooded areas. It shouldn’t be impossible to obtain better evidence for Big Foot’s existence, than grainy videos and photos. :?



Same reason we don't stumble upon dead humans. Maybe Bigfoot buries their dead..

If there are Big Foot families, that seems even more illogical that they’re so adept at hiding. And where are they hiding? There haven’t been any discoveries of possible habitats. I just think that Big Foot is one of those curious campfire stories that isn’t based in reality.
 
... tagging them with a tranquilizer gun, like is often done to examine lions or tigers, etc…...
There have been expeditions that have armed themselves with tranq guns and gone looking for cryptids. To-date, I'd say none have made contact.

Any alleged encounters have been by non-adventurers who don't normally carry tranq guns around in their backpacks.

It is even worse than suggesting average civilians should wander around with grappling hook guns, hoping for the day they are witness to a UFO and can get close enough for a clean hit and reel in a flying saucer - if you see what I mean. :wink:
 
Wegs said: There haven’t been any discoveries of possible habitats. I just think that Big Foot is one of those curious campfire stories that isn’t based in reality.

Actually it is becoming increasingly common among Bigfoot researchers to find "nests" or shelters where Bigfoot are believed to frequent. Typically these are either mounds of soft leaves/moss and/or branches of trees arranged around what looks like a bed to lie on. These are taken as evidence of Bigfoot in that no natural activity nor other animals could create them. Sure humans could make them, but finding them in very remote forests suggests otherwise.

 
Last edited:
I’m of the opinion that Big Foot is merely folklore. Described as some type of land animal, it doesn’t make sense that there haven’t been any reliable eyewitness testimony or peer reviewed work in the science community to support claims of BF’s existence. Lack of physical evidence, inconsistent descriptions, and no genetic evidence, all point to the unlikelihood that Big Foot exists. Not to mention, that Big Foot is typically reported by people living in highly populated areas, so I’m highly skeptical such a large creature could remain hidden from view for such a long time. [...]

Indeed. In order to be "actual" and yet so relentlessly elusive (no confirming evidence), Bigfoot would need to be an anomalous or otherworldly being of some kind. Which consequently lowers its credibility even further in materialist circles. While making it commensurable with the extraordinary beliefs of supernatural and Sci-Fi Realism circles.

The Sci-Fi Realism camp's preference: "Is Bigfoot An Inter-Dimensional Being?"

Philosophically, Bigfoot would have to be an exotic occurrence in a simulated reality that can bypass and bend the latter's governing rules (akin to a Hindu avatar).

Or in non-technological context, a noumenal intrusion into a spatiotemporal domain (i.e., Nature). That accordingly gets converted from a general, rational object (of that spaceless, timeless Platonic level) to a specific, empirical object that can affect the senses (in this phenomenal world of ours). Or alternatively, an invasive noumenon that manipulates en masse the private experiences of multiple human minds directly (i.e., never residing in the outdoor, physical environment itself; only appearing in a select group's mental representations of that environment).

Thus, ultimately: The shortest, less complex, and not "full of ifs" route is to declare Bigfoot folklore or a popular meme that is stimulating the imaginative part of people's perceptual apparatus and interpretative processes.
_
 
Last edited:
The Cherokee Search for Bigfoot in Oklahoma. This video gives a good overview of what equipment and methods typical Bigfoot investigators use in their field research. The leader of the organization says he's seen a Bigfoot 27 times! How do you tell someone like that that Bigfoot is purely myth and legend?

 
Indeed. In order to be "actual" and yet so relentlessly elusive (no confirming evidence), Bigfoot would need to be an anomalous or otherworldly being of some kind.
_
I am not sure I would go that far.

The implication of your conjecture, above, is that we have discovered all land macrofauna on the planet, and that there is, with certainty, no chance of discovering any more. Like, it rules out any new species of, say, tiger, or giraffe, or rhino or giant lizard being discovered.

And that seems pretty hubristic to me.
 
Actually it is becoming increasingly common among Bigfoot researchers to find "nests" or shelters where Bigfoot are believed to frequent.
Shouldn't be too hard to stake out one of these frequently-used nests to capture a live specimen, then.

How's that project been going so far? Anything to show for it? Or does the Bigfoot always manage to get away, as if by magic? Or has nobody bothered to try (and, if so, why not)?
 
I am not sure I would go that far.

The implication of your conjecture, above, is that we have discovered all land macrofauna on the planet, and that there is, with certainty, no chance of discovering any more. Like, it rules out any new species of, say, tiger, or giraffe, or rhino or giant lizard being discovered.

And that seems pretty hubristic to me.

You well know that Bigfoot isn't like a potential new species (or subspecies of an existing) lizard, bird, deer, or monkey discovered in Vietnam. It is (current legend-wise) some kind of giant, bipedal anthropoid creature roaming a continent devoid of native primates (as far as the upper Anglophone part goes). At most, ancient cousins of primates like plesiadapiforms may have lived in Canada circa 52 million years ago. Even Latin America is confined to monkeys, and they aren't Gigantopithecus size.

There are no Skull Islands and Capronas to be found in the 21st-century. Whether literally or figuratively as isolated communities of various cryptids tucked away in spots of North America.

Though it's perhaps the equivalent of transition to the invisible havens of religious-like entities, it is time we give credit (of a sort) to those Bigfoot believers who recognize the futility of material evidence/proof, and have moved on from crouching their preoccupation in scientific pretensions or (adulterated) natural explanations. (Sci-Fi Realists still arguably hugging the boundary with their "inter-dimensional" theory.)

The cryptozoologists who stubbornly persist with Bigfoot being of mundane and earthly biological origin ("I can't stand the indignity of giving up like those other losers!") do so for similar reasons that, say, homeopaths endure. It's a "practice" that they're making money at (if they're lucky), including receiving attention from media as "experts" or consultants.

Or at worst, an unprofitable hobby interest which they nevertheless enjoy, like Trekkies dressing up at a Sci-Fi or Comic Book convention: "What are we doing out here in the wilderness with all this equipment? We're Bigfoot investigators!" (Hearty thumping on chest.)
_
 
Last edited:
You well know that Bigfoot isn't like a potential new species (or subspecies of an existing) lizard, bird, deer, or monkey discovered in Vietnam. It is (current legend-wise) some kind of giant, bipedal anthropoid creature roaming a continent devoid of native primates (as far as the upper Anglophone part goes).
I didn't say anything about ways in which they might be the same or different; it's not about that.

My point is simply your statement "In order to be 'actual' and yet so relentlessly elusive (no confirming evidence)..." kind of rules out any undiscovered land megafauna.

The yet-undiscovered "spotted tiger" or "striped giraffe" has also been relentlessly elusive - inasmuch as we haven't discovered it (yet). Your statement seem to imply that there will be no new megafauna discovered in the future.

I know there are holes in my argument - for example - if we came across the abandoned lair of a spotted tiger or the spoor of a striped giriffe we wouldn't give them another thought (since it is indistinguishable from their well-known cousins) and thus spottigers and stripegiraffes could easily be hiding almost in plain sight, which makes them far more plausible.

Contrarily, Yeti spoor and lairs would stick out like a sore thumb. (Great apes also arrange "mounds of soft leaves/moss and/or branches of trees arranged around what looks like a bed to lie on". Just not in the Himalayas - or in Colorado.)

I'm simply saying I think your statement is a little too absolute. Based in the argunent of "how could undiscovered megafauna hide in this Google-mapped 21st century world of ours" I'm saying I don't think we're done discovering yet.

It's pretty diffuclt to prove a negative, eg. assert that there aren't or can't be any cryptids. I would prefer to take the cases on their merits (which, granted, means we don't have credible evidence), and eschew such sweeping conclusions.
 
Last edited:
Shouldn't be too hard to stake out one of these frequently-used nests to capture a live specimen, then.

How's that project been going so far? Anything to show for it? Or does the Bigfoot always manage to get away, as if by magic? Or has nobody bothered to try (and, if so, why not)?

Bigfoot is far too wiley to fall for that. They observe investigators from afar as they thrash around in their forested homeland setting traps for them like motion activated cameras, etc. But they never get anything on them. It's like they are telepathic or something. There! I said it! lol
 
Last edited:
Bigfoot is far too wiley to fall for that.
I see. Wiley enough to avoid clever human hunters, but not wiley enough to work out how to make a fire or a metal tool, or to build something like a wooden hut.

How interesting.
It's like they are telepathic or something. There! I said it! lol
Yeah. It's like they are magical pixies!
 
The leader of the organization says he's seen a Bigfoot 27 times! How do you tell someone like that that Bigfoot is purely myth and legend?
You can't convince delusional people of anything that interferes with their delusions.
You are so gullible...
 
Sasquatch caught on camera ... 2023
https://youtube.com/shorts/0DSF_CB0sMI?si=NNf0H7fZU__6j0Yt

Despite the "I was hiding in the bushes", the cart seems to indicate it was a close to home scenario rather than an expedition into the deep woods. So not really even a costume fake or "what obscured known animal was that really?" example of the below, but...

The apparent "why didn't you shoot it?" out for witnesses who unexpectedly encountered an _X_ while hunting...

National Geographic: "Skamania County, Washington, considers itself a Bigfoot refuge, and a 1984 ordinance states that killing this 'endangered' ape-like creature can get you a year in jail, a $1,000 fine or both."

Is it legal to shoot Bigfoot?: "Because Bigfoot isn’t recognized as an official species by the state of Texas, hunting one is technically allowed (with the proper license and permissions, of course).

California takes the opposite approach when dealing with cryptids: The state keeps a record of non-game mammals in the California Code of Regulations. If any animal is missing from that list, as is the case with Bigfoot, that means it can’t be hunted legally.

Oregon follows a similar policy to California’s in that any animal not classified under Oregon wildlife laws is considered “prohibited.”

[...] There’s one more major factor that makes killing Bigfoot a bad idea no matter where in the country you find yourself: If the hirsute victim is deemed to be more human than ape, the crime could count as manslaughter.
"​

Problem is, we're assured by some crusaders that "people with guns" are irresponsible lunatics at a wholesale level (and some rural and small town resident hunters may restrictively agree with that when it comes to inexperienced hunters from the big city). Odds wise, one would expect one of those "irresponsible lunatics" to have long since encountered a Bigfoot prospect.

Speculative, potential reasons for spotlight shyness?

"But I suddenly felt fear of the Law and negative social justice publicity afterward. So Amos and I buried the astonishing creature. We forgot where."

"We smuggled the carcass out of the woods and I took it down to the border and sold it on the black market for a bundle."

"We secretly took it back to Bellevue, and a taxidermist friend rendered it into an eight-foot tall mount for keeping hidden in the basement. But it was stolen last year when I was attending my Aunt's funeral."
_
 
Last edited:
Indeed. In order to be "actual" and yet so relentlessly elusive (no confirming evidence), Bigfoot would need to be an anomalous or otherworldly being of some kind. Which consequently lowers its credibility even further in materialist circles. While making it commensurable with the extraordinary beliefs of supernatural and Sci-Fi Realism circles.

The Sci-Fi Realism camp's preference: "Is Bigfoot An Inter-Dimensional Being?"

Philosophically, Bigfoot would have to be an exotic occurrence in a simulated reality that can bypass and bend the latter's governing rules (akin to a Hindu avatar).

Or in non-technological context, a noumenal intrusion into a spatiotemporal domain (i.e., Nature). That accordingly gets converted from a general, rational object (of that spaceless, timeless Platonic level) to a specific, empirical object that can affect the senses (in this phenomenal world of ours). Or alternatively, an invasive noumenon that manipulates en masse the private experiences of multiple human minds directly (i.e., never residing in the outdoor, physical environment itself; only appearing in a select group's mental representations of that environment).

Thus, ultimately: The shortest, less complex, and not "full of ifs" route is to declare Bigfoot folklore or a popular meme that is stimulating the imaginative part of people's perceptual apparatus and interpretative processes.
_

Yea, I’m not really sure why Big Foot, the belief around it anyway, is so contagious?
 
Yea, I’m not really sure why Big Foot, the belief around it anyway, is so contagious?
It's less about contagion and more about disproportionate respresentation.

No one publishes - let alone reads - articles like: "I Went Hiking in the Mountains and Didn't see Anything Weird" - by Guy Who Doesn't Believe in Weirdness.

Like with Ameristan's Far Right Republicans, it seems like the country is overrun with kooks, but really it's just that extreme views are given disproportionte publicity.
 
It's less about contagion and more about disproportionate respresentation.

No one publishes - let alone reads - articles like: "I Went Hiking in the Mountains and Didn't see Anything Weird" - by Guy Who Doesn't Believe in Weirdness.

Like with Ameristan's Far Right Republicans, it seems like the country is overrun with kooks, but really it's just that extreme views are given disproportionte publicity.
That’s a great point. It makes me wonder why so many people don’t marvel enough over the mundane, though? There is plenty of mystery out there of the natural kind, that we have yet to fully understand. No need to concoct half man/half beast fantasies that really sound sillier than they do fascinating.

Alleged haunted houses and UAP’s are at the very least, curious, because it’s the fear of the unknown that causes many of us to question what lies beyond.
 
That’s a great point. It makes me wonder why so many people don’t marvel enough over the mundane, though? There is plenty of mystery out there of the natural kind, that we have yet to fully understand. No need to concoct half man/half beast fantasies that really sound sillier than they do fascinating.
Well, some of us do, it's just not the kind of thing that gets shouted from the rooftops.

Here's a couple of books in my collection:
upload_2023-10-20_14-34-54.png upload_2023-10-20_14-34-32.png upload_2023-10-20_14-35-5.png

OK, maybe it's not capital M mystery, but it is a celebration of the beauty and wonder of nature. And it gives me a reason to get outside.
 
Wegs said: It makes me wonder why so many people don’t marvel enough over the mundane, though? There is plenty of mystery out there of the natural kind, that we have yet to fully understand

They're out there. They're called poets and artists and writers..
 
I see. Wiley enough to avoid clever human hunters, but not wiley enough to work out how to make a fire or a metal tool, or to build something like a wooden hut.

How interesting.
Agree. When you connect the dots, they run out, eventually.

Yeah. It's like they are magical pixies!
Hey, be careful, don’t insult pixies! :D
 
Back
Top