Bigfoot, do you believe?

[psykho]

Nah ain't believing bigfoot until i see him with my own eyes

 

[its all good baby baby]

Ive actually seen Big Foot. He almost killed my dog. So yes i believe him

 

[needsomejays]

i thnik its real, i mean i dont find it hard to believe something like that could exist

 

[oh you mad]

 

[ihavemyownopinion]

Anything could exist

What makes me be somewhat of a believer in
certain things like this is that I don't think everyone
would just make stuff up. Some people do, but I think
others have genuinely seen something and have not had the luck
of finding it again, or have been forced to not say anyhting

 

[carlosdapaperboy]

I believe in Bigfoot, Aliens, and The Chupacabra.....

 

[redsfan3]

No

 

[carlosdapaperboy]

Originally Posted by Oh YoU MaD

I dont believe we landed on the moon

Do you believe the moon is made of cheese?

 

[oh you mad]

I dont believe we landed on the moon

 

[snaggykicks]

I think its possible i mean maybe a monkey and a bear had sex or somethin i dont know

 

[limitedretroog]

Originally Posted by Hen Lin 32

Originally Posted by LimitedRetroOG

Bigfoot definitely exists. There's just too much evidence.

Can someone post this evidence?

The way I see it, Big foot was made up back in the day for entertainment.

And with today technology, if we cant find or catch this thing... i dont believe it exists

but yeah that evidence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...vidence_regarding_Bigfoot

 

[stoneyjax]

 

[flip sensayshun]

I thought some people confessed that they made up Bigfoot.


That's what I thought.

I remember reading an article a while back.

 

[EddieWinslow1983]

Originally Posted by Hen Lin 32

Originally Posted by LimitedRetroOG

Bigfoot definitely exists. There's just too much evidence.

Can someone post this evidence?

The way I see it, Big foot was made up back in the day for entertainment.

And with today technology, if we cant find or catch this thing... i dont believe it exists

but yeah that evidence?

I believe there is something out there that doesnt want to be found. If something does not want to be found, u aint findin it. even with the newest technologywe got. If our technology is so good and advanced, we shouldve found osama a lonmg time ago

 

[mike2389]

no, doesnt seem legit.

Do you believe the moon is made of cheese?
i remember kids saying that in preschool and kindergarten

 

[jeenewed]

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[drsfinest72]

 

[mateen cleaves]

Originally Posted by FLiP SeNsAyShUn

I thought some people confessed that they made up Bigfoot.

That's what I thought.

I remember reading an article a while back.
maybe your thinking about the people who confessed that the old video which looked to be bigfoot was fake.

 

[smoke ya later]

man that signs clip always gets me

 

[suckafree85]

What happened with those two guys that supposedly found big foot? I remember he was dead in a tub or something. This was maybe last year I think.

 

[sneakerking757]

I don't know what to believe...

 

[colorway]

I can't really believe any of this until I saw some real evidence, that truly proved it.

I would like to believe it though.

They say this guy washed up on the shore of Long Island last summer. With Plum Island right across the water, something like this is something thats a littlebit more evident to me.

History

The story began with a July 23 article in a local newspaper, The Independent. Chief Britton, 18, of Montauk, and three friends said they found the creature on July 12 at the Ditch Plains beach, two miles east of the district. The beach is a popular surfing spot at Rheinstein Estate Park owned by the town of East Hampton. Hewitt was quoted: We were looking for a place to sit when we saw some people looking at something... We didn't know what it was... We joked that maybe it was something from Plum Island.[3] Her color photograph ran in black and white, under the headline "The Hound of Bonacville" (a take-off on the name Bonackers, which refers to the natives of East Hampton, and The Hound of the Baskervilles which is a book in the Sherlock Holmes series). The light-hearted article speculated that the creature might be a turtle or some mutant experiment from the Plum Island Animal Disease Center before noting that Larry Penny, the East Hampton Natural Resources Director, had concluded it was a raccoon with its upper jaw missing. The article concluded that "someone took it away... to be buried... we hope."[4] A local newspaper quoted an unidentified woman, who claimed that the animal was only the size of a cat, and had decomposed to a skeleton by the time of the press coverage. She would not identify its location for inspection.[5] Hewitt's father denies claims that his daughter is keeping the body's location a secret.[5] Hewitt and her friends were interviewed on Plum-TV, a local cable television show.[6] Alanna Navitski, an employee of Evolutionary Media Group in Los Angeles, California, passed a photo of the creature to Anna Holmes at Jezebel, claiming that a friend's sister saw the monster in Montauk. Holmes then passed it along to fellow Gawker Media website Gawker.com which gave it wide attention on July 29 under the headline "Dead Monster Washes Ashore in Montauk".[7] Cryptozoologist Loren Coleman at Cryptomundo first coined the name the "Montauk Monster" on July 29, 2008. [8] The moniker was disseminated globally on the Internet in the following days. Photographs were widely circulated via email and weblogs, and the national media picked up on it raising speculation about the creature. The potential urban legend stature of the Montauk Monster was noted by Snopes.[9] [edit]Possible identifications

Speculation in published reports included theories that the Montauk Monster might have been a turtle without its shell-even though a turtle's shell cannot be removed without damaging the spine[1[11]-a dog, a raccoon,[12][13] or perhaps a science experiment from the nearby government animal testing facility, the Plum Island Animal Disease Center.[14] The creature's appearance was believed to have been altered through immersion in water for an extended period before coming to rest on the shore, making it difficult to identify.[12] William Wise, director of Stony Brook University's Living Marine Resources Institute, interpreted the photo along with a colleague; they deemed the creature a fake, the result of "someone who got very creative with latex." Wise discounted the following possibilities:[15] Raccoon. (The legs appear to be too long in proportion to the body.) Sea turtle. (Sea turtles do not have teeth.) Rodent. (Rodents have two huge, curved incisor teeth in front of their mouths.) Dog or other canine such as a coyote. (Prominent eye ridge and the feet don't match.) Sheep. (Sheep don't have sharp teeth). On August 1st, Gawker[16] published pictures and X-ray images of a water rat, an Australian rodent with several similarities to the Montauk Monster, such as the "beak", tail, feet, and size. On the same day, Jeff Corwin appeared on Fox News and claimed that upon close inspection of the photograph, he feels sure the "monster" is merely a raccoon or dog that has decomposed slightly.[12] This was backed up by Darren Naish, a British paleontologist, who examined the images and agreed that, if real, the creature was a raccoon. Naish says that "claims that the limb proportions of the Montauk carcass are unlike those of raccoons are not correct", and on his blog he furnishes an illustration of an intact raccoon corpse drawn over the corpse in the photograph.[12] On August 5 2008, Fox News Channel's Morning Show repeated speculation that the beast is a decayed corpse of a capybara, even though capybaras do not have tails.[17] The next day, the same program reported that an unnamed man claimed that the animal's carcass had been stolen from his front yard.[18]
From Wikipedia.

 

[Hijo Del Promo]

borneo snake

 

[chiaravanond]

Originally Posted by cOlorWay

I can't really believe any of this until I saw some real evidence, that truly proved it.

I would like to believe it though.

They say this guy washed up on the shore of Long Island last summer. With Plum Island right across the water, something like this is something thats a little bit more evident to me.

History

The story began with a July 23 article in a local newspaper, The Independent. Chief Britton, 18, of Montauk, and three friends said they found the creature on July 12 at the Ditch Plains beach, two miles east of the district. The beach is a popular surfing spot at Rheinstein Estate Park owned by the town of East Hampton. Hewitt was quoted: We were looking for a place to sit when we saw some people looking at something... We didn't know what it was... We joked that maybe it was something from Plum Island.[3] Her color photograph ran in black and white, under the headline "The Hound of Bonacville" (a take-off on the name Bonackers, which refers to the natives of East Hampton, and The Hound of the Baskervilles which is a book in the Sherlock Holmes series). The light-hearted article speculated that the creature might be a turtle or some mutant experiment from the Plum Island Animal Disease Center before noting that Larry Penny, the East Hampton Natural Resources Director, had concluded it was a raccoon with its upper jaw missing. The article concluded that "someone took it away... to be buried... we hope."[4] A local newspaper quoted an unidentified woman, who claimed that the animal was only the size of a cat, and had decomposed to a skeleton by the time of the press coverage. She would not identify its location for inspection.[5] Hewitt's father denies claims that his daughter is keeping the body's location a secret.[5] Hewitt and her friends were interviewed on Plum-TV, a local cable television show.[6] Alanna Navitski, an employee of Evolutionary Media Group in Los Angeles, California, passed a photo of the creature to Anna Holmes at Jezebel, claiming that a friend's sister saw the monster in Montauk. Holmes then passed it along to fellow Gawker Media website Gawker.com which gave it wide attention on July 29 under the headline "Dead Monster Washes Ashore in Montauk".[7] Cryptozoologist Loren Coleman at Cryptomundo first coined the name the "Montauk Monster" on July 29, 2008. [8] The moniker was disseminated globally on the Internet in the following days. Photographs were widely circulated via email and weblogs, and the national media picked up on it raising speculation about the creature. The potential urban legend stature of the Montauk Monster was noted by Snopes.[9] [edit]Possible identifications

Speculation in published reports included theories that the Montauk Monster might have been a turtle without its shell-even though a turtle's shell cannot be removed without damaging the spine[1[11]-a dog, a raccoon,[12][13] or perhaps a science experiment from the nearby government animal testing facility, the Plum Island Animal Disease Center.[14] The creature's appearance was believed to have been altered through immersion in water for an extended period before coming to rest on the shore, making it difficult to identify.[12] William Wise, director of Stony Brook University's Living Marine Resources Institute, interpreted the photo along with a colleague; they deemed the creature a fake, the result of "someone who got very creative with latex." Wise discounted the following possibilities:[15] Raccoon. (The legs appear to be too long in proportion to the body.) Sea turtle. (Sea turtles do not have teeth.) Rodent. (Rodents have two huge, curved incisor teeth in front of their mouths.) Dog or other canine such as a coyote. (Prominent eye ridge and the feet don't match.) Sheep. (Sheep don't have sharp teeth). On August 1st, Gawker[16] published pictures and X-ray images of a water rat, an Australian rodent with several similarities to the Montauk Monster, such as the "beak", tail, feet, and size. On the same day, Jeff Corwin appeared on Fox News and claimed that upon close inspection of the photograph, he feels sure the "monster" is merely a raccoon or dog that has decomposed slightly.[12] This was backed up by Darren Naish, a British paleontologist, who examined the images and agreed that, if real, the creature was a raccoon. Naish says that "claims that the limb proportions of the Montauk carcass are unlike those of raccoons are not correct", and on his blog he furnishes an illustration of an intact raccoon corpse drawn over the corpse in the photograph.[12] On August 5 2008, Fox News Channel's Morning Show repeated speculation that the beast is a decayed corpse of a capybara, even though capybaras do not have tails.[17] The next day, the same program reported that an unnamed man claimed that the animal's carcass had been stolen from his front yard.[18]

From Wikipedia.

didn't they say that was a dog

 

[colorway]

Yeah I think so people argued it was a dog.

But if you look at its mouth, it looks sort of like a beak.