Posted on 10/15/2005 10:25:10 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
JEFFERSON, Texas - Next to a lifelike replica of a giant ape head, the believers milled around tables Saturday covered with casts of large footprints, books about nature's mysteries and T-shirts proclaiming "Bigfoot: Often Imitated, Never Invalidated."
While they can have a sense of humor about it, the search for the legendary Sasquatch is no joke for many of the nearly 400 people who came here to discuss the latest sightings and tracking techniques at the Texas Bigfoot Conference.
"It's not a matter of believing, like faith, when you believe in something you can't see," said Daryl G. Colyer, a Lorena businessman who has investigated hundreds of reported Bigfoot sightings in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana.
"It's a flesh-and-blood animal that just has not been discovered yet. And I think we're getting closer and closer and closer," Colyer said.
Outlandish theories about the origin of Bigfoot abound, including that it might be an extraterrestrial. Many believe that a towering, ape-like creature descended from a prehistoric 9- to 10-foot-tall gorilla called a Gigantopithecus, and that it now inhabits North American forests.
Hoaxes have been a large part of the making of the Bigfoot legend. California construction company owner Ray L. Wallace donned 16-inch wooden feet to create tracks in mud in 1958, and it led to a front-page story in a local paper that coined the term "Bigfoot."
But there have been more than 2,550 seemingly credible Bigfoot sightings reported in North America the past century, according to Christopher L. Murphy's 2004 book "Meet the Sasquatch."
Murphy believes thousands more witnesses are too afraid of ridicule to come forward.
"You see one of these things and it changes your whole perception of reality," said Craig Woolheater, the office manager of a Dallas company who co-founded the Texas Bigfoot Research Center in 1999, five years after he said he saw a hairy creature walking along a remote Louisiana road.
Colyer and others estimate that about 2,000 are in North America today, reclusive nocturnal animals living in thickly wooded areas with waterways, eating meat and plants and making nests out of trees and brush.
Pictures and film footage are often disputed, such as the 1967 footage of a creature walking near a California creek. Most evidence centers on hundreds of casts of footprints collected since the 1950s.
Jimmy Chilcutt, a retired fingerprint analysis expert for the Conroe Police Department, said many of the hundreds of prints he examined belonged to a primate, but not a human, ape, gorilla or chimpanzee.
Like Chilcutt, other well-respected professionals have come forward to say such evidence should not be dismissed.
"To me it's still an open question, but here's some evidence that warrants some serious consideration, so give it a chance," said Jeff Meldrum, associate professor of anatomy and anthropology at Idaho State University who has studied more than 150 casts of footprints. "This is not a paranormal question; it's a biological question."
___
On the Net:
Texas Bigfoot Research Center: http://www.texasbigfoot.com
I went to the conference yesterday for the second year in a row. It's fun and interesting and many of the speakers were very knowledgeable with 10, 20, 30+ years of experience in tracking and collecting evidence. One of the speakers showed a picture of a nest, which was lifted from the ground and resides in a museum some where.
I thought Big Foot was exclusive to Northern Cali, the PNW and Canada.
We have quite a few here in the rain forrest on the Coast range in Oregon.
The locals call them transients.
ADA is run by whitey (who is controlled by our Zionist overlords), and ain't go no business fixin' a black scholars Teef.
Exactly what I was thinking. This headline seems out of place for Texas. (here is a chance to laugh at folks in tx)LOL
Bigfoot Wallace ping!!
Who is Wallace and how big are his feet anyway? lol
It contains 2 videos of bigfoot. The first you have to download and the second,here, is much easier to link; it's direct.
The second clip includes an interview of a witness from British Columbia and some of the Patterson video from 1967.
Of course, here is the entire thread:
If you don't mind responding with some feedback, I would appreciate it.
Whether ridicule, humor or seriousness, I would appreciate it. : )
An autopsied carcass would be unambiguous. Amateur videos are, should we say, suboptimal.
I've heard it said that it would be difficult to find the bones of a dead bear in the woods of the lower 48 (United States).
So if you consider an elusive bigfoot population of say 2-3K with highly acute senses, intelligence and a burial "method/system" then the autopsied carcass is a long way off.
I'm not a believer but I find it interesting that many people from different regions and walks of life have spoken out. Also, I'm slowing becoming an outdoor enthusiast and it's amazing what you encounter in the great outdoors -- only considering the remoteness, the vastness and the dangerous elements (mother nature).
I've had to self-rescue in the woods from an injury that required 12 stitches. Might not sound like much but that and the many times I've felt fear from being "lost" has given me a new perspective on the outdoors.
Again thanks. : )
"I couldn't shoot because the thing looked too much like a human".
who knows?
______
"Neanderthals did not have burials, IIRC."
Maybe my second language is troubling me but I don't understand the statement... IIRC?
If I Remember Correctly = IIRC.
The one that stumped me the longest was "IMHO".
That bigfoot baby video isn`t there anymore, but I saw the interview with that guy.
I don`t know, the way I see it if there was a bigfoot(s) it would be virtually impossible for it to remain hidden as long as it has for all this time. Look at criminals who hide out, they go out of their way to hide yet eventually they almost always are caught, the latest being Eric Rudolph, and you know the time he was hiding quite a few people must have run across him without knowing who he was.
If bigfoot is a true undiscovered species then naturally they must breed, and you would think there would be a lot more sightings than what we have seen. What this guy says is he saw two of them. So if there is quite a few of them and they are breeding where are they? How many are needed to keep the population up? If they were inbreeding between a few they wouldn`t survive, so there must be lots of them. It`s just impossible for that many to hide like that.
The way I see it, if this guy truly saw two of them and he isn`t lying, then he must have seen two people dressed up as bigfoot who were screwing with peoples heads or more likely he is trying to sell his bigfoot song.
"This headline seems out of place for Texas . . . "
Texas is a mighty big place.
The Bigfoot sightings are mostly in the Big Thicket of deep East Texas. The Thicket is aptly named, no long stretches of prairie or rangeland and tumbleweeds. It's dense enough that a critter could find lots of good hidy holes.
Go to the website and read some of the accounts.
I'm not one of the "believers", but I know someone who is. These people are, by and large, educated professionals.
It apparently takes only one close encounter to persuade a skeptic.
It's interesting. Go figure.
In all honesty, when I was about 9yrs old camping at Big Sur, my friend and I saw something big and dark and we ran all the way back to camp scared silly. I beleive we saw BigFoot. I didnt go to college and live in CA, who would believe me? I agree that a close encounter will change a skeptic.
I saw the video...Come one, that thing in the tree could be anything. It could be a cat, an oppossum, a racoon, even a bunch of leaves blowing around on a branch and the figure on the left could be somebody who is in that camping party. This is what I was saying, it`s always vague stuff it`s never hard evidence. If bigfoot existed it would be impossible not to find hardcore evidence...For a species to exist there has to be many of them, and there is no way in hell a bunch of giant monkey people can go around unnoticed.
or
"You change your whole perception of reality and You see one of these things"
Since we have evidence for the latter and none for the former, I think the latter is easier to believe.
Herman? [filled some big shoes last week] :o)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.