Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
bball

Promising bigfoot evidence

35 posts in this topic

*DISCLAIMER* If you haven't seen this documentary yet, DO NOT READ ON! I just wanted to post this while it was still fresh in my mind.

I just finished watching the History Channel's Monster Quest. This one was about bigfoot. It had some really interesting finds.

The team traveled to northern Ontario, Canada. They stayed in a cabin with a history of bigfoot encounters. Some very compelling things happened. A group of fishermen who stayed in the cabin a year or so ago, left a piece of plywood with screws sticking out of it, pointed upwards. This is layed down in front of the entrance to the cabin, for when the group goes out on prolonged fishing trips, to protect the cabin. Well in this particular instance, something with an apparently large print stepped on the screws. It left blood, hair, and tissue samples. Well, they gathered these things, and would analyze them later.

In the meantime, they showed other various stories, including a diary found in the cabin from ten years ago, describing more possible bigfoot evidence in the area.

The last night the team was there, they got rocks thrown at them! One guy even threw a rock back into the woods, and immediately a rock was hurled back from at them from the woods. Cool stuff!

Anyways, the hair underwent visual observations, and the scientists determined it to not be any known animal, or human.

They were able to extract DNA and determined that it was not human and not known ape, but somewhere in between. It should be noted that they only so far have gotten one sample of DNA, and it is ONLY a 1 in 5,000 chance that the DNA, from the blood is human. So this looks promising. Feel free to add anything I am forgetting, or elaborate further onto what I have mentioned. :)

Edited by bball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah! I heard about that show on history channel, but I'm not a big foot fan all that much. History channel's usually good quality. That's intresting about the DNA, though if it were ever discovered to truly be linked I'm sure it'd be in the major headlines...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darn I missed it last night but I can watch it this weekend. I'm actually surprised at the results. This is the first time I have seen someone say that the DNA is somewhere between man and ape. Although, this is not convincing enough to lead me to believe that there is bigfoot. It could just be another undiscovered primate. But I am definitely excited about watching it since it seems to be better than last week's episode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey i saw that show

it was incredible

it got me into believing more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I recall, human and chimp DNA has 20 something or so different markers between it. This DNA was identical to human DNA less ONE marker. Which means at the very least its some form of mild human mutation, hence the 1 in 5000 chance its NOT human, unless I got that backwards. Overall, pretty interesting, and I hope they keep up the research in this direction. By the way, the hair appeared to be human, and was fairly long, but it was uncut. It had a natural end, like maybe an arm or leg hair, but...it was oddly long. To me, that was the oddest bit of physical visual evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't buy any of the DNA evidence. They had to do chemical isolation on the inhibitors and the only person who did it was the guy the show was about. The independent lab didn't get squat. I don't trust it. Also, Meldrum has finally lost any and all scientific credibility (if he had any left) with his huge leaps of logic based on no evidence. Note as well, the naturalist looking at the hair is dead wrong about bears in the winter. It is not that unusual for black bears to break hibernation at times during the winter.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't buy any of the DNA evidence. They had to do chemical isolation on the inhibitors and the only person who did it was the guy the show was about. The independent lab didn't get squat. I don't trust it. Also, Meldrum has finally lost any and all scientific credibility (if he had any left) with his huge leaps of logic based on no evidence. Note as well, the naturalist looking at the hair is dead wrong about bears in the winter. It is not that unusual for black bears to break hibernation at times during the winter.

actually to tell you the truth its not common

it actually is unsually for a bear to break hibernation and wander off

it can happen but its rare

also the lab results were very acurate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
actually to tell you the truth its not common

it actually is unsually for a bear to break hibernation and wander off

it can happen but its rare

also the lab results were very acurate

Black bears are actually known to sleepwalk in search of food in the winter. They will also leave a den if there is a couple days of warmer than usual weather feed then return to their den if it gets cold again. As for the lab results, all I'll say is, how do you know? These aren't published findings that can be reviewed. This is just some guy on a sensationalist TV show, with a vested interest in the show, saying what HIS findings were. Findings that weren't even backed up by an independent lab or published in any journal. It's TV. What kind of show would they have if he didn't at least say something was strange?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't buy any of the DNA evidence. They had to do chemical isolation on the inhibitors and the only person who did it was the guy the show was about. The independent lab didn't get squat. I don't trust it. Also, Meldrum has finally lost any and all scientific credibility (if he had any left) with his huge leaps of logic based on no evidence. Note as well, the naturalist looking at the hair is dead wrong about bears in the winter. It is not that unusual for black bears to break hibernation at times during the winter.

Capeos right we have major year long problem with what I am sure is the same bear.

Edited by Stixxman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still intrigued by the DNA. I sincerely hope these folks are being honest and genuine. Tho it would not be the first time I was disappointed and called for the head of some dill-weed out to make a buck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any evidence they find will be "inconclusive", that's the way these shows work, they'll give you just enough to come back for more. IMO, any honest and sincere investigations done on 'Ol Footy, are...unfortunately...the ones you never hear about, until they actually have something concrete. Those are the researchers with integrity, the rest are P.T. Barnum incarnate...IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only saw part of the show, and missed the rock-tossing and lab testing. :o

I think they should send the CSI team into Bigfoot country. They'll have Biggie ID'd, cuffed, and booked within an hour.

Then afterward, Marg Helgenberger can come over to my house for 'tea and debriefing'. :innocent:

Edited by BigDaddy_GFS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I only saw part of the show, and missed the rock-tossing and lab testing. :o

I think they should send the CSI team into Bigfoot country. They'll have Biggie ID'd, cuffed, and booked within an hour.

Then afterward, Marg Helgenberger can come over to my house for 'tea and debriefing'. :innocent:

Helgenberger grew up in a neighboring town. A friend's brother dated her in high school. Mmmmmmm, Marg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, I hate living in third world country wihout a cable TV!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black bears are actually known to sleepwalk in search of food in the winter. They will also leave a den if there is a couple days of warmer than usual weather feed then return to their den if it gets cold again. As for the lab results, all I'll say is, how do you know? These aren't published findings that can be reviewed. This is just some guy on a sensationalist TV show, with a vested interest in the show, saying what HIS findings were. Findings that weren't even backed up by an independent lab or published in any journal. It's TV. What kind of show would they have if he didn't at least say something was strange?

Well I wonder about a couple things here.

1. Seeing as how most would consider cryptozoology a psuedoscience, is it possible that they would be hesitant to publish their results? Because admittingly they still haven't found anything conclusive.

2. Yes, it is TV, but the whole investigation, was sponsored and backed by the History Channel. Couldn't it be possible that since it is a History Channel production, anything that is found, would have to wait until the program comes on, to be released?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Fair enough, keep me informed, Bbal. Word up mah brotha!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I wonder about a couple things here.

1. Seeing as how most would consider cryptozoology a psuedoscience, is it possible that they would be hesitant to publish their results? Because admittingly they still haven't found anything conclusive.

2. Yes, it is TV, but the whole investigation, was sponsored and backed by the History Channel. Couldn't it be possible that since it is a History Channel production, anything that is found, would have to wait until the program comes on, to be released?

1. Proper protocol would still be to have three or more independent labs concur with your findings before even announcing them. That's the problems I have with these shows. They're less science and more sensation and they always amount to nothing.

2. Such isn't the case when they are actually following real researchers. Everything of scientific important that I've ever seen covered by the Discovery Channel family of networks I've read published material about it long before a show was made of it. Mainly because new scientific discoveries must be published and reviewed prior to a researcher coming out with bold claims. Now, in the last decade I've watched a steady decline in the quality of the science on display on DC and NG channels. They've moved to more and more towards simplified or sensationalist, ratings grabbing junk, which is disappointing. They also have no problem with hosts of their shows implying completely unfounded claims. It seems like only PBS doesn't think we're all idiots nowadays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darn I missed it last night but I can watch it this weekend. I'm actually surprised at the results. This is the first time I have seen someone say that the DNA is somewhere between man and ape. Although, this is not convincing enough to lead me to believe that there is bigfoot. It could just be another undiscovered primate. But I am definitely excited about watching it since it seems to be better than last week's episode.

uhhhh isn't that what "Big Foot" is?? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I must admit, that if this is true and not some TV sensation then I am impressed. But that's an if.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can someone find me Ostman's audio I wanna hear it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why doesn't someone record this damned show and release it on the Internet for us Canadians? =(

I agree though, I'd have had the samples analysed at several different labs and had some nice analyses written up. Seems odd, somehow, the way it sounds like they went about it, and of course very coincidental that they happened to have an experience while there. xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. This is proof! They got hair and blood samples........... At least 5 years ago. What came of this?

I surmise the same thing that comes from everything to do with bigfoot.

Nowt!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it turned out to be a bear. Either way it wasn't the big guy. As is the case with all these bigfoot DNA claims it just died on the vine just like ketchum's is doing now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's sort of like "Finding Bigfoot", they go out and do the same things every week and never actually find a Bigfoot. I think people are getting tired of not having any results. However, they go, visit with witness', do a recreation, have a town meeting, go out at night looking around in the dark.....with a camera crew, they hear something in the dark, the FLIR sees nothing, they declare they were successful and leave for the next location.

They couldn't find my dirty underwear in my bathroom doing what they're doing.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Wow. This is proof! They got hair and blood samples........... At least 5 years ago. What came of this?

I surmise the same thing that comes from everything to do with bigfoot.

Nowt!

Initially Curt Nelson, biologist from U of Minnesota, part of the team from Sasquatch Attack I analyzed the samples and concluded they were (nonhuman) primate. One time the narrator said “nonhuman primate” another time just “primate”.

In the second episode Sasquatch Attacks II the one hair and 2 tissue-type samples from the nail board were taken to a lab better able to deal with “unknown” specimens at the University of Guelph.

However, the Guelph lab concluded they were from harmless fungi and bacteria from soil or water and there was no animal or primate DNA.

Why the discrepancy? MonsterQuest offered: 1. The first sample tested was contaminated with human DNA or 2. the second testing sample was too degraded.

(I have a third possibility: the one given by Guelph)

There was another alleged attack on the cabin when some fisherman were staying there. A hair was found on a fishing rod case thought to have possibly been thrown at the cabin by the creature. The hair was analyzed by a lab called microtrace and found to be bleached human head hair. (probably the guy’s wife, my guess)

The narrator kept changing the years it seemed to me. That is why I did not list any. But all the above happened apparently from 2005-2008. Whoever edits or fact checks this show does a crappy job.

In the states we can purchase these episodes on I-Tunes etc.

Edited by QuiteContrary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.