#4: Bigfoot
He's big. He's hairy. And he smells bad. Like Nessie, Bigfoot is a legend that has earned a place in the Top 100 Hoaxes thanks to the energetic activities of hoaxers on his (or her) behalf. Native American legends that speak of a hairy giant (aka "Sasquatch") wandering the woods of North America date back hundreds of years. European settlers began reporting sightings of such a creature in the nineteenth century. However, the name "Bigfoot" wasn't coined until 1958 when a California tractor operator reported finding massive footprints in the mud around the construction site he was working on. (The prints turned out to be the work of his prank-loving boss, Ray Wallace.) The most famous Bigfoot sighting occurred in 1967 when Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin caught on film what they claimed was a Bigfoot (shown in the thumbnail) wandering along a riverbank near Bluff Creek, California. The film continues to be extremely controversial. Bigfoot believers hail it as a crucial piece of evidence for the existence of the creature. But skeptics denounce it as a hoax. Boosting the skeptics' side, a credible source recently confessed that he was hired by Gimlin to pose in an ape suit for the film. As for whether Bigfoot actually exists... who knows. Personally, I very much doubt it. (How could a species that large hide in North America for so long?) But as long as any doubt remains, the search will continue, as will the hoaxes. MORE
Comments
Listed in chronological order. Newest comments at the end.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Hey I love the site and just had a few comments about your Bigfoot intro. Your statement, " You would think that if a Bigfoot species did exist, at some point one of them would die and leave a skeleton, ......". I don't think that is a good argument because I do a lot of hiking and have never run across a bear, bobcat, or deer skeleton. Tracks, yes, skeletons, no. Anyway, I enjoy reading the stories. Keep up the good work.
Posted by Philip in Oklahoma on Thu Dec 08, 2005 at 10:57 AM
If no one ever came across bear, bobcat, or deer skeletons (or carcasses), then your point might be valid. But the reality is that people come across these dead animals all the time. Just because you haven't, doesn't mean anything in particular. However, NO ONE has ever come across a Bigfoot skeleton or carcass. Therefore, I still think I made a decent argument.
Posted by Alex in San Diego on Thu Dec 08, 2005 at 12:38 PM
Some of these stories may be hoaxes indeed...Jacko? Bride of Bigfoot? Most of us will agreed that these stories seem not just incredulous but also stupid...Ray Wallace's exploits are legendary but not all inclusive...After all Ray started fabricating tracks after "Bigfoot" had become a media topic...Here's something else to chew: the 1924 Albert Otsman story is crazy but it is so crazy that it may be true. 35 years is a long time but if, asuming his story is true, you place yourself in his shoes (being abducted by sasquatch and co-habitating with its family for almost a week)you'd most likely find yourself reluctant to tell anyone the story, especially in the 1920s when mental health issues were treated with barbaric ignorance. Only after learning that the bigfoot mystery was being taken seriously by a select few and being an old man with little to fear from a blow to his reputation Otsman picked the most appropriate time to reveal a tale which may one day have much to offer from a scientific standpoint. Also there's been no evidence for or against his tale; so don't credit it as a hoax. And I'd like to say that the PGF is still an anomaly since it can't be proven to be a fake. Have you seen it? It looks real! Not just a little bit but all the way real! No one can re-make it, isn't that odd? That Heironomous character is a liar, there's no way he wore a costume made of horsehide and fur from a single coat. Horsehide? I mean seriously if someone tries to re-make the PGF with a costume made of horsehide and a fur coat i'm certain they'll find themselves with a costume that looks like crap. THe BBC tried to re-make the footage and failed. Try re-making the patterson footage with CGI and it will look like CGI. And finally my last attempt at debunking the debunking theory of the footage: a fur coat of any size would not supply enough individual tiny fur hairs to cover any kind of costume... it's a fur coat not a 15 foot long blanket... Heirnomous got want he wanted: TV time Hooray for mr. Heironomous!! the 1967 bluff creek footage isn't hoax until is it proven to be one. Also, you don't mention the Chapman story or President Rosevelt's story... so are they not hoaxes in your book?
Posted by icculus in gamehenge on Mon Feb 13, 2006 at 09:26 PM
>>Also, you don't mention the Chapman story or President Rosevelt's story... so are they not hoaxes in your book?<<
Well, I said the list wasn't comprehensive, that it was just "a few of the many" hoaxes associated with Bigfoot.
My biggest problem with all the Bigfoot sightings is that everyone seems to see Bigfoots that are different in appearance, as if there were hundreds of different species of them wandering around out there. It doesn't make sense. There's no consistency in the sightings. This alone, in my mind, indicates that they're all either hoaxes or wishful thinking.
Posted by Alex in San Diego on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 08:47 AM
look guys get on top of a tree then if you see him walk buy you shot him with a gun that is very strong the name of the gun is 7mm gun please kill him with that gun o.k thank you.
Posted by leo in eagle pass texas on Tue Mar 14, 2006 at 10:20 PM
A lot of things you say are incorrect, you can't say those things are hoaxes if there's no proof of them being just that. Most eye-witnesses describes Bigfoot exactly the same, not what you're saying.
No one credible has ever said that Bob Gimlin had hired Heironimus, he claimed Patterson did. All his statements were debunked easily by people with far more knowledge about the video footage than he had, isn't that strange if he in fact was the man in the suite?
The reason why Otsman revealed the story later is because it was more acceptable at that time, had he done it at the time of the encounter, he would have been ridicouled. Now he had some people who were willing to listen to his story.
No one has ever found the skeleton of a Grizzly bear, but they exist, don't they? They have been proven to exist, sure, but there are far more grizzly's than there are Bigfoot's and they don't live that far in to the woods.
All the eye witnesses can't be wishful thinking, lots of them are credible, actually the most of them are. You should really get your facts straight before claiming such things. Why not visit the bfro.net site for some good eyewitness reports and a lot of other stuff about the phenomenom.
Posted by Anders in Sweden on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 07:23 AM
Who is credited for the photo of the Minnesota Iceman? I am interested in findign the source.
Posted by wolf in mesa on Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 08:26 PM
>>No one has ever found the skeleton of a Grizzly bear, but they exist, don't they? <<
Do you seriously believe that no one has ever found the skeleton of a Grizzly bear?
And most eyewitnesses do not describe Bigfoot exactly the same, except in the sense that they describe him as a big hairy guy who walks upright.
Posted by Alex in San Diego on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:25 AM
If I believe no one has never found a Grizzly bear's skeleton? It's a fact! Nothing I'm just guessing or just heard something about, it's a fact!
Yes, most people do describe Bigfoot the same, not just that he's hairy, big and bipedal, you should do your homework little man. Why not check http://www.bfro.net?
Posted by Anders in Sweden on Wed May 03, 2006 at 12:24 PM
I personaly think that these bipedal primates are real and do exist. And hypothisise that no one has stumbled accross these creatures carcasss because the animals care for each other and burrie their kind when dead in a ceremoniuos way. Also if they indeed are not real how would these footpints and calls and stenches be so wide spead accross the world. (comment back)
Posted by Adam in Michigan on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 04:43 PM
The essay beins by asserting that "there is no scientfic evidence." Of course by that he means no body. But this is why I am driven to beieve the bigfooters and deny the skpeptis. It's a lie just a stupid lie that there's no scientific evidence. There is a ton of scientific evdience. WE don't need a body to have scientfiic evdience. That would be absolute proof. But just for scientfiic evidence all we need is a scientific approach to gathering evdience, we have that in spades. Scienstis like Jane Goodall are impressed by tacks. Something makes tracks. I can't believe an army of hoaxers running all over North America making tracks. WE have DNA, blood ssmples, hair, derman ridges, tracks, which are a physical effect left by the creature, and eye witness evidence is creidlbe if the witness is credible.
Posted by blind boy gunt on Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 08:48 AM
In the Pacific Northwest, it is difficult to throw a stick without hitting a. a bigfoot; b. a bigfoot bigot; c. a moron with a limited understanding on higher dimensions; or d. all of the above.
For those in the know, the correct answer is a no brainer. (d)! Bigfoot are easy to prove, easy to find and easy to communicate with. They primarily exist in the 4th dimension and higher. Their high internal level of electricity allows them to modify the frequency of vibration of their quanta loops, which allows them to change dimensions. Everyone physics major knows that. It is the basics of superstring theory of quantum mechanics. Go back to school and get some book learning into you, instead of publishing this dribble about bigfoot allegedly being a hoax. THERE ARE MILLIONS OF THEM!
Posted by Doctor Scream in Pacific Northwest on Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:34 AM
Doctor Scream is in the right. Einstein's Cosmological Constant proved that the universe is indeed expanding. Certainly since Bigfoot is capable of intra-dimensional travel this species must be affected immensely by this fact. The universe has reached the size at which Bigfoots are being pushed into the forests of the USA, in Ohio of all god-forsaken country! Certainly the Bigfoot wants to hide itself for fear of the immense shame brought by even remote association with our president. This expansion pushed the first of these smelly creatures into our midst in the mid 20th century, and they are soon to depart. Next stop Venus, I suppose.
Posted by Shnike in BF Nowhere Nebraska on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 11:48 PM
The fact that a skeleton has never been found proves nothing. Science is always finding new species, since the 1980's there have been over a dozen new species of primates never before known to science. I have never before seen a human skeleton in the wild, therefore no humans exist. It's a silly argument. Science is the process of making observations and drawing conclusions based on those observations. I keep an open mind about new discoveries, I believe this to be essential to the learning process. Thanks for reading my 2 cents, best wishes no matter what you believe!
Posted by Bakrain on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 01:05 PM
>>I have never before seen a human skeleton in the wild, therefore no humans exist.<<
This is a false comparison. The correct comparison would be if NO ONE had ever found a human skeleton anywhere, nor any samples of human hair or tissue. Nor any sign of human habitations.
If that were the case, then the existence of humans might indeed be called into doubt. But, of course, to find an example of a human skeleton you need look no further than your own body.
Posted by Alex in San Diego on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 01:53 PM
Alright...poor analogy. New species previously unknown to science are being discovered every year. There are large tracts of land uninhabited by humans. I try to keep an open mind, and hope all scientists would do the same.
Posted by Bakrain on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 05:53 PM
How many hundreds of times must I tell you and others, that there is no zoological bigfoot.
But there is a spiritual one.
E Beckjord
Posted by Beckjord in Berkeley,CA on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:30 PM
I do beleive in Bigfoot. However hear me out. There are very good reasons why a Bigfoot hasn't been shot. One, hunters are not allowed to carry high powered rifles most of the year, except deer and elk season. Even then, they only last a short time. Also even in the season, hunters normally wear bright orange jackets, to avoid accidents. Deer and elk can't see the orange, but a Bigfoot can. Also, as for a fossil, it takes a very long time for something to fossilize. Also, it needs just the right conditions. Also, even animals that we know exist, we have very little of. For instance, Giganto or gingantopithecus blacki was one of the most succesfull primates ever, but what we have could fill a suitcase. thats it. Also, as we know, the celeocanth had no fossil records after around the end of the dinosaurs, but then just recently, we stumble upon it. Also, for the skelatons, they could easily be mistaken for tall Indians. After all, no one is really looking for a Bigfoot fossil. Also in White County, Tenessee john Haywood tells of finding large Indian skelatons, all over 7 feet tall. As for the patterson film, the BBC thought that they would try to copy the video. So they got one of the best costume people in Hollywood to recreate the costume. What they got wasn't even close using the materials availble at the time, For one, the chest looked rubbery. It also looked like a shag ruf on legs. The color was also way off. Howwever the most important fact was the arms. There was no way to copy that, One look will tell you. The arms in the costume were regular length. However, the ones in the Patterson film were almost as long as the legs. Also, when Bigfoot got his name, why did the family wait until the guy died to tell hat he made the tracks?? Because if he was still alive, they could easily have told if he was lying. So instead of getting a real story, another bigfoot sighting has been thrown into doubt. I will say that ome of the Bigfoot things are fishy, like the iceman,the bride of Bigfoot, and the abduction one. And who knows about Jacko. He doesn't fit the Bifoot profile, but maybe he was one, or maybe he escaped from a circus?
Posted by Matthew in New York on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:37 PM
Also I forgot to mention above that feces and hair samples have been found and tested. Many have come up reading "unknown primate".
Posted by Matthew in New York on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:40 PM
I saw a bigfoot in the early winter of 1964 at an abandoned farm in Nebraska. It stood very erect and was about 7 feet tall, standing next to a barn and gate, making it easy to judge height. The fur was the color of sheep's wool and the eyes were jet black and very intense. There were 4 other witnesses with me at the time. We could have easily shot it if we wanted but that was against our training as hunters. My first thought when I saw it was that it was the owner of the property trying to scare us as we were trespassing, however when we shown the headlight directly on the creature there was no mistake that this was something different. There were many similar sightings reported around the area at the time. If it was a big guy in a monkey suit he was taking the chance of being shot out there in the country because some of the idiots with guns will take a shot at anything.
Posted by hammerdown in nebraska on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:39 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages