My theory about bigfoot.

  • Thread starter Deleted member 457759
  • Start date
How do you pass down a story without any standardized language (either oral or written) ? Unless you can provide some evidence that people from 100,000 had some kind of written and oral language then no, I don't think it's plausible for them to be capable of passing down legends.

I don't think we have any evidence to support when oral language developsed among those peoples.
 
I'm a lot more skeptical of bigfoot slipping throught he cracks like the coelacanth because the Bigfoot is thought to share habitat with the Grizzly. Grizzlies smell as good as blood hounds and I don't believe for a second these two wouldn't cross paths and we'd see evidence of that.
Well, I'm a skeptic full stop about most everything, admittedly.
But I'd be excited for sure.

I'm currently very excited about a supernova that isn't quitting like they usually do. Its stunning.
 
Well, I'm a skeptic full stop about most everything, admittedly.
But I'd be excited for sure.

I'm currently very excited about a supernova that isn't quitting like they usually do. Its stunning.

Which supernova? And yea, nothing would make my day more than to discover bigfoot, or Aliens. I'm a skeptic like you but I want it badly lol. We have no excitement these days.
 
I don't think we have any evidence to support when oral language developsed among those peoples.

Hmmm...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_first_written_accounts#Before_1000_BC

Oldest known language is likely Sumerian which dates back to around 2500 B.C.. So do you think it's reasonable to suggest that there's languages which predate this one by ~96,000 years?

What you're doing is moving the goal posts... same with you moving your 100,000 years for the giant ape to "maybe 10,000" years. It's a cool theory which you proposed but there's plenty of holes in it. Not trying to break your balls or anything but I just don't think your theory holds any water.
 
If we're to believe Bigfoot is real then we have to assume Bigfoot is getting laid from time to time. It makes me wonder how sex between Bigfeet would go down? I'd like to think male Bigfoot would moisten his thumb with saliva and insert it into the back end of his female partner during doggy.
 
Hmmm...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_first_written_accounts#Before_1000_BC

Oldest known language is likely Sumerian which dates back to around 2500 B.C.. So do you think it's reasonable to suggest that there's languages which predate this one by ~96,000 years?

Oldest written language.

And with that, they're constantly having to push back those dates too.

http://historythings.com/archaeologists-might-found-worlds-oldest-writing-bulgaria/

What you're doing is moving the goal posts... same with you moving your 100,000 years for the giant ape to "maybe 10,000" years. It's a cool theory which you proposed but there's plenty of holes in it. Not trying to break your balls or anything but I just don't think your theory holds any water.

I'm in no way presenting this theory as solid. I'm merely debating the criticisms of it which in my opinion are equally as flimsy.
 
I don't think this is a novel theory. It's also not stupid. For example, if you saw this today, what would you say to your friends...this was roaming north America 12,000 years ago, along with a bunch of other gigantic megafauna that was wiped out. Giant ground sloth but the point is, while big foot (a large Pacific Northwest ape probably doesn't exist today, TS idea isn't stupid.

megatherium-ground-sloth-megafauna.jpg
 
I think bears walking on two feet could be the source of bigfoot. Bears are widespread enough that they could be observed in all regions where bigfoot sightings occur.

 
Oldest written language.

And with that, they're constantly having to push back those dates too.

http://historythings.com/archaeologists-might-found-worlds-oldest-writing-bulgaria/



I'm in no way presenting this theory as solid. I'm merely debating the criticisms of it which in my opinion are equally as flimsy.

Your source is terrible... MIGHT, MAY, MAY HAVE, etc. Not a single solitary conclusion in there and not even a single shred of quasi-evidence. There is no pushing back of anything with this particular find.

It's cool man, again, fun theory.
 
I think bears walking on two feet could be the source of bigfoot. Bears are widespread enough that they could be observed in all regions where bigfoot sightings occur.



Bears are certainly the culprit for those stupid bigfoot cabin breakins. I saw one, man it was so funny. This guy was filming this cabin that was fucked with all the cupboards opens and trashed, hair samples left behind and he was saying it must have been bigfoot.

THAT"S EXACTLY what bears do though......
 
Your source is terrible... MIGHT, MAY, MAY HAVE, etc. Not a single solitary conclusion in there and not even a single shred of quasi-evidence. There is no pushing back of anything with this particular find.

It's cool man, again, fun theory.

Are you aware of gobekli tepe? Do you thin k they accomplished that without oral or written language? one or the other?

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gobekli-tepe-the-worlds-first-temple-83613665/

You're assertion that sumeria is the oldest civilization has been falling apart with every new discovery.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree that explains today's believers. But why did indigenous people believe the same legend?

I suspect parents used it to scare their children so they didn't wander off.
 
Sasquatch chronicles has a couple of stories a week about people that claim to see bigfoot. They speak about them like they are a documented, real animal. I believe these people lie and fabricate stories. Some have seen sasquash 4 or 5 times. I listen to the encounter stories when I cant sleep. Knocks me out quick.
 
Are you aware of gobekli tepe? Do you thin k they accomplished that without oral or written language? one or the other?

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gobekli-tepe-the-worlds-first-temple-83613665/

You're assertion that sumeria is the oldest civilization has been falling apart with every new discovery.

Never said Sumeria was the oldest civilization, but that it's the oldest known written language. Your link, while interesting, does not claim to deny anything I've said or linked. From your own "source" :

"There are no sources to explain what the symbols might mean. Schmidt agrees. “We’re 6,000 years before the invention of writing here,” he says."

Again, interesting, but certainly doesn't show that human language and writing existed 100,000 years ago. Can you move those goalposts any further? ; )
 
Sasquatch chronicles has a couple of stories a week about people that claim to see bigfoot. They speak about them like they are a documented, real animal. I believe these people lie and fabricate stories. Some have seen sasquash 4 or 5 times. I listen to the encounter stories when I cant sleep. Knocks me out quick.

Reminds me of Joe rogan talking about bigfoot hunters. He was making fun a of a guy who said "I was in the bushes and I kept on hearing this noise, and it took me awhile to realize.....that it was a Squatch!"

LOl!!!!!


there standard for evidence it through the floor.
 
Never said Sumeria was the oldest civilization, but that it's the oldest known written language. Your link, while interesting, does not claim to deny anything I've said or linked. From your own "source" :

"There are no sources to explain what the symbols might mean. Schmidt agrees. “We’re 6,000 years before the invention of writing here,” he says."

Again, interesting, but certainly doesn't show that human language and writing existed 100,000 years ago. Can you move those goalposts any further? ; )

I think you're being dense. Could you answer this question? Do you think Gobekli Tepe was created without oral or written language?
 
Sure. But I don't think indigenous people would make the kinds of mistakes we would. They were largely hunter gatherers who were very familiar with their environment and the fauna. North America was an incredibly dangerous place and grizzly bears reached all the way down to California before they were killed off by European settlers. Natives would have been very familiar with Grizzlies and i think they're the only candidate for mistakening for bigfoot. I agree that many "sitings" by modern north Americans are likely bears, but I don't buy that the natives were that easily fooled, there was simply way too much on the line foer them to make those kinds of mistakes.

I think your hypothesis is fine, even good, (but not new btw). But your stretching to make your hypothesis fit by pushing this idea that Natives somehow were less likely than modern people to mistake something they saw in the forest. Native Americans were deeply, deeply superstitious. Some also saw “Thunderbirds” and “Skinwalkers” and “Talking animals” and on and on. So unless your going to find ancient lost species to account for all of those, then sometimes native Americans misidentifying stuff or make-it up like the rest of us.
 
I think your hypothesis is fine, even good, (but not new btw). But your stretching to make your hypothesis fit by pushing this idea that Natives somehow were less likely than modern people to mistake something they saw in the forest. Native Americans were deeply, deeply superstitious. Some also saw “Thunderbirds” and “Skinwalkers” and “Talking animals” and on and on. So unless your going to find ancient lost species to account for all of those, then sometimes native Americans misidentifying stuff or make-it up like the rest of us.

I think some of these may have been the result of a really good peyote trip.
 
Back
Top