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 1
the14u2cee

Did History Channel find Bigfoot

795 posts in this topic

In its new show "MonsterQuest," an adventurous group braved the wilderness to see if "Big Foot" actually lives in Ontario, Canada.

Scientists Kurt Nelson and Jeff Meldrum spent five days with a video and audio crew at a cabin in the utterly remote Snelgrove Lake, pulling DNA samples from the trap and exploring the forest.

The show has caused a stir among enthusiasts because it has gotten so close to proving the Sasquatch monster may, in fact, exist.

The show made "contact" with the thing on its last night of filming.

"A stone was thrown at about 2 a.m.," executive producer Doug Hajibeck told The Post. "That stone hit like a bullet. It was thrown with amazing accuracy

http://www.nypost.com/seven/11092007/tv/di...oot__713410.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone threw a stone onto the roof of the cabin. The LOGICAL conclusion is that it was a backpacker or hiker or someone doing mischief at night, or --gasp!-- the film crew themselves.

As for the DNA--inconclusive, as everyone knew it would be.

Why? Because there is no such thing as bigfoot. Biologically, the number necessary to sustain a breeding population from extinction dictates that they could not stay undetected for so long, with no skeletal remains ever being found.

"A stone was thrown at about 2 a.m.," executive producer Doug Hajibeck told The Post. "That stone hit like a bullet. It was thrown with amazing accuracy

riiiiggghhhttt..... because human beings are not capable of hitting the roof of a cabin with a rock....or throwing a fastball with some heat on it...give me a break.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The show was good, but the dna had been too digraded to be conclusive. What I couldn't understand was that if bigfoot comes by the cabin on a regular basis, why dont they set up those internet cameras for a year round investigation. That makes the most sense. It seems to me they want the ratings and not much else. The film crew probably threw the rocks.

Edited by Eric Raven The Skeptic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to take any article which claims to have found "the missing link" seriously.

As for the DNA--inconclusive, as everyone knew it would be.

linked-image

When DNA is in good condition and we can positively identify it, it's always traced back to a known animal. When it's in bad condition and can't be identified...it must be bigfoot! Am I right?

Edited by Raptor X7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone threw a stone onto the roof of the cabin. The LOGICAL conclusion is that it was a backpacker or hiker or someone doing mischief at night, or --gasp!-- the film crew themselves.

As for the DNA--inconclusive, as everyone knew it would be.

Why? Because there is no such thing as bigfoot. Biologically, the number necessary to sustain a breeding population from extinction dictates that they could not stay undetected for so long, with no skeletal remains ever being found.

riiiiggghhhttt..... because human beings are not capable of hitting the roof of a cabin with a rock....or throwing a fastball with some heat on it...give me a break.

Didn't read the article, eh? The DNA was inclusivie as far as not knowing what exactly it is, but for now it is known what it isn't, human. And don't forget the hair that didn't match anything. I watched the show but a quote from the article sums it up in a few words good enough to get the point across.

The hair did not match any known North American bear or animal and tests showed an uncanny similarity to human DNA with one exception: the irregular DNA matched that of a primate.

And it is well known that stone throwing is a habit of primates, (not just humans either). The cabin they stayed in is 200 miles from the nearest town. And they only way to get their is by plane or boat. No roads. Or...if you want to make the argument someone hiked a couple hundred miles through the forest, go ahead, but THAT is illogical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When DNA is in good condition and we can positively identify it, it's always traced back to a known animal. When it's in bad condition and can't be identified...it must be bigfoot! Am I right?

yup. the results, after much manipulation of the sample to get something readable, was something part human, part unidentifiable.

the LOGICAL conclusion is either a mix of human and animal DNA, or unintentional human contamination of the sample.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an article from Doug Hajicek, Producer/Monsterquest for The History Channel

<a href="http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/mq-hajicek/" target="_blank">http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/mq-hajicek/</a>

And to give them a little credit, it was a while before they even mentioned the attack on the cabin or the sample they got from the nail board device, also, they could have easily stated that they personally saw a BigFoot/sasquatch while in or out of the cabin but have not done so.

Edited by the14u2cee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not going to take any article which claims to have found "the missing link" seriously.

linked-image

When DNA is in good condition and we can positively identify it, it's always traced back to a known animal. When it's in bad condition and can't be identified...it must be bigfoot! Am I right?

Who says anything about the hair being in bad shape? Anyways, the article isn't responsible for anything. They are just giving a very brief overview of what the episode of 'Monster Quest' showed us last week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didn't read the article, eh?

No. I watched the show.

Or...if you want to make the argument someone hiked a couple hundred miles through the forest, go ahead, but THAT is illogical.

No it's not. I am a long distance backpacker. And I'm the kind of person who, if I was on a week long hike and I came across a bunch of people trying to find bigfoot...I sure as heck would have fun with that.

A long distance backpacker or a hoax is far more logical than a mythical creature who has managed to sustain a breeding population for years and years but that doesn't leave any skeletal remains....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. I watched the show.

No it's not. I am a long distance backpacker. And I'm the kind of person who, if I was on a week long hike and I came across a bunch of people trying to find bigfoot...I sure as heck would have fun with that.

A long distance backpacker or a hoax is far more logical than a mythical creature who has managed to sustain a breeding population for years and years but that doesn't leave any skeletal remains....

How many bear, deer, cougar skeletons have you ever seen, combined? My guess would be between 0-1.

Edited by bball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone threw a stone onto the roof of the cabin. The LOGICAL conclusion is that it was a backpacker or hiker or someone doing mischief at night, or --gasp!-- the film crew themselves.

As for the DNA--inconclusive, as everyone knew it would be.

Why? Because there is no such thing as bigfoot. Biologically, the number necessary to sustain a breeding population from extinction dictates that they could not stay undetected for so long, with no skeletal remains ever being found.

riiiiggghhhttt..... because human beings are not capable of hitting the roof of a cabin with a rock....or throwing a fastball with some heat on it...give me a break.

And where did you see that the rock was thrown on the ROOF a cabin? Oh yeah thats right it did not say that your making things up!

Edited by Enigma wrapped in a puzzle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How many bear, deer, cougar skeletons have you ever seen, combined? My guess would be between 0-1.

You would be right...but I'm not a scientist and I've probably walked by several bear carcases and not even noticed or seen them. If i was a biologist doing a survey of bears, I would undoubtedly have seen them and known where to look. Plus, people have seen bear and cougar skeletons. (I've seen many dear skeletons, by the way. this is probably becasue deer are prey, while cougars and bears and other apex predators usually go someplace isolated and hidden to die.)

Because a certain number of breeding pairs is necessary to sustain a species...and this number undoubtedly leaves behind skeletal remains that people find. If enough "bigfeet" existed to keep a population alive over time, undoubtedly someone would have come across a body at some point, and undoubtedly called the authorities, as they are supposed to resemble people.

It's that simple...a breeding population can not remain hidden forever.

And where did you see that the rock was thrown on the ROOF a cabin? Oh yeah thats right it did not say that your making things up!

I saw the show. And what difference does it make if someone threw a rock at the roof or the wall? None.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Television is controlled by the FCC, which is controlled by the government... Which is Satan incarnate!

I don't know about you but I wouldn't trust the information that Satan gives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Television is controlled by the FCC, which is controlled by the government

Actually, the FCC only has say over content on the airwaves. Cable and Sattelite are not subject to the FCC, as I understand it.

Still doesnt' change the fact that bigfoot doesn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You would be right...but I'm not a scientist and I've probably walked by several bear carcases and not even noticed or seen them. If i was a biologist doing a survey of bears, I would undoubtedly have seen them and known where to look. Plus, people have seen bear and cougar skeletons. (I've seen many dear skeletons, by the way. this is probably becasue deer are prey, while cougars and bears and other apex predators usually go someplace isolated and hidden to die.)

Because a certain number of breeding pairs is necessary to sustain a species...and this number undoubtedly leaves behind skeletal remains that people find. If enough "bigfeet" existed to keep a population alive over time, undoubtedly someone would have come across a body at some point, and undoubtedly called the authorities, as they are supposed to resemble people.

It's that simple...a breeding population can not remain hidden forever.

It's not that simple. Take this show for example. These people were way out in the middle of nowhere, when they had a bigfoot type encounter. Now if you concede that if alive, and indeed this was a real bigfoot, it becomes apparent that in such a huge amount of land space, with absolutely very few people ever going into the forest, (much less deep into the forest), your chances of stumbling across a skeleton become next to nothing, when you consider how fast carcasses decompose, and just the sheer vastness of the wilderness.

Check out this video, it gives a nice fast-motion example of how fast a carcass decomposes. Click me. I don't know the elapsed time of deer carcass, but my guess, very rough guess based on the video, is 7-10 days.

Actually, the FCC only has say over content on the airwaves. Cable and Sattelite are not subject to the FCC, as I understand it.

Still doesnt' change the fact that bigfoot doesn't exist.

Proof?

Edit-Crazy, I replied to the second part after this first part of my post, and it automatically inserted it into this post.

Edited by bball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now if you concede that if alive, and indeed this was a real bigfoot, it becomes apparent that in such a huge amount of land space, with absolutely very few people ever going into the forest, (much less deep into the forest), your chances of stumbling across a skeleton become next to nothing, when you consider how fast carcasses decompose, and just the sheer vastness of the wilderness.

Are they just using a very good form of birth controll, then? Because it is the nature of species to reproduce until they overpopulate their range.

Even a decomposed carcas leaves bones for years and years.

All logic and common sense, and science, point to the very high unlikelyhood of any bigfoot existing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are they just using a very good form of birth controll, then? Because it is the nature of species to reproduce until they overpopulate their range.

Yes...because black bears are running rampid and taking over. *sarcasm off*

Even a decomposed carcas leaves bones for years and years.

Not exactly what that video clip showed. And then you have to account for all the debris that would cover up what few bones are left.

All logic and common sense, and science, point to the very high unlikelyhood of any bigfoot existing.

Except the science involved in this very epidsode of 'Monster Quest' we are discussing. And just making sure you know it is no fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And where did you see that the rock was thrown on the ROOF a cabin? Oh yeah thats right it did not say that your making things up!

It was on the show. Before you comment, watch the show. You make yourself look bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Common sense has been wrong before, and in no means am i saying that a Bigfoot exists, but to me it is still possible for such a large primate to live and die out in the wilderness such as in Canada..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes...because black bears are running rampid and taking over.

Actually, there IS a problem with black bears all over the areas in which I backpack throughout New York and Pennslyvania. In nearl all areas, we have to hang food 100 yards away from camp to keep the bears from coming into camp, and in some areas the problem is so bad that hanging food isn't even an option, it has to be stored away from camp in a bear proof cannister. There are programs to relocate problem bears as well. so yea, they are breeding to the limit of their habitat, like all species will do.

And then you have to account for all the debris that would cover up what few bones are left.

this might be true for one or two or even three or five specimins. But all the bigfeet over all the years? It's nearly a certainity that bones would be discovered at some point.

Look, I'm coming at this from the standpoint of a biology student and the science I studdied as such. If you want to disregard that and get your science from the history channel show called monster quest, go ahead.

You are being irrational, however. You are ignoring science in order to make your fantasy seem more realistic.

Common sense has been wrong before, and in no means am i saying that a Bigfoot exists, but to me it is still possible for such a large primate to live and die out in the wilderness such as in Canada..

Not a breeding size population. An individual or even a few individuals, but the size population to exist and not be documented, for no carcases to be found ever, would be too small to sustain the species.

sorry folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with neognosis. There would have to be a couple hundred bigfoots just to keep the population going for a few generations. If no bones or anything is found, then the logical conclusion is that bigfoot does not exist. I watched this episode and I am sure some of the stuff was made up just to attract viewers. Just because someone throws a rock at the cabin doesn't automatically mean its bigfoot. I'm willing to bet money that it was either a hiker playing a joke or someone from the filming crew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack Link Beef Jerky should think about making a follow-up commercial called "Messin' with People Who Want to Believe in Sasquatch" :tu:

We'll have them toss jerky at the roof instead of a stone :lol:

Edited by crtbud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Common sense has been wrong before, and in no means am i saying that a Bigfoot exists, but to me it is still possible for such a large primate to live and die out in the wilderness such as in Canada..

BLAME CANADA SOME MORE! :angry: "Where are the WMD's George" "The terrorists have hid them in the vastness of Canadia!"

Sasquatch do originate in BC though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally caught the show, it was pretty cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did ya have to bring Bush into this :blink: For every person you can bring that says he doesnt exsist, i can bring two that say they do and so on, and so on....

Remember, i did not say he is there, i said it is possible.....Bones not being seen are not valid proof they do not roam around, I have an open mind...

Just because we don't have an Alein TV station broadcasting from space with their soap opera's on doesnt mean there not out there. :alien:

Common sense said that coelacanths died out a long, long time ago

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 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.