"Bigfoot" Topic

Is Bigfoot real?

Yes
No
Maybe in the past
Not sure

In the past: gigantopithecus. Or, at least it always seemed like a candidate.

link

TMP link
TMP link
TMP link
TMP link

Dan

Yes link

Maybe….

YouTube link

I bet who ever the huge leg bone in the video belongs to had a Big Foot!

Plus when I was a kid I remember the Six Million Dollar man found Bigfoot.

The probability of such a hominid living on undetected in the Pacific Northwest seems unlikely, but the Yeren in China and the Alma of Siberia are said to exist in truly remote habitats-so just maybe. Gigantopithecus, as mentioned earlier, is a candidate for one source of giant legends, but science has yet to determine whether Gigantopithecus walked upright, or on all fours like a giant gorilla. Only jaw bones and skull fragments are known.

So I remain an open-minded skeptic on Cryptozoology. Interesting recent hominid fossils such as Denisov and the Flores hobbits certainly suggest that weird human cousins were living alongside our ancestors until quite recent times. The Flores specimens are only 9,000 years old and the region is known for legends of Orang Pendek, etc.

Now we can move on to the topic of sea serpents, giant bats, and the Tasmanian tiger.

The probability of such a hominid living on undetected in the Pacific Northwest seems unlikely,

Who do you think ate D.B. Cooper? :)

Possible … with all the open empty places and spaces out there in the world that us humans don't, can't, won't or only very rarely venture into … who knows …

We just had this discussion in the Lounge.

No, there are no Bigfoots wandering around the Pacific Northwest, nor anywhere else in North America.

Prove me wrong by finding one. Not sightings, not sound recordings, not films or photos, but a body, dead or alive. I'll wait.

There is no way there is a viable population of Bigfoot or any other large unknown primate in North America. Period. Take it to the bank.

Sounds and smells prove nothing.

A squirrel hopping through dry leaves can sound exactly like something moving stealthily through the underbrush. A screech owl can raise your hackles even if you know what's making the sound. Even rabbits can scream.

An aggrieved skunk isn't the only thing that smells bad in the woods. A fox can smell like "skunk-lite," and bears get pretty rank, too.

As for sightings, I guarantee that every single one is an honest misidentification; a product of wishful thinking; accompanied by consumption of alcohol or drugs; psychosis; or an out-and-out hoax. I suspect that most actual, sober sightings are bears. Bears exhibit most of the actions, sounds, and smells attributed to Bigfoot.

I have never read of a single sighting, or seen a photo or video, that didn't fit into one or more of the above categories, and I've read about literally hundreds of encounters in books and on various websites.

Never been bagged by a hunter. No spoor, hair, a carcass, or even bones ever found, that haven't been proven to be from some other animal, or an outright hoax. Never been hit by a car. Never been photographed by motion-sensor wildlife cameras.

Eric Rudolph and Ted Kazinski were individuals, not breeding populations (thankfully). Rudolph was also hiding only from officials, not from the locals. In fact, many of the locals knew he was in the area and provided him with food and other assistance before he was caught.

Many Bigfoot "researchers" estimate a breeding Bigfoot population in North America of 5,000 or more individuals. That's a lot of large primates to keep hidden.

Also, people always talk about how Bigfoot might be semi-intelligent, which would explain how they can stay hidden from humans so well. Yet there are all of these reports in which Bigfoot stalks humans, makes lots of noise, moves around upwind of humans, and so on. That doesn't sound like a semi-intelligent primate trying to stay hidden, but it *does* sound like a curious bear.

Check out these maps of virgin forest in the continental US:

There is almost no remaining old-growth timber east of the Rockies, and damn little west of them. That means that what is dense forest in, say, Central Virginia today, was at one time pretty well deforested. Was Bigfoot displaced to the west, and now they've moved back in? Doubtful. Black bears, on the other hand, still roam Central Virginia.

Now, those maps only show virgin forest. But *everything else* has been logged out *at least once* since Europeans arrived. Where did Bigfoot *populations* go while that was being done? Did they hopscotch around the country, moving from forest to forest, until eventually settling back down in their old stomping grounds? "Whew! It's good to go away, but it's good to get back home again, too!"

Remember, this isn't an *individual* we're talking about, this is a *breeding population*. Most gorilla researchers believe that the smallest viable breeding population for a gorilla troop is about 200 individuals. 200 large primates could not move cross-country without leaving any sign of their passing, other than occasional weird sounds, bad smells, and vague sightings.

The more Bigfoots move around, the more likely they are to be killed by hunters or struck by motor vehicles, and they haven't been.

Just about every culture throughout the world has had folktales about the "wild men of the wilderness," some big, some small, some man-sized. That proves nothing except commonality of themes in folktales.

Gigantopithecus isn't a factor, because they're extinct, and we're talking about the here-and-now, not the past. Dinosaurs also used to exist, but they don't now. Same goes for passenger pigeons, but no one is claiming that a passenger pigeon stole Great Aunt Margaret's pirze-winning blueberry pie off the kitchen windowsill when no one was looking, and I *have* read similar reports about Bigfoot. (Or maybe just a hungry and curious bear.)

Right up there with ancient aliens, investment bankers who want a 90% tax rate and . I'll believe it when I see the body.

I hope so
I believe no

Definitely.

paterson film. never been disproved. and the higher the resolution they use on the film, the more it seems to look real. and even the experts at nike shoes has made note of the walk. he said it was'nt human.

I have seen very convincing track casts in a well known museum being examined by respectable scientists. They were still open minded about it. The casts were good enough that they wre not conclusively fake. This did not mean that "Bigfoot" was the only possible explanation however.

One FBI fingerprint analyst who examined tracks left in fine clay commented on the pores and ridge and whorl detail "If these are fake, I'm glad the guy isn't making money instead of Bigfoot feet, because we'd never catch him. These tracks are that good."

I am skeptical, but still can't shut the door completely. Biologists have been wrong about extinction and "mystical" species before. Bigfoot does seem a lot more likely than aliens in UFOs.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Your last line says it all Dave C.

Dave Crowell,
I agree. The discovery of the Flores 'Hobbits' is a strong piece of evidence that small hominids are behind the legends of dwarf humanoids from Indonesia. Admittedly these are small and live in a jungle environment and not 7' neo-giants.

Orang Pendek is one legend from Java, but in other regions they are called Uhang Pandak , Sedapa, Batutut, Ebu Gogo, Umang, Orang Gugu, Orang Letjo, Atoe Pandak, Atoe Rimbo, Ijaoe, Sedabo, and Goegoeh.

These may have survived into more recent times but are extinct now, or are legends recalling encounters by early Malay settlers from the mainland. Or possibly just a coincidence!

Again skeptical, but the romantic pulp reader in me keeps me open-minded. On the possibility that these types of creatures could avoid detection if a hominid and not an ape it might mean they are intelligent enough to remain concealed. It would not need to be as intelligent as a modern Homo Sapiens, but if smarter than a chimp or gorilla who knows?

So if hobbits, then what about Yeren, Alma, and Sasquatch?

(UFO manned bt 7 ft tall furry ETs lands in the Pacific Northwest woods)

"Hey, let's go streaking and freak out the locals!"

;-)

I think it is a bear. I was at Ft. Lewis several time and the guys we worked with swear it is real. I only had one encounter late at night with something huge moving along with us. It smelled and was big.

VR
James Mattes

Check out these maps of virgin forest in the continental US: There is almost no remaining old-growth timber east of the Rockies, and damn little west of them.

This depresses me more than the unlikeliness of bigfoot.

Explain Mo Mo.

link

Yeah, I remember the woods/forest at Ft. Lewis WA … pretty darn thick and an easy place to hide … and a lot of it !!! I've busted bush all over the USA, Central America, (West)Germany, etc. … as I said, there is a lot of bush out there … that humans never or very rarely see …

While many animals can walk on their hind legs, only man--and Bigfoot--do so as a matter of course. And, if you google up Jacko/Bigfoot, you will find that one was captured in the 1880s in Alberta, Canada.

Patterson-Gimlin film (1967): link

It's a cool film, and the motion-stabilized version is cooler still, but it's a hoax, for many reasons, including these:

o Roger Patterson self-published a Bigfoot book in 1966. Then he wanted to produce a Bigfoot documentary, so he rented a camera, set out to do some filming, and danged if he didn't capture a Bigfoot on film, first try! What are the odds?

o Patterson was a known liar and conman.

o Bob Heironimus has admitted to being the man in the suit.

Jimmy Chilcutt and "dermal ridges": link

Chilcutt, a former fingerprint examiner for the Conroe Police Department in Conroe, Texas, has identified what he claims are difficult-to-fake dermal ridges in several casts of Bigfoot footprints. However, others have demonstrated that the "dermal ridges" can form as side-effects of the casting process. Even hard-core Bigfoot researchers have acknowledged that the dermal ridges . . . probably aren't.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

True, but, as Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Or Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749–1827): "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness." Or, in layman's terms, *I* don't have to prove Bigfoot doesn't exist; believers have to prove that Bigfoot *does* exist.

. . . these types of creatures could avoid detection if a hominid and not an ape it might mean they are intelligent enough to remain concealed.

Yet in many, many sightings Bigfoot does unintelligent things, like following or paralleling parties of humans; throwing rocks and sticks at people, tents, buildings, and vehicles; vocalizing when humans are known to be in the area; leaving obvious footprints in soft soil around human habitations; and on and on. (Disregarding the obvious hoaxes, like the whole Mary Green/Janice Carter Coy BS; Google it for a laugh.) Those are *not* the actions of an intelligent hominid or semi-intelligent that's trying to remain hidden. They *do* sound a lot like the actions of bears, though, which can also stand on their hind legs with ease.

Check out these maps of virgin forest in the continental US: There is almost no remaining old-growth timber east of the Rockies, and damn little west of them.

This depresses me more than the unlikeliness of bigfoot.

True, true.

Explain Mo Mo.

Two sightings, one in 1971 by picnickers (and Bigfoot ate their pick-a-nick!), one in 1972 by a group of kids. The first was probably a bear; the second was either a bear or hyper-active imaginations.

. . . as I said, there is a lot of bush out there . . . that humans never or very rarely see . . .

Yeah, but how many of those patches of bush are virgin, and how many of those are large enough to hide 200-plus large primates who don't seem to be all that interested in remaining hidden?

I still maintain that if there were multiple breeding populations of 200-plus large, bipedal primates in North America, hanging out around humans, killing dogs and other pets, destroying property, stealing food and other items, hooting and howling in the woods, throwing rocks and sticks around, doing other non-surreptitious things, and doing all of this for several hundred years, we'd have bodies in several museums by now, and Bigfoot would have a Latin classification.

The ones that aren't hoaxes or hallucinations are simple misidentifications, probably of bears.

While many animals can walk on their hind legs, only man--and Bigfoot--do so as a matter of course.

And vampires, and werewolves, and aliens, and Mothman, and the Jersey devil, and the Devil Himself, and many other bipedal "things" that a lot of people swear they've seen. But bears do "stand* on their hind feet. And hoaxers can stand, walk, run, and skip rope, if they put their minds to it.

And, if you google up Jacko/Bigfoot, you will find that one was captured in the 1880s in Alberta, Canada.

19th century hoax journalism. Google it.

Well after all my time as a Grunt, you'd be surprised of what you could hide. Way out in the middle of no where … And if there were "Bigfoot", and I'm not saying there is, but living deep in heavily forested areas, their "fieldcraft" would be second nature. We'd, again, be in their backyard … we'd be the intruders … Their surival, escape and evasion skills would be very, very good … it would be instinct. And, of course, they wouldn't be moving in a 200 man, er … Bigfoot … column … They'd probably be dispersed in small family groups and/or even single primates. It is one technique used in the military to infiltrate or exfiltrate in small dispersed units or teams … Just some thoughts …

Now, those maps only show virgin forest. But *everything else* has been logged out *at least once* since Europeans arrived.

We have no way of knowing the accuracy or the granularity of those maps. If the virgin forest is 0%, or 10% or 50% or 80% of a pixel. Or the veracity of the survey.

Plus, given natural occurrances such as landslides, forest fires, floods, and droughts, there probably is no such thing as a 'virgin' forest.

I think its exciting to believe in or at least be open to the idea of things like bigfoot,UFOs and all kinds of stuff that are unproven.On the one hand I dont discount anything out of hand ,but at the same time its best to retain some scepticism.There seems to be good arguments for and against a lot of stuff.

"Upright bear" is a far less likely explanation for my brother-in-law, who could have pursued a career in wrestling.

a) while paterson was indeed a con man, he was asked repeatedly on his death bed if the film was fake. he insisted it was real. why would he do that?

b) his partner, gimlin, was bitter enemies with paterson FOR YEARS. he made NO MONEY on the film. why would'nt he turn paterson in as a lier?

c) there were several sightings of bigfoot in that area in the weeks before paterson and gimlin went there. it just makes sense to look for something where it was already seen.

d)there was confusion between the 2 men as to such things as time of day when the bigfoot was filmed. whats the first thing 2 people who are tring to con other people do? get their stories straight.

e) the big guy who said it was him in the suit has been asked pointed questions about how the suit was put on(one piece or more), how it attached(buttons, string?) the color? he had NO ANSWERS. he could'nt remember.

f) the leading special effects leaders in hollywood and the costume designers at disny said they could try to reproduce a bigfoot costume, but it would'nt look as real as the creature in the film.

There are answers online to all of these questions, but I want to address this one specifically:

f) the leading special effects leaders in hollywood and the costume designers at disny said they could try to reproduce a bigfoot costume, but it would'nt look as real as the creature in the film.

That statement has been bandied about for *decades* by Bigfoot believers, and it simply isn't true. In fact, *almost every* special effects and makeup artist who has been asked has stated unequivocally that it's a man in a suit. Their response is even stronger when they're shown the (much clearer) frame-stabilized film. In fact, most of them feel the ape makeup and suits in the 1968 "Planet of the Apes" are more believable than the Patterson suit.

Here's just one article – a *long* and exhaustively researched one – on the subject of the suit: link

As for lacking the technology to produce such a suit in 1967, another canard of believers, remember that Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" began filming in 1965 and was released in 1968, and they were able to achieve this: YouTube link

For those who are interested, here's the frame-stabilized Patterson footage: YouTube link

It's very cool, but, to paraphrase Austin Powers, "That's a man, man!"

Keep 'em coming; this is fun.

Doesn't Sasquatch have a contract to do those beef jerky commercials? Why not just ask him on one of sets if he exists? While you're at it we could check on the Easter Bunny and the Keebler Elves. Actually there is more hard evidence that the Keebler Elves exist.

well, this is fun, and my wife gets angry everytime this subject comes up, as i'm indeed a beleiver. that said:
again, the deathbed insistance of it being real.
that gimlin, who did'nt see a dime, would'nt force the issue and call paterson a lier.
the impossible to reproduce walk of the creature.
where is the suit? if paterson did'nt have the money to have the suit made,and rented it,.
where is it? and don't say he tossed it. there is a record of paterson not paying for the rented camera. if he rented a suit from chambers, and lost/destoyed the suit, there would be a paper trail.
and lastly, there is only a guess that chambers may have made the suit.

Here is his cousin, the Yeti and fighting with Santa!!

It seems he didn't like his presents! (smile).

From
ludstuff.blogspot.com

And don't miss.
bigfootevidence.blogspot.com

Amicalement
Armand

Maybe he's an interdimensional creature that just happens to appear now and then? Maybe he's spirit being of some Shaman, so there's not going to be anything physical.

This one thread is the reason I love TMP. JPattern2 rips apart every single argument thrown at him for the existence of Bigfoot with pure clear science, yet people are still happy to 'believe' in the myth. The only person that has shown any evidence is JPattern2 and until anyone else comes up with any decent evidence that can be rigorously tested scientifically, then I refuse to 'believe'.

OK, Vargulver's drinks are on me today. :)

Altius, up to age 12 = Yes
Altius, after age 12 = No

well, some of the oints i made can't be gotten around.

I remember a report on the Canadian news a couple of years back about someone who filmed what they claimed was a Bigfoot from a ferry. Watching the film it was clear that they did indeed film a large, dark, shaggy *something* climbing over the logs on the opposite side of the lake/river. It could have been a Bigfoot. It could equally have been a man in a Bigfoot suit (unlikely though due to the remote location and timing needed to be seen). It could also have been a man in dark clothing, a large black dog, a bear, or maybe even a moose or deer.

I think most people reporting Bigfoot sightings definitely saw *something*, but in most cases I do not think it was really Bigfoot, much though I would like to believe.

I can't rule it out completely, but it sure seems likely that after all this time and energy spent looking for evidence we would have something more than we do.

John Lacour, you made points but have nothing to back them up. They are suposition and what most conspiracy theories are based on. Jpattern2 has demonstrated his theories with hard fact to back it up. That is the difference.

Dave Crowell you say: 'unlikely though due to the remote location and timing needed to be seen' If the scene was filmed from a ferry, don't ferries operate on timetables? I would sumise it is quite easy to get the timing right by just knowing the ferry timetable. Also if the 'creature' was stepping over logs, who made the logs? To me, that means the spot were the creature was filmed was accessable by the people who were logging, therefore accessable by hoaxers as well.

well, some of the points I made can't be gotten around.

Yes, they can, John. *All* of them. A warning, this is another *long* post.

**Why didn't Patterson ‘fess up on his deathbed?

Patterson died in 1972, just 5 years after making the film. On his deathbed, he apparently stated at least once that the film was authentic (although I haven't been able to track down an eye-witness account online), but I haven't read anything about his being asked "repeatedly" about the film's authenticity. (I've sat up with cancer patients in their dying hours, and the last thing you want to do is nag them about something in their past. In general, you just let them talk.)

Patterson did call for Bob Gimlin, though, and he did apologize on his deathbed for a dirty trick he pulled few years earlier on the lecture circuit. Patterson would rent a hall, give a lecture, and show the film, and at some point a "cowboy" would stroll on-stage, claim to be Gimlin, and confirm the film's authenticity. Except it wasn't Gimlin, it was a paid accomplice, without Gimlin's knowledge. However small the money was from the lectures, Bob could have used it.

Remember, too, that the film was pretty much Patterson's only legacy and financial asset. Admitting it was hoaxed would have diminished its value for his survivors.

**Why hasn't Gimlin ever spilled the beans?

By all accounts, Gimlin was (and still is; he's still alive and kicking) a quiet, non-vindictive person. If he was in on the hoax, he might simply have thought that calling Patterson a liar was beneath himself. Plus, in the early days, he and Patterson both still thought that the film would eventually make them rich; he might have decided to bide his time in hopes of a big payday. Okay, then why does Gimlin still insist that the film is authentic? Well, if I were Gimlin, I'd certainly find the continued interest in the film amusing, and I'd secretly be laughing my butt of at all of the experts on both sides who analyze every single grain and pixel to make their cases, pro or con. I wouldn't want it to end; maybe he feels the same way.

It's also possible that Gimlin himself was hoaxed. Even though both men were armed that day, Patterson insisted that, if they did encounter Bigfoot, they shouldn't shoot it – convenient if you don't want a buddy in a Bigfoot suit to get shot full of holes. Gimlin later said he wished they *had* shot it.

**But it's impossible to reproduce walk of the creature.

Absolutely not true. I've seen the walk reproduced very convincingly several times on TV and YouTube. Here's one example, an analysis of the gait at Stanford: link

As stated in the video, "A human can replicate the kinematic parameters that we measured from Bigfoot. That's probably the major conclusion here." If you look at the way the legs and feet of the test subject move, it looks just like someone walking in scuba flippers, clown shoes . . . or fake Bigfoot feet.

**Where is the suit? Did Patterson make it, rent it, or buy it? Did he throw it away afterwards?

First, despite what some believers and Patterson himself said, most Hollywood special effects and makeup artists over the years have stated categorically that it looks exactly like a man in a suit. Several of them have said that creating such a suit was well within the abilities of even a talented amateur at the time. Back in the ‘90s, makeup artist Stan Winston said the suit could have been made today for "under a thousand" dollars in 1967. That's not chump change, but it's not an unreasonable amount for someone to pull together if they were expecting to cash in on a Bigfoot film.

Bob Heironimus's brother told him that Patterson told *him* that he made the suit himself out of dark brown horse-hide, but most makeup artists say it looks more like fake fur to them.

The word around Hollywood is that John Chambers, who made the ape suits for "Planet of the Apes" and monster suits for the "Lost in Space" TV series, sold the suit to Patterson. That could just be hearsay or an urban legend, though.

More believably, though, Philip Morris, a North Carolina costume maker, claims that he and his wife made the costume and sold it to Patterson. Morris made ape suits for "woman into gorilla" sideshows. (As an aside, I saw one of acts back in the ‘70s at a state fair. It was a hoot.) Morris says he sold an ape suit to Patterson via mail-order in 1967 for $435 USD plus shipping and handling, for use in what Patterson called "a prank." He even told Patterson how to make the shoulders more massive using football shoulder pads, and the arms longer by attaching the hands to sticks. He says it would be easy to modify the original gorilla head to resemble "Patty." Morris also believes the gait can be easily replicated by a man. He says he didn't come forward sooner because he follows the Magician's Code, and he might have lost a lot of business if it was known that he had revealed another "magician's" secrets.

It's possible that Patterson tried to make his own suit out of horse-hide, realized that wouldn't work, and then decided to buy a suit from Morris and modify it for his needs. The cost of the suit could have been more than he was anticipating, and took longer to arrive, which might explain why he rented the camera in May but didn't film Bigfoot until October.

As for where the suit is now, who knows? Patterson might well have tossed or burned it shortly after filming, so no one could find it and expose his hoax. His wife might have tossed it out after his death. Why is it so hard to believe that the suit has been thrown away sometime in the last 45 years?

Other points to consider: Ray Wallace, the guy who really started the whole modern Bigfoot phenomenon in the ‘50s with his hoaxed footprints, *did* confess on his deathbed to making the whole thing up, including the footprints of which he made casts. Wallace was an acquaintance of Patterson's, and admitted that he "felt sorry for Roger Patterson" after Patterson was diagnosed with cancer of the lymph glands.

"Patty" has large fur-covered breasts, obvious buttocks, and a pronounced sagittal crest on her head. No known female ape has furry breasts. They might have some hair on their breasts, but they aren't fully fur-covered like Patty's appear to be. Female apes only develop large breasts when they're nursing. Where is Patty Junior? No ape other than man has buttocks. (And there's no visible butt crack; no wonder she's so angry!) Female apes no not have large sagittal crests. So Patty is either breaking a *lot* of basic rules of ape anatomy, including male/female characteristics, or she's a fake.

Another point: Why didn't Patterson and Gimlin follow Patty? It looks like they could have easily done so: she wasn't running, just walking away, and didn't seem terribly perturbed by the men or their horses. They claim they were scared of what she would do, but I just don't buy it. If I was riding in the woods near my home, armed with a rifle, and I saw a Bigfoot ambling along, I'd sure chase it until I lost it.

Finally, there is no evidence whatsoever of primate evolution in the Western Hemisphere. None. No apes have ever been found in the Western Hemisphere, and New World Monkeys migrated to South America, probably via rafts of floating debris, 40 million years ago. So Bigfoot would have had to evolve elsewhere, then either float to North America or cross the Bering land bridge.

Or it's a hoax. :)

Ultimately, I do find it amusing to consider how much time and energy (including my own!) has been expended over the years analyzing and commenting on this short piece of film.

I admit that there's some supposition and educated guesswork in what I've written, but I also submit that believers need to make a *lot* more supposition and guesswork, with a whole lot less concrete evidence.

If I missed anything, I'm sure you'll let me know. :)

There you go: Suposition versus evidence in action.

"Me thinks the lady doth protest too much."

JPattern is a Bigfoot!

I was thinking the same Deuce !!! Next thing he's going to tell us Shakespeare never wrote that !!! Of course my take on the whole thing stays the same … don't know if Bigfoot exists … but I know you can hide a lot of stuff out there in the wilderness … I've done it !!!

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!!!

A few more thoughts, for anyone who's read this far.

*Every* ape, and most if not all primates, is a social animal. Yet Bigfoot, apparently, isn't.

Humans have hunted every large animal known to have lived in North America; many were even hunted to extinction. And the bones of those animals have been found with evidence of hunting, butchering, etc. But not so for Bigfoot.

In fact, while there are Native American folktales of interactions with Bigfoot, there are no stories of them *hunting* Bigfoot. Humans kill other humans to eliminate competition for resources, or just for the hell of it. Why not Bigfoot?

Yet, despite never being hunted, Bigfoot is claimed to have developed a stealthy nature and an incredible ability to avoid humans. Why? Chimps, gorillas, and orangutans have been hunted by humans for thousands of years, and *they* haven't developed such supernatural abilities.

Just a little more Bigfoot hide for everyone to chew on. :)

I attended a lecture over the weekend in which two individuals claimed to have investigated (bigfeet, plural?), they called them squatches, in central Illinois.

According to the lecturers, they speak some English and Cherokee, and like to form crosses out of big logs.

Who would'a thunk?