I would say that I doubt it, but, technically speaking, it would be possible to have a population of a few dozen scattered through Washington, BC, the Yukon, and Alaska.

There is no credible evidence to suggest such a creature exists. For simplicity, I live my life as if it doesn't, although if evidence should arise, I'd be willing to consider it.

people-looking footprints, fuzzy photographs, low-resolution cellphone videos of rotting carcases! what more could you ask for as evidence!?!?!?!?

if he exists is not the question you should be asking other people, it should be can anybody prove he does/does not exist. in the context that you are putting it in there is no concrete evidence going towards either side, but most choose to believe he doesnt. however the probability of a bigfoot existing is actually higher than most people believe, seing as all your asking is if a man(or woman) with extremely large feet exists, which they do. you should try to find a better way to ask your question, as to avoid smart-a$$es like myself from getting all technical on you. might i suggest Sasquatch, which is the more common name for the mythical creature.

if he did exist i think that would be pretty cool. same with the loch ness. cause then we would have some prehistoric animals around

I have done some research into the phenomenon, and some footprints which have been cast and the Patterson-Gimlin film can't be proven to be fake, although they don't prove the existence of the animal. I remain open-minded, but I like to think there is something out there.

Also, the anthropologist Grover Krantz estimated that the population in the Pacific Northwest was around 2,000 individuals based on the frequency of tracks.

yes, if they find proof, it will be pretty cool.

@frito, thank you for reinforcing my statement that there is no concrete proof for or against sasquatch

Didn't we have a thread on this?

There is zero - ZERO - credible evidence. The believers typically state things like "prove it doesn't exist". Uh uh - burden of proof is on you, guys - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You better either show me a corpse or at least get me a DNA sample - and every piece of 'proof' of this nature to date has proven to be fraudulent.

Can I "prove" there is no Bigfoot? Of course not. I can't prove that fairies don't live in my basement, either - unless you want to literally blanket every square foot of the planet with sensors that would detect "Bigfoot" and then call it a wash if nothing showed, it's impossible to prove a negative. Can you prove that the 'evidence' wasn't all planted by the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

I don't recall a thread on this...

@Butterhead:
TECHNICALLY speaking, there is no space between the "big" and the "foot", and the plural is bigfootS. How's that for technical?
PS over here amongst people actually IN the Northwest, "Bigfoot" is the more common term. So there. Nyah!

well than i guess we know what we need to do to prove if he exists or not. Break out the sasquatch sensors! but in all seriousness, i dont necesarily believe in sasquatch(id really appreciate if wed call him sasquatch, not bigfoot, thanks) but im saying its entirly possible, and there is no credible evidence for or against him/her. and i wasnt around for the last thread, so i wouldnt know what was said.

@baumhaeuer: im aware of the no space, that was a typo( my bad) and as for the plural, im speaking in the singular. and as for what you in the northwest call him(im also aware of this, seing as i lived in the northwest for a short time) i will rephrase my comment, it is the more common name amoung scientists and other academic professionals.

This is silly. "There's no way to know that there isn't a tiny purple tiger crawling around inside my laptop. Therefore, I have to be open to that possibility." No. Sorry. Until someone shows me a real, live Sasquatch, in the flesh, I'm going to be happy making unqualified statements like "There is no such thing as a Sasquatch." and I can do so without fear of contradiction, because no one will ever show me a real live Sasquatch, because there is no such thing as a Sasquatch.

as we lawyers say, "anything's possible"

I mean, the electrical charges in the atoms in my body could reverse themselves and i could dissipate ... it is theoretically possible for an atom, and what am I but many atoms?

if thats what you wish to say mafialligator, so be it. i am merely saying, there is no definitive proof saying he does or does not exist. just as there is no definitive proof that your little purple tiger isnt crawling around inside your computer. until we have a tool that can see literaly everything, thats a possibility. the chances of that one are slim to 0, but still possible. Sasquatch, and i appreciate that you used that name for him/her, has more of a possibility.

lol baum it's bigfeet not bigfoots....cracking up here

butterhead you can't prove a negative. You need proof that they are real such as DNA or a body preferablly still alive.

you can prove a negative,happens every day in court and out - I am not at the Arlington Cafe right now, my buddies who are there can provide testimony that proves I am not

you can prove that they do exist, so therefore you can prove they dont exist. if you can argue something for the affirmative, theres always an argument for the negative. thats how it works. but anyways, i do not wish to get into an argument with any of you, and the way i see it, theres no proof either way, so until there is concrete proof, everyone is entitled to think what they want to think.

@butt - prove that I do not have psychic powers.

You cannot "prove" a negative - this is elementary school logic, dude.

If you want to operate on faith, more power - no one is saying you can't. But if you're looking for 'proof' on a faith-based belief, then that's kinda not the point of faith.

ah, see, it all depends on what "prove" really means ... to whose satisfaction is the level of proof?

It's like god
You can't prove he exists but there is also so no way to disprove something that is all powerful all seeing and the reason anything happens

there is no definite proof that you dont, you may or may not, none of us know and you probably dont know yourself if you do. folllowing your logic, we cant prove a positive either. prove that i do have psychic powers. theres always a possibility to prove something true or false. but once again, no wish to annoy anyone, so i refuse to argue this further if at all possible. and thank you rancher for your words of wisdom

acmac10: trust someone from the Northwest: it's one bigfoot, two bigfoots.

I hope he's real.

@butterhead - You *cannot* prove the lack of existence of something in the universe, only within a set of boundaries. For instance, you can prove there are no frogs in my aquarium, but you cannot prove there are no more carrier pigeons left in the world because we have no current means of examining every square foot of the earth instantaneously, nor can we confine the movements of every bird sush that we can sytematically search the earth without missing a single bird. The same applies to big foot, God, and his Noodliness: The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

ok so my point is proven. unless bigfoot is extremely fast and can live underwater, which by all means he possibly could, there is a way to prove he does exist AND there is a way to prove he doesnt exist. it would be near impossible to do so, but there is a way. its called get a group of people to spread from coast to coast on every land mass in the world, and have them walk every inch of land. near impossible, but not completly. i rest my case

You guys are all wrong
It's Sasquatch

No it's Yeti

thank you! ive been telling them all along that its sasquatch. that was the first time ive called him/her bigfoot.

Them bigfoot/sasquatch/yeti/ and soon on

yeti is the proper name for the abominable snowman, who is more like sasquatch's cousin

@butterhead "its called get a group of people to spread from coast to coast on every land mass in the world, and have them walk every inch of land" They basicly did that in Loch Ness with sonar but people still believe in Nessie.

@butterhead - so how do you cover canyons as deep as the Grand Canyon and mountains as high as K9 or Everest and caves and caverns so deep and recessed that no man has ever fully traveled.

Maybe, some scientists consider the Euroasian brown bears and the grizzly as two subspecies. Maybe it's he same with the bigfooties.

@Rancher
It is true what you say. You can indeed prove a negative.
I think what people mean in this thread is that you can't prove a *universal* negative.

@ warsprite: they used sonar, which is technology, which can fail.
@ draugnar: a. they go rock climbing, and b. thats why i said nearly impossible

I would qualify it as truly impossible. You couldn't get enough volunteers to put their life on the line to cover every inch of Everest, much less every mountain in the world, including K9.

@ butterhead Your eye sight could also fail, putting in question any sighting or lack of sighting.