Comments on: New Brunswick’s Black Bigfoot

By: Dj Plasmic Nebula

Dj Plasmic Nebula — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:42:22 +0000

i wonder how their going to hoax an 8ft bigfoot walking? yet alone a 9ft bigfoot walking?

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 04:10:25 +0000

I find the little differences between sasquatch reports to be very interesting and tend to think they actually add a little more weight to the body of eyewitness testimony. It is only natural that there might be individual differences in certain traits, such as size and color. I would be more suspicious if every report described exactly the same thing, but you get these wonderful accounts of black Bigfoot, white Bigfoot, small ones, large ones, yet they are all obviously the same type of animal. To me, it paints an interesting tapestry of the sort of individual differentiation that would likely be seen over a population.

Shane Durgee- Bigfoot is both singular and plural. So the statement “We believe we saw Bigfoot” is correct but when looked at grammatically, it would actually mean that they saw more than one Bigfoot. They probably didn’t think about that though. Yeah, I find it incredible that a lot of people think it is, or refer to it as, one animal. A lot of cryptids share this burden.

By: AlbertaSasquatch

AlbertaSasquatch — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 02:31:12 +0000

Good points everyone but still these people saw something that they can’t explain. Sure there height estimates could be totally skewed but they obviously saw something large, black, and BIPEDAL cross the road in front of them. Gotta make you wonder!

By: NHbigfoot

NHbigfoot — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 02:27:32 +0000

steele79 I strongely disagree with what you are saying. You are right about it being populated for 300 years but the south has been populated for just as long and there are plenty of bigfoot. Florida has been populated for 400 years and has the first city in north america still it has many skunkape sightings. Bigfoot on the east coast is just as much as it on the west coast. The mountains of the east coast are very densely forested in comparison to the rocky mountains and the cascade mountains. In fact Maine is the least populated state east of the mississippi and is the most heavily forested state in america followed by New Hampshire. Maine is 95% forest and New Hampshire is 85% pecent forest. New Brunswick is also heavily forested and so in Quebec, and upstate New York.

By: cliffhanger042002

cliffhanger042002 — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 01:18:32 +0000

I have to agree with LeCope on the distance, 250 meters (roughly 3 football fields) is a long way away to accurately identify something, especially particulars like height. I shoot in alot of archery tournaments, 3D tourneys where you shoot at life sized (but artificial) targets such as deer, bear, etc. You shoot from a stake in the ground but are not told the distance to the target, you must determine the distance, typically in yards, on your own and adjust your sights accordingly. Although I’m very familiar with the size of those targets, once you get past 50 yards, it is very difficult to judge the distance of the target due to the fact that the target appears very small, it’s hard for a veteran shooter to tell the difference between a 100 yard shot and 60 yard shot on a “standing upright” bear target. Even more difficult than determining the distance between the two points would be determining the height of the object, even for a pro. So I would say that the height given by the witness is pure speculation at such a distance. There could be so much of a topography change (change in elevation of the ground) between such distant points that any reference he/she picked would be useless because the object could be 10 feet higher in elevation and the angle they viewed the object at would cause an illusion of height. Just my opinion on the height issue, I don’t feel like it can be taken as fact.

By: cliffhanger042002

cliffhanger042002 — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 01:01:46 +0000

Thanks for the post Loren. I’m always happy to read fresh eye-witness reports of Bigfoot. I’m also really happy to see that these folks were still willing to share the experience despite the Biscardi/Whitton/Dyer moron exhibition. I had really started to worry about first-hand accounts from eye-witnesses becoming just as elusive as Bigfoot in the aftermath of the hoax, but maybe this is a sign of hope that these very lucky people will come forward with the accounts that most of us can only dream of.

By: sausage1

sausage1 — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 00:46:08 +0000

Re: the second witnesses; What a pity that people having such a fantastic and rare experience feel unable to share it with others because of the ridicule they fear (probably correctly) they will encounter.

By: cryptidsrus

cryptidsrus — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:26:17 +0000

Good post there, Loren…

By: Richard888

Richard888 — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:47:05 +0000

Go Canada Go!

By: LeCope

LeCope — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:23:15 +0000

I hate to say it but 250 meters in front of a moving vehicle is really far when making comments like: “pitch-black, sleek, hairy, approximately 8-and-a-half foot [tall] Sasquatch.” I don’t doubt that they saw something, but wow, that is 2 and half football field lengths. I doubt you could seem much in terms of details, yet they say, “If it was just someone dressed up, they sure did a good job.”

Something to think about.

Lecope