Undiscovered Creatures Thread (Nessie, BigFoot, etc.)

[TheSilverWolf]

That's another reason I hate hoaxers. You get some idiot that wants to mess with everybody, so they put together some cheap film a 3 year old could make better, and post it as "proof x exists" and then everyone else who is halfway sane looks at it, scoffs at the hoaxer, and then labels all people who believe in "x" as crackpot morons. It's like the statements that keep referring to Bigfoot as a "human-ape Hybrid." Did I ever say I think human-ape hybrids are walking around? No I did not. I never once stated I think Bigfoot is a human-ape hybrid. Some people think that's exactly what Bigfoot is. Many more do not. The real problem this comes down to, and why so many scoff at people like me, Darkk, TimeDragon, and others who believe in the possibility of these creatures existing, is people who make hoaxes. Be they professional grade hoaxes, with high quality, realistic looking videos, or childish hoaxers who film things purposefully grainy and/or blurry, OR use obvious CGI; all of them have one thing in common: They make the rest of us look completely stupid. I have to disagree with the idea that Bigfoot is "too big" for us to have never come across it by now. Also, the creature is not restricted to just one part of the world, as that person (can't remember who posted it, don't want to lose this post to go back to the last page and find it), said in their post. The Yetti is the arctic's version of Bigfoot; it's the same creature, only instead of being seen in the jungle, it's seen in snowy mountainous terrain instead. But that's just me; I am able to believe it's possible for us not to have discovered it yet, because in reality, Bigfoot isn't all that big. It's only a foot or two taller than humans, and compared to many of the animals around, we humans aren't very big either. Plus, the fact is, if we are still discovering new (animal) life on this planet, what's to say that we won't one day find whatever is responsible for all the Bigfoot sightings? ~SilverWolf~

[Descensus]

I have to disagree with the idea that Bigfoot is "too big" for us to have never come across it by now. Also, the creature is not restricted to just one part of the world, as that person (can't remember who posted it, don't want to lose this post to go back to the last page and find it), said in their post. The Yetti is the arctic's version of Bigfoot; it's the same creature, only instead of being seen in the jungle, it's seen in snowy mountainous terrain instead. But that's just me; I am able to believe it's possible for us not to have discovered it yet, because in reality, Bigfoot isn't all that big. It's only a foot or two taller than humans, and compared to many of the animals around, we humans aren't very big either. Plus, the fact is, if we are still discovering new (animal) life on this planet, what's to say that we won't one day find whatever is responsible for all the Bigfoot sightings? ~SilverWolf~ I can't imagine many of the new species being discovered these days include organisms that are very large. An ape-like creature should not be difficult to find, especially if it's larger than the average human, even just by a foot or two. This is ignoring the stated habitat of something like Bigfoot, which is pretty unanimously the Pacific Northwest of the US. This is even ignoring the possibility of a population of these kinds of creatures. If ancient legends of the Himalayan settlers include creatures such as the Yeti, there can't be just one or two fumbling around in the wilderness these days (assuming they're not going extinct). Everything we know about animal populations suggests that if such creatures are real, we shouldn't have to strain to find them. There should be more than one. We should find bones and fur that don't match any known animals, fecal remains, odd habitats, corpses, etc. We have none of that despite years of legends. In cases such as these, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.