TRUE OR FALSE: Are Bigfoot, the Lochness Monster, etc., real?

Here, for example, is indisputable proof of the Lochness Monster's existence:





And here, we have firm proof that Bigfoot exists:

sad really

Splitting the coffers with Leonard Nimoy from "In Search Of"

Big Foot business manager Doug "Skeeter" Thompson

They agreed to be interviewed and photographed for that show, and it's never been the same since.

:grr:

The Cupacapra is where it's at now, daddy-o.

is that like eight ounces of It's a Wonderful Life?

Picture 2: Furry

Karen Hughes.

mystery of our times. All the rest are mere pretenders.


http://theshadowlands.net/serpent2.htm#flathead



Flathead Lake Monster

This animal was first spotted by native americans who
lived in Montana's Flathead Lake. It is described as
a long, slender, black bodied serpent with no fins.

remains open to the existence of bigfoot. However, until there is definitive proof, I don't believe in any cryptozoological animal.

The reason I remain open to the existence of bigfoot is that Patterson's 1967 film looks real to me. It isn't of the best quality, but despite what you've heard, it has never been entirely debunked. Also, I saw a documentary called Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science in which many scientists--leaders in their fields--analyzed physical evidence and came away believing that the creature may be real.

Still, in the absence of outrageous proof, I can believe no outrageous claim. Outrageous proof in this case is a live or dead specimen. Until then, I don't believe. So there. :P

film admitted it was a gag a couple of years ago, specifically to spoof on Bob Patterson.

Many disagree with this admission, but the guy who made it was with Patterson during the trip when it was filmed. He said they paid their friend to walk off in a gorilla costume.

Propagated by anti-science philistines and naysayers. Bigfoot doesn't like to be taken lightly, as the original perpetratrors of the "costume" myth tragically discovered for themselves.

;)

(I think) and never said the film was a hoax. Gimlin always swore that he saw what he saw, although he did allow (after a leading question) that it was possible that Patterson could have been "in on it" with a third party.

Here's a link: http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=751

Also, it quite stuns me that Jane Goodall is a bigfoot believer, although I wouldn't believe simply because she believes. There has to be definitive proof before I will believe, although I still have a somewhat open mind toward the subject.

On edit: "Roger Patterson died in January, 1972. He always maintained that the figure in the footage was a real bigfoot. Bob Gimlin, who still resides in Yakima, continues to maintain that the footage is authentic."

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/CNTS/CA/DN/ca_dn004.htm

I'm pretty sure I read that Gimlin died recently, but I can't remember where I read it. :shrug:

So, as far as I know, there has never been a successful debunking of the footage.

and that he was never paid for his time.

http://www.book-of-thoth.com/article-print-551.html

man in the suit, but none of them can show us the costume or even produce one that looks close. Even Hollywood failed.

Here is a side-by-side of one of those programs that claims to have debunked the Patterson footage. It might have even included the guy who claims to be the man in the suit.





Notice that a man's body proportions are complete different from the proportions shown in the Patterson footage. Some anthropologists in Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science mapped the bone lengths in the Patterson footage and claim that no man could have filled the suit.

Watch the video if you can. It's really interesting, although I am still withholding judgment.

but there is a good chance that we just haven't been lucky enough to find the truth. As Shakespeare said, there are more things than are dreamt of in our philosophy. Who is to know that 100 years from now something will be discovered to answer all the unknown questions we currently ask? 200 years ago, almost anything we do now would have been considered magic or the Devil's work. To us, it is science marching ahead.

when I was 18. Now that I look back I realize that maybe I did too many drugs at 18.

Time travellers stuck in a recurring out of phase loop.

Not very probable.

Neither has been proven irrefutably. Certainly those pictures are not proof. With all of the years of extensive investigations and searches, it seems less and less likely either creature is real.

That doesn't mean we have tracked and recorded every species. Far from it, including ones of considerable size and uniqueness.-

What I find amusing are the adherents to paranormal or cryptobiological claims do so on a faith-based approach. They get touchy when you demand proof. "It's true because I believe it!" No different than fundies.

I'll believe they are real when I see them in the flesh or when someone captures them.

Gotta be true.

Why have they never found bones - ANYWHERE?

You'd think at least one or two might turn up somewhere. I have heard the argument that the Sasquatch might be sentient beings who bury their dead - but so are we, and the occasional human bones pop up every now and then.

Now Loch Ness cannot really be proven or disproven, as Loch Ness is such a big, deep lake that a good study could never be done.

Queens. Have 2 children and a mortgage...

but I have my suspicions that Dumbya may be the fabled "Missing Link":evilgrin:

I expected they would have a lot of evidence of Nessy in there. Stuff that would prove the seaserpent's existence without a doubt. ....Well, they had coffee mugs, refrigirator mangets (we got one of those!) some posters, t-shirts, bumper stickers, etc. and not one more piece of evidence besides what "In Search Of" had.
Total crock of shit. Tourist trap just like Roswell, New Mexico.