Who believes in Bigfoot?

Sully34

Looking at the footage of Bigfoot it really looks like a man in a suit but its hard to tell really because the film is so grainy. Plus remeber the size of that footprint they found,hard to explain that really

endacl

Who believes in bigfoot? People who just can't let go of the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy...

Sully34

endacl wrote: »

Who believes in bigfoot? People who just can't let go of the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy...

Yeah but the Easter bunny or the tooth fairy have never been captured on camera

Princess Peach

I believe! Some forests in north America are mahooooosive, and I think the Sasquatch are very small in numbers, and afraid of humans, and also intelligent enough to hide when they feel threatened.

endacl

Sully34 wrote: »

endacl wrote: »

Who believes in bigfoot? People who just can't let go of the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy...

Yeah but the Easter bunny or the tooth fairy have never been captured on camera

Neither has bigfoot, dude. You said so yourself. Man in a suit.

endacl

Princess Peach wrote: »

I believe! Some forests in north America are mahooooosive, and I think the Sasquatch are very small in numbers, and afraid of humans, and also intelligent enough to hide when they feel threatened.

So where do the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy live?

:-)

Myrddin

All this time & nobody has found a dead one, the remains of one, actually, not a single hair of one has ever been found.

Im saying no. I know the areas are really massive but still, if we were to cross paths with them so often then we're either close to them or there's loads of them. The complete lack of evidence is what gets me.

And as for that video? Masterful hoax

Star Lord

endacl wrote: »

So where do the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy live?

:-)

Please familiarise yourself with the charter before posting here.
This is not a forum for the closed minded or for trolling those that do believe.
If you continue like this, you will be banned.

EnterNow's post is a good example of how you can post without belittling those that do believe.

Star Lord

EnterNow wrote: »

All this time & nobody has found a dead one, the remains of one, actually, not a single hair of one has ever been found.

Im saying no. I know the areas are really massive but still, if we were to cross paths with them so often then we're either close to them or there's loads of them. The complete lack of evidence is what gets me.

And as for that video? Masterful hoax

Personally, "I want one believe", but while there has been loads of supposed evidence over the years, there is no concrete evidence, and certainly no credible evidence (to my mind)

Myrddin

DamoElDiablo wrote: »

Personally, "I want one believe", but while there has been loads of supposed evidence over the years, there is no concrete evidence, and certainly no credible evidence (to my mind)

Oh I'm the same, I even had this poster when growing up



Huge fan of X-Files etc & have a strong interest in anything 'out of the ordinary'. As I've gotten older though, it gets clearer to me all the time that the world just isn't as interesting as I'd like it to be. I've less an less faith in paranormal type things, & money driven corruption seems to be the only thing lurking beneath the shadows unfortunately.

Still though, my mind is open to these things, its just I need more than stories of locals looking to get on the tv to be convinced.

Princess Peach

EnterNow wrote: »

All this time & nobody has found a dead one, the remains of one, actually, not a single hair of one has ever been found.

Im saying no. I know the areas are really massive but still, if we were to cross paths with them so often then we're either close to them or there's loads of them. The complete lack of evidence is what gets me.

And as for that video? Masterful hoax

I think they live in families and Bury their dead

Myrddin

Princess Peach wrote: »

I think they live in families and Bury their dead

Very hard to spot a bigfoot in America so...large, primitive, & a fear of outsiders. Bigfoot would blend right in

{Apologies to any Americans, but, c'mon it was funny...right? Right??}

degrassinoel

was sick for a few days there a while back and managed to watch a marathon of ancient aliens. There was one particular show about bigfoot which was to me the least believable of all the theories they've come up with.
I quite liked the show anyway, but yeah..

that said, it's quite an interesting myth, and oddly enough it's not constrained to just the USA either. There are plenty of other legends and myths about bigfoot type creatures (cryptids) from the big guy himself to the nepalese yeti and wildmen myths.

imo, that if these similar myths of wildmen etc.. exist and have existed for such a long time without each of the cultures that have them knowing about the other, there must be something to it. Though the explanation could be a lot more boring than an undiscovered species.

Personally, i think the video is a hoax, but based on the myths and legends it's probably based on what it is.. wildmen. ie: feral human(s)

maninasia

Certainly many different human species lived at the same time, right up until at least 20,000-30,000 years ago. There were the Denisovans, the Neanderthals, the Flores people..and probably a few more. The Denisovans were only discovered a couple of years ago, we even have some of their DNA..mind blowing stuff. How do we know they existed? A single fingerbone and two teeth!

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=denisovan-genome

Here is the cave where the remains were discovered.
http://biologos.org/uploads/static-content/denisova_cave.jpg

Who were the Denisovans?
Unfortunately, the Denisovan genome doesn't provide many more clues about what this hominin looked like than a pinky bone does. The researchers will only conclude that Denisovans likely had dark skin. They also note that there are alleles "consistent" with those known to call for brown hair and brown eyes. Other than that, they cannot say.

Yet the new genetic analysis does support the hypothesis that Neandertals and Denisovans were more closely related to one another than either was to modern humans. The analysis suggests that the modern human line diverged from what would become the Denisovan line as long as 700,000 years ago—but possibly as recently as 170,000 years ago.


The Denisovans might be the first non-Neandertal archaic human to be sequenced, but they are likely not going to be the last. The researchers behind this new study are already at work using the new single-strand sequencing technique to reexamine older specimens. (Meyer said they were working on reassessing old samples but would not specify which specimens they were studying—the mysterious "hobbit" H. floresiensis would be a worthy candidate.) Pääbo suggests Asia as a particularly promising location to look for other Denisovan-like groups. "I would be surprised if there were not other groups to be found there in the future," he said.

It's not completely beyond the bounds of possibility that some remnant populations existed almost up to the present day. But do they still exist? It seems unlikely.

Still...there are some BIG forests out there...hmmm.

maninasia

How about the 'Red Deer People'?

http://vampyrefangs.wordpress.com/2012/03/16/an-entirely-new-species-of-human-discovered/

Jimoslimos

Not impossible that there is a hitherto undiscovered large mammalian species but extremely unlikely.

Large animals tend to need more space, for food collection, hunting, etc and population sizes would need to be absurdly small to avoid any contact with humans, leading to inbreeding, population bottlenecks and eventual extinction.

Myrddin

Just bumping this, as there's been some 'developments'

http://beforeitsnews.com/paranormal/2012/11/dr-melba-ketchums-press-release-about-bigfoot-dna-2445438.html

It seems samples of DNA have been analysed from various Bigfoot finds such as hair etc, & the DNA has some interesting traits. One would wonder if the samples were pure, or have been contaminated before being analysed.

Princess Peach

Delighted!

You'd have to wonder who is funding this 5 year expensive study of Bigfoot though? :pac:

Star Lord

That's pretty interesting news!

I gotta admit, on reading that article, the name "Dr. Ketchum" just made the Pokémon theme tune play in my head while picturing her trying to map the genome...

maninasia

I did a google search on her as with a name like that it sounded like a hoax. Well she does exist.

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.tw/2012/01/dr-melba-ketchum-explains-her-bigfoot.html

She claims to have seen Bigfoot herself, 'they are peaceful and gentle'.
Just this claim alone is ridiculous enough.

Then the 'peer reviewed research report' has been due out since 2010. What's keeping her so long?

Human hybrid..you mean human contaminated?

Sounds like somebody drumming up business for her DNA analysis company, or who likes to be in the limelight.

“Our study has sequenced 20 whole mitochondrial genomes and utilized next generation sequencing to obtain 3 whole nuclear genomes from purported Sasquatch samples. The genome sequencing shows that Sasquatch mtDNA is identical to modern Homo sapiens, but Sasquatch nuDNA is a novel, unknown hominin related to Homo sapiens and other primate species. Our data indicate that the North American Sasquatch is a hybrid species, the result of males of an unknown hominin species crossing with female Homo sapiens.

Hominins are members of the taxonomic grouping Hominini, which includes all members of the genus Homo. Genetic testing has already ruled out Homo neanderthalis and the Denisova hominin as contributors to Sasquatch mtDNA or nuDNA. “The male progenitor that contributed the unknown sequence to this hybrid is unique as its DNA is more distantly removed from humans than other recently discovered hominins like the Denisovan individual,” explains Ketchum.

“Sasquatch nuclear DNA is incredibly novel and not at all what we had expected. While it has human nuclear DNA within its genome, there are also distinctly non-human, non-archaic hominin, and non-ape sequences. We describe it as a mosaic of human and novel non-human sequence. Further study is needed and is ongoing to better characterize and understand Sasquatch nuclear DNA.”

I can tell you that this points to contaminating human DNA contributing the mitochondrial DNA, and some unknown animal/animals contributing the rest of the DNA.

Myrddin

maninasia wrote: »

Human hybrid..you mean human contaminated

I have to admit, its a far more likely scenario. I'd definitely be a skeptic when it comes to Bigfoot stuff, but with all stuff of this type, I'd love to be proved wrong. The world should be a far more interesting place than it is!

stoneill

My realist brain doesn't really believe, but it would be so cool if there was Bigfoot!

easygoing39

With so many American's out hunting every year,if Bigfoot did exist you'd think at least one would have been shot?? I liked the "Finding Bigfoot" programmes,plenty of eye witness's,but even the experts never got one on camera.

bombidol

Im highly interested in the subject. Even tried my hand at "Squatching" in the states a few years ago. Im planning a trip to Oregon this year too for a few weeks to do some camping and research.
It's one of those things really. People have the wrong idea of "bigfoot" When you strip it down to its bare facts. Could there be a small population of large apes living in the massive forests of north america? Its possible. I wouldnt believe most of the eye witness accounts or the videos from the last 10 years. Its too easy to warrant the idea of "fame" from a large amount of youtube hits.

Dave!

If you don't believe the eye witness accounts or videos, then why do you believe in Sasquatch?

bombidol

I dont believe ALL the eyewitness reports. I believe that statistically some of them have to be true. With videos, even if half of them are real, they are useless as they are too short, too far away, too vague, too blurry etc. The world wont believe until a body is dragged out of the woods. However, there are thousands who have experienced encounters across north america who KNOW theres something in there. I love the subject, I think theres SOMETHING there. Is it a half human half ape? doubtful, but theres something to it.

Dave!

I reckon that "even if 1% of them are true" notion is what makes a lot of people believe in the paranormal. You can apply it to any supernatural claim really - if even 1% of mediums are legit, if 1% of UFO sightings are real, if 1% of out of body experiences are transcendental... But there's nothing that says "statistically some of them have to be true", that's just an assumption. Once a myth/legend/belief gets some traction, things get a bit muddy, and biases, assumptions and confirmation bias start to play more of a role. There are probably lots of people who claim to have seen the bean sí, and there will continue to be as long as the folklore continues and there continues to be dark, scary, rural areas!

bombidol

The statistic end of things is dicey to be sure. And im surely in no way saying that its a fact that theres something there. BUT I believe it to be so. From my reading and random fact finding over the years ive put my own ideas together. Its too late for a long winding post but I have one in me for this subject. Ill try and get some time together this week to do it.

Myrddin

Dave! wrote: »

I reckon that "even if 1% of them are true" notion is what makes a lot of people believe in the paranormal. You can apply it to any supernatural claim really - if even 1% of mediums are legit, if 1% of UFO sightings are real, if 1% of out of body experiences are transcendental... But there's nothing that says "statistically some of them have to be true", that's just an assumption. Once a myth/legend/belief gets some traction, things get a bit muddy, and biases, assumptions and confirmation bias start to play more of a role. There are probably lots of people who claim to have seen the bean sí, and there will continue to be as long as the folklore continues and there continues to be dark, scary, rural areas!

Definitely +1 to this, the "1%" claim can validate any & all supernatural phenomena, from spirits, banshee's, faeries, to aliens & everything in between.

However, it is somewhat plausible that there is a undiscovered species of large ape out there, Its not as outlandish to believe in a Sasquatch as say a banshee...in my opinion anyway Do I believe in Bigfoot? Hmm, at this pont I'd have to say no. Given they allegedly cross paths with humans so much {which must make them more common than we think}, I find it hard to believe at this stage one hasn't been captured, or even a dead one found. But I'm open to the idea that there's an undiscovered species of large ape out there...so who knows!

bombidol

The dead body argument is moot as the bodies of bears etc are almost never found. Its also been observed with mountain gorillas that they hide their dead. So if we are talking about a tiny population of animal the chances of finding a corpse are pretty slim.

Myrddin

bombidol wrote: »

The dead body argument is moot as the bodies of bears etc are almost never found. Its also been observed with mountain gorillas that they hide their dead. So if we are talking about a tiny population of animal the chances of finding a corpse are pretty slim.

But there's not teams of people & annual bearsquatch visitors looking for dead bear bodies...I'm sure if there were, they'd certainly find some?

Dave!

Well it's not "paranormal" or supernatural, so it's in a different realm to ghosts and goblins and is plausible for sure. Hence why it's more suitable to this forum than Paranormal!

But yeah I tend to believe it's more of a psychocultural phenomenon than anything. Given all of the alleged sightings, often by hunters and the like, it's implausible that no specimen would be found by now.

hollster2

easygoing39 wrote: »

With so many American's out hunting every year,if Bigfoot did exist you'd think at least one would have been shot?? I liked the "Finding Bigfoot" programmes,plenty of eye witness's,but even the experts never got one on camera.

The thing with finding bigfoot they had loads of evidence, they choose not to show it for money the longer they keep the programme going more money they get.

funny the guys name though matt moneymeker.
theres a guy too on youtube squashmaster he goes by was on the show and they said that what he saw was a person when you can clearly see it wasnt ill try to get the link up to show you. hope it works for me hes the most legit videos ive seen!

Myrddin

Dave! wrote: »

Well it's not "paranormal" or supernatural, so it's in a different realm to ghosts and goblins and is plausible for sure. Hence why it's more suitable to this forum than Paranormal!

True, in its mythical form its really only a large ape. If it were proved real, it'd still be only a large ape. Bad term on my part

Myrddin

hollster2 wrote: »

The thing with finding bigfoot they had loads of evidence, they choose not to show it for money the longer they keep the programme going more money they get.

funny the guys name though matt moneymeker.
theres a guy too on youtube squashmaster he goes by was on the show and they said that what he saw was a person when you can clearly see it wasnt ill try to get the link up to show you. hope it works for me hes the most legit videos ive seen!

Would it not work the other way around, if you can 100% prove there's a Bigfoot creature out there surely investors would be rolling the money in to cash in on exposing it to the world?

Also re the video, I find it hard to believe someone would go to the trouble of going Bigfoot hunting & not bring proper camera equipment? The fps of that video is suspiciously low. They never went up to the tree afterwards either, how do we know it wasn't someone dressed up & the tree was weakened beforehand...allowing someone to push/pull it over?

hollster2

EnterNow wrote: »

Would it not work the other way around, if you can 100% prove there's a Bigfoot creature out there surely investors would be rolling the money in to cash in on exposing it to the world?

these guys on youtube have been all told there videos are rubbish by this tv show and loads have refused to appear on it, I still think its money money for them but i totally understand your point.

Also re the video, I find it hard to believe someone would go to the trouble of going Bigfoot hunting & not bring proper camera equipment? The fps of that video is suspiciously low. They never went up to the tree afterwards either, how do we know it wasn't someone dressed up & the tree was weakened beforehand...allowing someone to push/pull it over?

He has proper camera now if you go on youtube you can see all his videos

I understand people think it could be suit, you never know it could have been because of so many hoax videos he has so mant pitures videos up audio why would he go to so much trouble to hoax all these videos!

suppose though people wont believe until proper evidence or its on the news!

Myrddin

hollster2 wrote: »

why would he go to so much trouble to hoax all these videos!

Thats what hoaxers do, thats the kick for them. Look at crop circles, some absolutely savage time & effort gone into some of them & for what?

Star Lord

hollster2 wrote: »

He has proper camera now if you go on youtube you can see all his videos

I've looked at a few of them, the footage doesn't seem to be any better tbh... but he does seem to slow down and smooth the videos, which doesn't help.
A lot of what he seems to be pointing out as sasquaches just seems to be unclear dark/light patches.

hollster2

I know this guy just seems legit then the idiots that dress up in suits! you should check him out!

I believe there real maybe just too much into the hype of it all

ill show you another video from someone else brilliant video stills of pictures he took!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-_H8nbCUYg

hollster2

DamoElDiablo wrote: »

I've looked at a few of them, the footage doesn't seem to be any better tbh... but he does seem to slow down and smooth the videos, which doesn't help.
A lot of what he seems to be pointing out as sasquaches just seems to be unclear dark/light patches.

I understand your point, blobsquatches hopefully soon someone can show us all THAT THERE REAL!

Myrddin

hollster2 wrote: »

ill show you another video from someone else brilliant video stills of pictures he took!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-_H8nbCUYg

Its funny how the suit they recreated to show what the 'confiscated' video showed looks very close to the one in the video. Also re the scale & size comparisons, all that came into my head was the old Ted adage, "These cows are small, but the ones out there...are far away"

Still nothing there that would convince me

hollster2

EnterNow wrote: »

Its funny how the suit they recreated to show what the 'confiscated' video showed looks very close to the one in the video. Also re the scale & size comparisons, all that came into my head was the old Ted adage, "These cows are small, but the ones out there...are far away"

Still nothing there that would convince me

the pictures are real the recreation of the video is fake because that was confiscated, everyone has an opinion maybe im just gullable tryin to convince my partner too, lol well suppose until ppl see hard evidence!

Myrddin

hollster2 wrote: »

the pictures are real the recreation of the video is fake because that was confiscated, everyone has an opinion maybe im just gullable tryin to convince my partner too, lol well suppose until ppl see hard evidence!

Yeah no I know the pics are allegedly real, what I'm saying is its noticeable to me how close the recreation in the video is to to the image in the pictures. If they can make it look somewhat real in a video, surely its not without reason they could make convincing fakes for the pics too.

Your dead right, you have your opinion & your entitled to it. I'm not out to try and change your opinion, I just enjoy the debate is all

hollster2

EnterNow wrote: »

Yeah no I know the pics are allegedly real, what I'm saying is its noticeable to me how close the recreation in the video is to to the image in the pictures. If they can make it look somewhat real in a video, surely its not without reason they could make convincing fakes for the pics too.

Your dead right, you have your opinion & your entitled to it. I'm not out to try and change your opinion, I just enjoy the debate is all

yeah me too! suppose though too those ghullie suits hunters have can be mistaken for a bigfoot well nvr know till someone finds gr8 evidence

Rob Humanoid

I very much doubt it exists tbh... Any evidence presented so far, that I've ever seen anyway, could easily be faked imo.

Brian Shanahan

Princess Peach wrote: »

I believe! Some forests in north America are mahooooosive, and I think the Sasquatch are very small in numbers, and afraid of humans, and also intelligent enough to hide when they feel threatened.

So if the population is so small, how did they not inbreed themselves into non-viability long before now?

And even ignoring the issue of inbreeding causing genetic problems, the generally accepted range for minimum viable population is between 500 and 1,000.

degrassinoel

maybe they're longlived creatures, maybe they live underground, maybe they're just visiting?

maninasia

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

So if the population is so small, how did they not inbreed themselves into non-viability long before now?

And even ignoring the issue of inbreeding causing genetic problems, the generally accepted range for minimum viable population is between 500 and 1,000.

Generally I agree with the above. There is one way they could deal with this, by capturing humans and interbreeding with them. Far fetched, as is the idea of Big Foot itself, but it would offer a way out of this conundrum.

Brian Shanahan

maninasia wrote: »

Generally I agree with the above. There is one way they could deal with this, by capturing humans and interbreeding with them. Far fetched, as is the idea of Big Foot itself, but it would offer a way out of this conundrum.

One of the hallmarks of being a seperate species is generally the inability to breed with members of another, significantly different species, species, and can only happen imperfectly when breeding is possible (e.g. horse donkey crossbreeds mules and jinnys are sterile and cannot themselves breed).

Given the reported differences between humans and bigfoot (yeti, etc.) I would have to say that any members of such a species would be significantly different from modern humans, probably along the levels of the human/chimpanzee divide. Capturing humans for breeding purposes is in all probability non-viable.

maninasia

Ah but is Big Foot, if it exists, really such a different species from humans? It is in fact more likely that if the species exists it is a member of the homo genus, many of which were proven to exist until relatively recently and interbred with modern humans.

Never mind the Neandethals, how about an interesting example only discovered just a few years ago. Three homo species probably lived within 65kms of each other at the same time and also probably interbred. The history of human evolution is far more complex than the present example of Homo Sapiens suggests.

Genetic analysis of the finger bone has since indicated that it was a remnant of
a previously unknown hominin, distinct from both early modern humans and
Neanderthals — the heavily muscled Homo species that cohabited with
Homo sapiens in the region from 50,000 to 30,000 years ago. Early modern
humans, the results suggested, shared parts of Eurasia not only with
Neanderthals but a totally different human-like creature, and all three
probably came into contact (the finger bone was found within 65 miles of known
Neanderthal and modern human sites).

"I speculate that we may discover that it is an oversimplification to talk
about particular exodus events from Africa," says Pääbo. "There might have
instead been a continuous gene flow and migration."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1974903,00.html#ixzz2MhQCOLcw

What's interesting about the Denisovians is that they have been proven to exist from genetic sequencing of DNA from a finger bone and almost no fossil remains exist.

So, what's to say that the Denisovians or some other Homo species didn't exist in N.America too and hadn't crossed the ice bridge from Asia 10,000s of years ago? It's always a possibility. Did they go extinct already if they existed in N.America. Most likely. But who knows whats out there in the woods .

Brian Shanahan

maninasia wrote: »

Ah but is Big Foot, if it exists, really such a different species from humans? It is in fact more likely that if the species exists it is a member of the homo genus, many of which were proven to exist until relatively recently and interbred with modern humans.

We don't know, but given the differences between human physiology and what little has been "reported"* of bigfoot physiology, it is reasonable to state that there is a greater than 99% probability that the two species (if bigfoot exists) will not be close enough genetically to interbreed^.

* I fail to see how a few shaky cam recordings of very bad quality amount to evidence, therefore the quote marks.

^ This is the think I hate the most about the Star Trex series, how different species from across the galaxy can interbreed. It is exacerbated in the excerable "Dear Doctor", where we've got two species on the same planet who are incompatible genetically.