Bigfoot and other monsters of Cryptozoology

[Archbob]

So we have so many sightings of Nesse, Bigfoot, Ogopogo, grassman, mothman, yeti, etc, yet no physical speciman or even skeleton has been found. How can this be?

Well I have a theory that would explain all of this:

These creatures are all Elite Ninjas.


That is the only realistic explanation for them never been caught and remains never being found because you cannot ever see or find a ninja unless he/she/it wants to be seen or found. They let us see them every once in a while just to keep us on our toes but when we go and try to find one(like those monsterquest teams), they will never be found because they have Ninja abilities far beyond any of the people searching. They are just toying around with them.

Where do they live you ask?
Just like the Mice in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", they creatures are really trans-dimensional beings with intelligence far beyond this. They have created a realm all to themselves that we cannot enter. However, this is a temporary realm and it is unstable so they keep sending emissaries or scouts into our world to scout out the Terrain to prepare for their upcoming invasion to take over our world.

Whats worse, I think the president and high government officials know about it and are collaborating with them in return for safety once this inevitable invasion happens.

So what are we going to do? How will be ever fend off an army of government-supported trans-dimensional-elite-ninja Bigfoots and Loch Ness Monsters? Are we all doomed?

 

[warpus]

I saw a documentary a couple months ago that made claims that most sightings of Bigfeets are just large bears. Apparently there are species of bear we haven't discovered yet, and some of them walk upright, either all the time, or sometimes.

Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if it was more closely related to us than to bears.. but the bear theory makees more sense to me.

 

[Kyriakos]

In the x-files series there was a thing called 'Chupacabra' or something like that

 

[Archbob]

In the x-files series there was a thing called 'Chupacabra' or something like that

I think that was just a coyote with some mutations, not as interesting as a Trans-dimensional Ninja Bigfoot

 

[Kyriakos]

There was also a humanoid with legs that bent the opposite direction (or was that just in that Mel Gibson film about aliens? ).

 

[bhsup]

 

[gay_Aleks]

That part of the D&D manual was pretty great!

 

[BvBPL]

I saw a documentary a couple months ago that made claims that most sightings of Bigfeets are just large bears. Apparently there are species of bear we haven't discovered yet, and some of them walk upright, either all the time, or sometimes.

Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if it was more closely related to us than to bears.. but the bear theory makees more sense to me.

If that's the case then researchers should look to Baltimore for Bigfeet.

 

[gay_Aleks]

I doubt the university would grant them a couple thousand bucks so they could go to Baltimore.

 

[Kyriakos]

Not really in cryptozoology (cause it seems to have started as a creepypasta meme), but:



Some teens in northern US had stabbed their classmate (last year) to fend off Slenderman after a ritual.

Do you think he could take seat over there?...

 

[Wolfbeckett]

I saw a documentary a couple months ago that made claims that most sightings of Bigfeets are just large bears. Apparently there are species of bear we haven't discovered yet, and some of them walk upright, either all the time, or sometimes.

Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if it was more closely related to us than to bears.. but the bear theory makees more sense to me.

The bear hypothesis makes more sense than the bigfoot hypothesis. But the hypothesis that makes the most sense of all of them is the one that says that it's nothing at all, just people mistaking random noises and sightings of already known animals under sub-optimal conditions for being something more than what it is.

As soon as anyone can produce even one scrap of physical evidence I'll start listening, but "I saw something, I swear, I've been in the woods my whole life and I know what I'm talking about!" isn't evidence. Animals leave physical evidence behind. Hair. Droppings. Dead bodies. Small things like that. Even if it's a new species of bear instead of a primate there should be physical remains of some kind and there just isn't.

 

[Archbob]

The bear hypothesis makes more sense than the bigfoot hypothesis. But the hypothesis that makes the most sense of all of them is the one that says that it's nothing at all, just people mistaking random noises and sightings of already known animals under sub-optimal conditions for being something more than what it is.

As soon as anyone can produce even one scrap of physical evidence I'll start listening, but "I saw something, I swear, I've been in the woods my whole life and I know what I'm talking about!" isn't evidence. Animals leave physical evidence behind. Hair. Droppings. Dead bodies. Small things like that. Even if it's a new species of bear instead of a primate there should be physical remains of some kind and there just isn't.

Not a believer in the Trans-dimensional Ninja Bigfoots I see. Very unwise.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Not a believer in the Trans-dimensional Ninja Bigfoots I see. Very unwise.

If I'm wrong I'll accept the ninja stars that are no doubt heading straight at my head without complaint

 

[Berzerker]

There was also a humanoid with legs that bent the opposite direction (or was that just in that Mel Gibson film about aliens? ).

Charlie Sheen, the Arrival

 

[warpus]

The bear hypothesis makes more sense than the bigfoot hypothesis. But the hypothesis that makes the most sense of all of them is the one that says that it's nothing at all, just people mistaking random noises and sightings of already known animals under sub-optimal conditions for being something more than what it is.

As soon as anyone can produce even one scrap of physical evidence I'll start listening, but "I saw something, I swear, I've been in the woods my whole life and I know what I'm talking about!" isn't evidence. Animals leave physical evidence behind. Hair. Droppings. Dead bodies. Small things like that. Even if it's a new species of bear instead of a primate there should be physical remains of some kind and there just isn't.

I pretty much agree, but statistically speaking, when there's smoke there's often a fire. In this case there isn't smoke, but instead there are a lot of people who claim to have seen, heard, and inhaled smoke.. And that's no reason to believe anything at all of course, but say there's a species of bear out there that's more intelligent than regular bears, but just a bit more, nothing approaching human levels, and if that species of bear prefers to walk upright and is really good at hiding from humans - that is a viable "bigfoot" hypothesis that I'm willing actually give credence to. It still seems a bit unlikely, and I do not think it is true - but it is far more likely to be true than a mythical giant creature or pan dimensional pan pizza delivery boys or whatever.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Yeah, I've heard the "where the smoke there's fire" thing actually seriously argued by hardcore bigfoot devotees before, and I just don't buy it. Far more people claim to have seen UFO's than bigfoot, does that means there's fire there with that smoke?

Bigfoot and UFO's are both "sighted" constantly for the same reason: they're famous, everyone has heard about them, and so when people see something they can't personally explain they immediately jump to the conclusion that they've heard elsewhere a million times before. When people can't explain something they desperately search for something, anything, that brings it into their sphere of understanding, and the middle of the woods is a hell of a good place to see things you can't understand because looking at things through who knows how much undergrowth is not exactly ideal viewing conditions. I'm sure some bigfoot sightings are bears, there are plenty of them to go around in the Pacific Northwest. I'm equally sure that some of them are deer, other people, etc. When you only half see something, especially if it's early in the morning, or late at night, or you're exhausted from walking around all day, it's easy to fill in details that don't exist. You see a big, undefinable "something" and an hour later you've convinced yourself it was bipedal and walking like a man even though you never actually saw anything of the sort. People are really good at inventing details like that without knowing that's what they're doing, ESPECIALLY people who are predisposed to believe in things like bigfoot to begin with.

This is getting long and I'm overdue for some dinner so I'll end it here, but in conclusion: there's nothing about the bigfoot story that requires us to posit any kind of large new species, it's 100% explainable by human nature and the woods of the Pacific Northwest being a confusing place to try to positively ID anything.

 

[warpus]

Yeah, I'll agree with your last paragraph. I'm just saying I wouldn't be surprised if there's new species of bears we haven't discovered yet who might account for some of the sightings. Since there's 0 evidence, I can't say there's any chance of that being true, but I just wouldn't be surprised if it was.

 

[Archbob]

You know UFO are just a government coverup. Babylon 5 is real.

 

[warpus]

You think Babylon 5 was a coverup, wait till I tell you about Babylon 8.

 

[Archbob]

I've seen a Vorlon.