Evidence for Bigfoot AND Chupacbras found?

bombidol

What could be the explanation for Chupacabras. Video here
http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/cuero-tape/



Bigfoots body found?
http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/ga-gorilla/
And
http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/ga-gorilla-pic/

iamhunted

is that the same as these lads?:

http://www.fayettedailynews.com/article.php?id_news=1832

all they were showing was a plastic bag though and claiming there was a bigfoot in it. they couldnt show it yet for legal reasons.

iamhunted

it is the same boys but the plastic bag is off. hoax or real? it'll be interesting to keep an eye on this one.

6th

No comment really apart from .... cryptomundo is a great site!

bombidol

Yeah its pretty much top of its game for that type of stuff. Which means I'm paying more attention to this story because they are kind of getting behind it.

Well the dog is not Chupacabra DNA tests have been done and they are just wilde dogs with Mange.

Problem is with Chupacabra is all sighting have been different animals and then catagorised under the name Chupacabra .
In Chili they have pretty much concluded that it is actually a Ferret.

With regards to bigfoot. Well these things always die out . It starts with a great story body found and then nothing .

Pangea

Thanks for this , very interesting

Zillah

Aseth

not sure if its the same story but I found this:

http://www.bfro.net/hoax.asp

Kernel

Yup it's looking like a hoax.

Aseth

there's an article in todays Metro about it. They also mentioned a press conference which should take place sometime today.
Hopefully they will put it on YouTube.

Stoner

the one in the crate looks like a monkey suit with some guts stuck on top.

Steve_o

Stoner wrote: »

the one in the crate looks like a monkey suit with some guts stuck on top.

Thats what i thought too, I wonder will they show the body or just the photographs... also the "DNA Evidence" they have should be interesting! The problem I have is that Tom Biscardi is involved in it... he's pulled hoaxes involving bigfoot before!

The big thing is , they never showed a picture of the body were they found it. One top Bigfoot expert is helping out with this and is sure its bigfoot. Another bigfoot expert is extreamly skepticle .

Word is its in a collage under armed guard getting tested .

The website that says its fake have been dodgy themselfs in the past.

I will wait and see.

Steve_o

The press conference is on at 5pm irish time!

Wibbs

Have to say I call fake on it. I hope I'm wrong, but too many things stack up against it. The "guts" just don't fit and look too fresh. How did they drag something that big out of the woods? It looks too much like the costume. The fur looks wrong for want of a better word. The tongue hanging out seems to long and flat for the body, the teeth look human. Basically it just looks fake.

I'd love this to be the real deal. I know a canadian chap who claims he saw one. Up close too(30 ft away), while fishing way off in the bush. This guy is one of the least likely people I know to be of an over imaginative bent and the details he remembered were impressive. He's also a keen fishing type who has spent a good amount of time in the middle of nowhere for up to a week at a time. He knows bears, moose, deer etc very well. He was defo not a believer until he saw it himself. Basically he said it looked like an ape/gorilla in the face(which he said was black). It's body was heavy set but looked like a very well built human. He also said it was around his height(he's 6'5").I believed him anyway.

If they do exist I suspect it'll be in some far off lightly populated area that evidence will show up, not in someones stand of trees in somewhere like georgia. Hopefully I'm wrong though.

Be prepared for tests to come in, inconclusive and then the body dissappears .

pookie82

Just saw this thread now - anyone know what the results threw up???

THey had a Press conference and it really showed nothing. THey are doing an Autopsey (sp) A reporter from Fox news will be going with them as a witness.

LCDeelite

I have always thought the idea that Big Foot exist is utter sh1te. That's just my opinion.

Wibbs

Well this would be the first time in history that only one hominid is around. Up to 20 odd thousand years ago there were at least two. Neandertal and Erectus. It would not be shocking to me to find out that one of the relict hominids survived closer to historical times, if not even to today. Marco Polo noted a few animals unknown to europe, all of which have been identified except for a "wild man" he saw in mongolia.

Up until quite recently woolly mammoths were thought to have gone extinct after the last ice age. Turns out they were around in a dwarf state living on islands off the Siberian coasts until the 11th century.

There have been too many sightings by too many reliable witnesses in various parts of the world, for it to be completely ruled out. If even 1% is not a case of drink, mistaken identity or whatever, then there is something to it. Even Jane Goodall is interested in some of the reports.

My personal money would be on China or the vast forests of siberia, or the jungles of south east asia(Orang Pendak). I would have discounted the americas for a few reasons, not least of which no relict hominids or great ape fossils have been found there yet. I would have discounted it until I talked with that guy I referenced in my earlier post. I would trust the guy with my life and he is so not the over imaginative type. His details were impressive before. I got the distinct sense of him having observed a living animal(though he reckoned more ape than man). He didn't get much of a view of the feet though, big or not.

Frankie Lee

There seems to be a lot of evidence for hominid creatures in mongolia for my reading, i think it would be great if they did exist, be a good attraction to have if you owned a zoo.

GhostInTheRuins

It looks like cryptomundo's servers are fried over all this interest

Mbyte

As some of you know there has been evidence of a bigfoot that has been found. The evidence being a body. This is now a hoax. The body is just a rubber suit. From what I know the aasholes were doing it for money and and they are also doing dodgy stuff on ebay.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AOgKx3k3uQ&eurl=http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/viewvideo.php?id=6AOgKx3k3uQ&tid=133333

Wibbs

More on the above hoax; http://blog.blogtalkradio.com/2008/08/19/bigfoot-%E2%80%98corpse%E2%80%99-had-a-rubber-foot-finders-%E2%80%98admitted-it-was-a-costume%E2%80%99-says-%E2%80%98squatch-%20detective%E2%80%99-host/

Kernel

LCDeelite wrote: »

I have always thought the idea that Big Foot exist is utter sh1te. That's just my opinion.

You would have to discount a lot of eyewitness testimony and explain footprints etc. if that were the case.

Zillah

Shocking :pac:

???

So??? The eye witness acounts are hideously unreliable, if not utter fabrications. Foot prints are easily faked. No piece of circumstantial evidence for big foot has ever panned out!

Kernel

??? wrote: »

So??? The eye witness acounts are hideously unreliable, if not utter fabrications. Foot prints are easily faked. No piece of circumstantial evidence for big foot has ever panned out!

It seems I am not as dismissive of eyewitness testimony as you are so.

Aseth

??? wrote: »

So??? The eye witness acounts are hideously unreliable, if not utter fabrications. Foot prints are easily faked. No piece of circumstantial evidence for big foot has ever panned out!

Look at bfro.com - they have dozens of reports from different people. Even if they made up half of it(don't think so - who would do so many??), some hallucinations, drunkiness, drugs, poor eyesight(?)etc. then there are some hard to reject, coming from reliable sources. Plus most of them share the same characteristics.
I wouldn't be so sceptical as to say all bigfoot stories are just one big hoax.

Men's claim of Bigfoot carcass isn't worth Squatch
FOR FANS, DISAPPOINTING ENDING TO FROZEN HAIRY 'BODY'
By Shelby Martin
Mercury News
Article Launched: 08/20/2008 01:31:43 AM PDT

Melting ice uncovered a hoax this week, as the "Bigfoot" found in a Georgia woods turned out to be . . . a rubber Halloween costume.

Bigfoot hunters Matt Whitton and Rick Dyer had tossed their find in a freezer and frozen it in a solid chunk of ice - to preserve it, they said. The two men finally turned over the freezer and on Sunday, Bigfoot enthusiasts waited with bated breath as the apparent 7-foot-7 inch "body" slowly defrosted at an undisclosed location.

After hours of waiting, a dark patch of hair emerged. Steve Kulls, executive director of Squatchdetective.com, told Fox that he extracted a hair sample and burned it. It was apparently made of synthetic fibers and "melted into a ball uncharacteristic of hair," Kulls said. An hour later, the group's fears were confirmed when further melting revealed a rubber foot.

"It's heart-wrenching," said Bob Schmalzbach, vice president of Searching for Bigfoot Inc., in an interview with Fox News. "We thought it was the answer to a mystery that's been going on for too long."

As of Tuesday, the two Georgia men who perpetrated the hoax were nowhere to be found. According to the Searching for Bigfoot's Web site, the organization plans to pursue legal action against the men.

Source: San Jose Mercury News

bombidol

bastards

???

Aseth wrote: »

Look at bfro.com - they have dozens of reports from different people. Even if they made up half of it(don't think so - who would do so many??), some hallucinations, drunkiness, drugs, poor eyesight(?)etc. then there are some hard to reject, coming from reliable sources. Plus most of them share the same characteristics.
I wouldn't be so sceptical as to say all bigfoot stories are just one big hoax.

I didn't. I think most of them are people seeing something moving in the woods and jumping to the conclusion of big foot. There are no reliable witness testimonies, everything a witness reports is purely subjective. Evidence for big foot's existence needs to be objective for it to be taken seriously. The plural of anecdote is anecdoyes, not evidence!

According to the Searching for Bigfoot's Web site, the organization plans to pursue legal action against the men.

*sob*The mean men lied to me. They hurt my hopes and dreams *sob*

No way in hell that'd stand up.

iamhunted

??? wrote: »

I didn't. I think most of them are people seeing something moving in the woods and jumping to the conclusion of big foot. There are no reliable witness testimonies, everything a witness reports is purely subjective. Evidence for big foot's existence needs to be objective for it to be taken seriously. The plural of anecdote is anecdoyes, not evidence!




*sob*The mean men lied to me. They hurt my hopes and dreams *sob*

No way in hell that'd stand up.

we cant say bigfoot doesnt exist, due to the size of the earth and how much area on it which is very infrequently visted by humans - especially mountainous and wooded areas where bigfoot is'sighted' - at the same time we have no proof it exists either.

Logically its pretty disingenuous to insist such a creature doesnt exist much as it would be to fitfully insist such a creature does exist considering it cant be proved either way. if bigfoot exists then its a gorilla like creature - which isnt such an impossible thing to be now really.

I have to ask though ??? and ive asked you this before to no avail. what would happen if we were all like you and didnt believe anything until someone proved it to us? then no-one would actually go trying to research or discover anything and instead we'd all believe (like 18th century scientists) that theres nothing new to discover in the world and that we know it all already. a bit like the current state of the skeptics forum (no wonder its pretty quiet in there)

Skeptic_Desu

iamhunted wrote: »

if bigfoot exists then its a gorilla like creature - which isnt such an impossible thing to be now really.

How do you know it is gorilla like?

iamhunted wrote: »

I have to ask though ??? and ive asked you this before to no avail. what would happen if we were all like you and didnt believe anything until someone proved it to us? then no-one would actually go trying to research or discover anything and instead we'd all believe (like 18th century scientists) that theres nothing new to discover in the world and that we know it all already. a bit like the current state of the skeptics forum (no wonder its pretty quiet in there)

Surely this has been explained to you before but, thats not how science works.

iamhunted

iamhunted wrote: »

if bigfoot exists then its a gorilla like creature - which isnt such an impossible thing to be now really.

sleep paralysis anybody ??

Seems to cover alien and ghost sightings why not bigfoot.

???

iamhunted wrote: »

we cant say bigfoot doesnt exist, due to the size of the earth and how much area on it which is very infrequently visted by humans - especially mountainous and wooded areas where bigfoot is'sighted' - at the same time we have no proof it exists either.

Agreed, although we can say the chances of it existing are very low due to a number of factors:
1. The vast amount of subjective evidence compared to the total lack of objective evidence. Given the number of sightings it is logical to assume that if it exists then there would be at least some objective evidence.
2. It hasn't been shot yet. Most of the sightings are by hunters, the fact that one hasn't been shot yet is suprising. Even if it got away it would leave blood which could be tested.
3. The big foot case is very similar to other cases such as Loch Ness and unlike standard rare creatures (panthers).

Logically its pretty disingenuous to insist such a creature doesnt exist much as it would be to fitfully insist such a creature does exist considering it cant be proved either way.

Strawman. We didn't say it doesn't exist, we just said there's no evidence.

if bigfoot exists then its a gorilla like creature

Oh wow a definite statement. There must be some evidence for that...

which isnt such an impossible thing to be now really.

Well given the lack of bodies, I personally think a very small creature seen close up but mistaken for being a large creature far away is much more likely.

I have to ask though ??? and ive asked you this before to no avail. what would happen if we were all like you and didnt believe anything until someone proved it to us? then no-one would actually go trying to research or discover anything and instead we'd all believe (like 18th century scientists) that theres nothing new to discover in the world and that we know it all already.

Thump thump thump thump thump... (Me slowly losing the will to live). Name one phenomena that we know exists yet there is no evidence for it's existance?

a bit like the current state of the skeptics forum (no wonder its pretty quiet in there)

It's quiet because threads like this which would fit in both forums are posted out here.

I will just go with what ever the scientific community say . They have never been wrong before :rolleyes:

iamhunted

I love the smell of quotes in the evening.

??? wrote: »

Agreed, although we can say the chances of it existing are very low due to a number of factors:
1. The vast amount of subjective evidence compared to the total lack of objective evidence. Given the number of sightings it is logical to assume that if it exists then there would be at least some objective evidence.
2. It hasn't been shot yet. Most of the sightings are by hunters, the fact that one hasn't been shot yet is suprising. Even if it got away it would leave blood which could be tested.
3. The big foot case is very similar to other cases such as Loch Ness and unlike standard rare creatures (panthers).

the fact that every year new creatures we didnt know about are found, many which science thought were extinct, makes shreds of those points (read all about it - ivory billed woodpeckers and red colobus monkey thought extinct) - the fact is we dont find skeletons, blood blah blah blah of every animal that roams the earth

Strawman. We didn't say it doesn't exist, we just said there's no evidence.

dont be pedantic - what you said was "most of them are people seeing something moving in the woods and jumping to the conclusion of big foot." which gives the impression you dont think its can be real. you know, that old cynical trick where cynics dont believe what people say as its anecdotal.

Oh wow a definite statement. There must be some evidence for that...

thats because people who claim to have saw it said its big and looks gorilla-like. can i slap my forehead now and look skyward with a confused look on my face yet?

Well given the lack of bodies, I personally think a very small creature seen close up but mistaken for being a large creature far away is much more likely.

do they find tons of bear bodies in the woods? didnt think so. by your logic they dont exist? is this the next thing?

Thump thump thump thump thump... (Me slowly losing the will to live). Name one phenomena that we know exists yet there is no evidence for it's existance?

you had a whole thread to prove to me that science conclusively says the mind is outside the brain and you didnt manage it, so dont start that again.

It's quiet because threads like this which would fit in both forums are posted out here.

nope. its quiet as its too easy to stick ones fingers in ones ears and claim anything one doesnt have scientific proof for doesnt exist. doesnt leave much to discuss really. or, more realisitcally, no non-cynic wants to post there.

though I do love all you cynics - i means skeptics. really, i do. I might become one yet.

iamhunted

Skeptic_Desu wrote: »

How do you know it is gorilla like?




Surely this has been explained to you before but, thats not how science works.

eh? science isnt about research and finding things out? You know, i get the impression your answer didnt actually answer my question. Was that the intention?

like, i know thats what ye's are saying all the time - ie dont research the paranormal as its all bunkum - but its back to the same question - how do you propose to find out about so called paranormal occurances unless you research and investigate them?

iamhunted

Deleted User wrote: »

I will just go with what ever the scientific community say . They have never been wrong before :rolleyes:

i concur as I just know that if I dont agree with everything the paranormal forum *scientists* say , I'll be repeating myself all night in here :pac:

Skeptic_Desu

iamhunted wrote: »

eh? science isnt about research and finding things out? You know, i get the impression your answer didnt actually answer my question. Was that the intention?

like, i know thats what ye's are saying all the time - ie dont research the paranormal as its all bunkum - but its back to the same question - how do you propose to find out about so called paranormal occurances unless you research and investigate them?

For something to be accepted scientifically and researched properly empirical evidence must be supplied. In the case of Bigfoot empirical evidence would include a carcass or the holy grail of crypto-zoology, a living specimen.
Those being hard to come by, then a well documented tracking of a Bigfoot, including videos and photos of the specimen and samples of hair and droppings would go a very long way to proving as well as understand Bigfoot if he in fact exists.
This is how science works. Empirical evidence and critical analysis.

However no such study exists despite countless Bigfoot hunters trying their hardest. Not to mention the is no record of anyone finding anything resembling a Bigfoot carcass anywhere.

No one is saying that Bigfoot is impossible, rather there is no evidence to support it's existence and that there are much more likely explanations for the supposed sightings.

Also as for the Mind/Brain thing if you look back at that thread you'll find that reams of evidence and studies where posted and it was explained that was a very complicated subject that requires you to do a bit of reading.
Further more you repeatedly failed to put forward an alternative model that works as well as the accepted one.

At the end of the day iamhunted cant prove that there is a bigfoot and sceptic Desu cant prove there is "no" bigfoot.

Skeptic_Desu

Deleted User wrote: »

At the end of the day iamhunted cant prove that there is a bigfoot and sceptic Desu cant prove there is "no" bigfoot.

Well anyone can prove Bigfoot exists.
All they have to do is show some good solid empirical evidence, rather than just testimonies.

Zillah

iamhunted wrote: »

do they find tons of bear bodies in the woods?

Yes. Like, all the time. Some living, some dead, some shot, some curious, some skittish. Not a good choice for comparison.

Stoner

Skeptic_Desu wrote: »

Well anyone can prove Bigfoot exists.
.

you prive it so.:D

iamhunted

for the record, i wouldnt - personally - insist bigfoot exists. at this stage of the game its a myth. crap, does that mean i agree with the skeptics?

Skeptic_Desu

Stoner wrote: »

you prive it so.:D

I can't, I don't have empirical evidence of Bigfoot's existence.

Unless your saying I should prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist.
The fact that you can't prove a negative has come up before.
As I'm sure the burden of proof has been explained before as well, the onus is on the claimant to provide evidence.

iamhunted wrote: »

for the record, i wouldnt - personally - insist bigfoot exists. at this stage of the game its a myth. crap, does that mean i agree with the skeptics?

Why is this a bad thing?
Critical thought is good.

iamhunted

who ever said it wasnt? critical thought isnt found only in the realms of the skeptic.

iamhunted

Skeptic_Desu wrote: »

The fact that you can't prove a negative has come up before.
As I'm sure the burden of proof has been explained before as well, the onus is on the claimant to provide evidence.

this seems to be the standard answer.

Skeptic_Desu

iamhunted wrote: »

this seems to be the standard answer.

It's also a fundamental of logic.