Real Yeti footprint to go on display at Expedition Everest!

EpcotServo

EpcotServo

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Enderikari said:
The family of the guy in the suit. But of course the videographer (who has been living well off of this one video for decades) refutes what the family said, and he refutes what the guy who made the Bigfoot suit says as well, but its the act of desperation.
Click to expand...

12 people have come up and said that they are the man in the suit.

And agreed, If there was any way I could sway what you thought, cryptozoologists would pay me for that service.
:lol:


Oh, and I saw Bigfoot crushing cars at the Monster Truck Rally.

"That was Bigfoot, the Monster Truck, But good question."

:D
 
Master Yoda

Master Yoda

Pro Star Wars geek.
Premium Member
All I can say is never say never when it comes to yet to be discovered animal species. Remember that the giant panda bear was a creature of legend until the late 1800's and everyone knew that the celicant had been extinct for millions of years until someone caught one off the coast of Madagascar.
 
ClemsonTigger

ClemsonTigger

Naturally Grumpy
EpcotServo said:
12 people have come up and said that they are the man in the suit.

And agreed, If there was any way I could sway what you thought, cryptozoologists would pay me for that service.
:lol:


Oh, and I saw Bigfoot crushing cars at the Monster Truck Rally.

"That was Bigfoot, the Monster Truck, But good question."

:D
Click to expand...

Agreeing to disagree is not nearly as bad as some make it out to be! :D
 
C

CaptainMichael

Well-Known Member
ClemsonTigger said:
Proving it real would eliminate it from BK...:confused:
Click to expand...

Good thing it's built in Asia and not Beastly Kingdom.:D

Perhaps Joe actually saw one on one of his expedtions to the Himalayas:drevil:


Clearly this is an intelligent creature that is more similar to humans than apes, so I see no reason why it couldn't stay hidden in the huge forests and mountains that it calls home.
 
Pongo

Pongo

New Member
Enderikari said:
Heck of a difference between a fish in an ocean, and a big man-plus size ape in a regularly monitored forest. If the Coelecanth had been found in a lake, heck, even a big lake, I'd be more willing to consider the analogy, but theya re still discovering brand new creatures in the oceans every day. Find Loch Ness Monster and we'll talk analogy (and for the record, science has proven that false as well)

The "best" bigfoot evidence was the Patterson-Gimlin film, and that was already proven to be a hoax.

Footprints? Not evidence... Damaged Trees? Not Evidence... Give me a skeleton, a body, anything that is, you know... evidence
Click to expand...

I'm with you on all point Enderikari. As a zoology major, cryptozoology (and cryptozoologists, for that matter) make me so angry.

imagineer boy said:
Most hunters aren't looking for Bigfoot. Besides, if they do run across one, they're hesitant to shoot because if its a person in a monkey suit, then they'd be charged with man slaughter.
Click to expand...

Wait. Who DOES that? Why would people just go walking around in a monkey suit (they wouldn't even do that if they wanted to leave traces of a "bigfoot," unless they wanted people to SEE them in a monkey suit, which is a weird way to have fun...)? And second, I don't think hunters would be hesitant to shoot because their might be a person inside.

But I think you may have said that out of jest/spite.

Regardless, Occam's Razor.

Iakona said:
New species are being found in forests all over the world every year. Vietnam is a good example.
Much of the forest in the United States is NOT monitored and is largely untouched.
Until they actually capture or find the corpse/bones of a Yeti/Bigfoor/Saqsquatch there will be doubters. In Boston we had a professional baseball player that claimed dinosaurs never existed.
Click to expand...

New species like frogs and plants and bugs. Like someone earlier said, not mammals larger than humans. An animal like that would leave behind SOME ecological footprint that would be visible to us. We're looking hard enough. They're not just going to leave behind random hairs and footprints. They have to eat something, they have to live somewhere, they have to reproduce somehow. We can see the effects of those actions with OTHER animals in the habitats where "bigfoots" live. Why can't we see it with the bigfoots?




Regardless, I still think it's a really cool addition to the attraction. I'd like to see it in person, actually :lol: :lookaroun
 
EpcotServo

EpcotServo

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Pongo said:
Regardless, Occam's Razor.
Click to expand...

Yes, but at what point is men in very detailed monkey suits walking around in complete and total undisturbed forests around the world in hundereds of places at the same time just to fool someperson they don't know who has no video camera and will most likely never tell their story due to fear of being laughed at become more simple than the idea that there may be something we don't fully understand yet?

;)
 
ClemsonTigger

ClemsonTigger

Naturally Grumpy
EpcotServo said:
Yes, but at what point is men in very detailed monkey suits walking around in complete and total undisturbed forests around the world in hundereds of places at the same time just to fool someperson they don't know who has no video camera and will most likely never tell their story due to fear of being laughed at become more simple than the idea that there may be something we don't fully understand yet?

;)
Click to expand...

Probably about the same time as people stop releasing helium balloons with road flairs attached and calling it a UFO sighting..... :zipit:
 
imagineer boy

imagineer boy

Well-Known Member
Pongo said:
Wait. Who DOES that? Why would people just go walking around in a monkey suit (they wouldn't even do that if they wanted to leave traces of a "bigfoot," unless they wanted people to SEE them in a monkey suit, which is a weird way to have fun...)? And second, I don't think hunters would be hesitant to shoot because their might be a person inside.
Click to expand...

For one thing, a hunter might think its a friend playing a joke on them. There's more interesting arguements here: http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=411

But I think you may have said that out of jest/spite.
Click to expand...

That's not true, one hunter interviewed on monster quest said some similar things.

New species like frogs and plants and bugs. Like someone earlier said, not mammals larger than humans. An animal like that would leave behind SOME ecological footprint that would be visible to us. We're looking hard enough. They're not just going to leave behind random hairs and footprints. They have to eat something, they have to live somewhere, they have to reproduce somehow. We can see the effects of those actions with OTHER animals in the habitats where "bigfoots" live. Why can't we see it with the bigfoots?
Click to expand...

If there were HUGE numbers of bigfoots, then you'd see some ecological impacts. But Bigfoots obviously have small numbers and are spread out across the countryside. It is also said that they are most likely nomadic creatures, not really staying in one area at a time. There are a few theories on how they reproduce, and Monster Quest proved that placed with common bigfoot sightings can have good food supply for a creature such as bigfoots.

RSoxNo1 said:
Wasn't there a new species of small monkey found on a random island within the last few years?
Click to expand...

Yes, "The Real Hobbit." It is also rumored that they might still exist, and are considered cryptids. Monster Quest had an episode on that.

BTW, I like this. I've always wanted to get into a bigfoot debate, instead of the usual Too Many Pixar Rides, and SSE rehab debates. :lol:
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom