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
Socio

Sasquatch DNA Study Announcement

275 posts in this topic

That's really the way of it.

The whole search for Bigfoot has taken on a strange sort of direction now. Much as I hate to agree with Rick Dyer, he did make a valid point in that he said it's become more about social networking. Now, before Gorillas were "officially discovered" there were body parts you could buy in various market places. Seems the natives believed they had magical powers associated with them. However, when it comes to Bigfoot, we don't have that much. Some fuzzy videos and pictures, shoot the best film to date is the PG film and no one can seem decide if it's real or a fake and all this after forty-four years of scrutiny and no bodies, no skeletons, nothing really.

Now, there have been credible people who have come forward, but they have nothing but their story for the most part to offer up. Which can't be considered proof of anything really, it's just an interesting story.

Personally, I think before long someone will find a body or skeleton or shoot one and the mystic' will be all be over. Although, I'm not sure I quite agree with you not needing to know anything about the creature in order to discover it. Granted, if you just happen upon one by happenstance and you shoot it or get DNA from it then, yeah I see your point. The trick is that's what we have to do when hunting for one because we really don't understand anything about them. Yeah, footprints and such but other than that, what else do you have? Truth is not much.

Now, I do know that there are at least a couple guys actively looking for signs.......and I wish more than anything I could join them in their efforts, but for now, I'm pretty much stuck on line same as most anyone else.

Keninsc,,

When was the last time enyone ever claimed to see a red wolf or found remains of a red wolf in the woods?

When was the last time someone saw red wolf poop in the woods?

I hate to tell you but claimed sightings of bigfoot are far more common than sightings of the red wolf.

does that mean the red wolf cannot exist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick note to say that many animals known to man have some rather unique and interesting abilities.

As an example, people knew that the American ratler (snake) can go hunting down a mouse in the wild and go right to the mouse's location and get him

every single time. But they never knew how the snake could always be right.

Then they tested the snake in a lab. They hid a mouse in a huge temperature controlled room, brought the hungry snake in and let him go.

The snake would look around for a while, and then suddenly, zoom! - right to the exact spot the mouse was hidden, every time!

So they got cute with the snake :--)

they made the room temperature the same as the mouse's body temperature. Then they brought in the hungry snake. He did nothing,.

But as long as the room temperature was more than 1/10 of a degree (F) above or below the mouse's body temperature,

the snake would always find the mouse.

Got it figured out? Yup, the ratler has infrared vision and can "see" heat. But who knew?!

Now who really knows what unique ability a BF may have? we cannot say for sure that it must have the same abilities as other apes

because that would be tantamount to saying a ratler can only have abilities like other snakes. 'taint not so!

the only way you can be certain is to *catch* one.

peace love dove

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

"Things far weirder than Bigfoot and living in far more inaccessible locations."

And just how do you know exactly how weird BigFoot really is?

thank you for proving my point :--)

He's a large hominid that lives in the forests of North America. How weird can such a creature be?

Weirder and harder to find than cavefish that have no eyes and are adapted to living in total darkness in deep caves?

Weirder and harder to find than giant tubeworms that live miles under the ocean and feed off the energy from volcanic vents?

Weirder and harder to find than the one inch long 750 legged millipede species that lives entirely within a 2 square mile area of California, which was first spotted in 1926 and not rediscovered for 80 years? (yes, that's a real thing - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illacme_plenipes)

No, he's a large primate that lives in forests. What could he possibly have other than some camouflage system entirely unknown in any other mammals that makes it impossible for him to be found? This is just an appeal to magic. And I see it all the time in bigfoot discussions - maybe we can't find bigfoot because he was all sort of super powers that prevent him from being found. Despite some people claiming there are 50,000 of them (more than the brown bear population of the USA of which there is no shortage of amazing photography and video) he's impossible to find or photograph and apparently leaves nothing but very questionable traces of things like hair.

Edited by Archimedes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Just a quick note to say that many animals known to man have some rather unique and interesting abilities.

As an example, people knew that the American ratler (snake) can go hunting down a mouse in the wild and go right to the mouse's location and get him

every single time. But they never knew how the snake could always be right.

Then they tested the snake in a lab. They hid a mouse in a huge temperature controlled room, brought the hungry snake in and let him go.

The snake would look around for a while, and then suddenly, zoom! - right to the exact spot the mouse was hidden, every time!

So they got cute with the snake :--)

they made the room temperature the same as the mouse's body temperature. Then they brought in the hungry snake. He did nothing,.

But as long as the room temperature was more than 1/10 of a degree (F) above or below the mouse's body temperature,

the snake would always find the mouse.

Got it figured out? Yup, the ratler has infrared vision and can "see" heat. But who knew?!

Now who really knows what unique ability a BF may have? we cannot say for sure that it must have the same abilities as other apes

because that would be tantamount to saying a ratler can only have abilities like other snakes. 'taint not so!

the only way you can be certain is to *catch* one.

peace love dove

Rattlesnakes are not special, or unique when it comes to pit organs. There are over 150 species of pit vipers in the Americas, and Asia. Boas (40 species) and pythons (7 species) also have pit organs. The only unique thing about rattlers is their rattles which serves as a warning system.

Edited by evancj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

No, he's a large primate that lives in forests. What could he possibly have other than some camouflage system entirely unknown in any other mammals that makes it impossible for him to be found?

If it's ears were larger and more circular than a humans, a set of radar dish ears would come in handy. If it were tall, muscular, and bi/quadrapdal, it could out maneuver anyone or anything in the forest. If it had a broad flat nose with large nostrils, it would probably have a keen sense of smell also. No magic needed.

Evan, speaking of rattlers, we have to be carefull around here because the eastern diamond backs (through (un)natural selection) don't rattle when you near them. I guess the only ones that survived were the ones that don't make any noise.

Edited by Stardrive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's ears were larger and more circular than a humans, a set of radar dish ears would come in handy. If it were tall, muscular, and bi/quadrapdal, it could out maneuver anyone or anything in the forest. If it had a broad flat nose with large nostrils, it would probably have a keen sense of smell also. No magic needed.

A keen sense of smell, great hearing and being quick on the move doesn't make an animal invisible to cameras.

Since when has any of those things made it impossible to take a clear photograph or video footage of an animal? Especially an animal that is described as being 8ft tall and 500lbs?

Wildlife photographers regularly track down and get amazing pictures and footage of creatures that are fast and agile with amazing senses and that live in extreme remote areas.

Why not bigfoot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when has any of those things made it impossible to take a clear photograph or video footage of an animal? Especially an animal that is described as being 8ft tall and 500lbs?

Wildlife photographers regularly track down and get amazing pictures and footage of creatures that are fast and agile with amazing senses and that live in extreme remote areas.

Why not bigfoot?

Even if there were clear photographs, would you not call hoax on them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if there were clear photographs, would you not call hoax on them?

If there were hundreds or thousands of clear, high definition photographs of Bigfoot (like there are with many of animals that even more rare than the big guy), then many of us would have to accept that they exist.

I will gladly come on board once we have those photographs in hand and cataloged.

Here's the list of the rarest mammals on the planet:

http://www.greenexpander.com/2007/10/01/the-10-rarest-animals-in-the-world/

In some cases there are fewer than 100 in the wild and, hey look, crystal clear photographs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And just how long has HD photography been around? Photo's can be hoaxed and manipulated and your reply didn't really answer my question. Good counter-point, but it's comparing apples to oranges.

I was wondering Rafterman, I read on here where alot of folks are internet squatchers. Why hasn't anyone started a topic on it? Seems like it would generate some interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wildlife photographers regularly track down and get amazing pictures and footage of creatures that are fast and agile with amazing senses and that live in extreme remote areas.

Why not bigfoot?

Have any of these same wildlife photographers you speak of gone out to specifically get an HD pic of bf?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And just how long has HD photography been around? Photo's can be hoaxed and manipulated and your reply didn't really answer my question. Good counter-point, but it's comparing apples to oranges.

I was wondering Rafterman, I read on here where alot of folks are internet squatchers. Why hasn't anyone started a topic on it? Seems like it would generate some interest.

I'll be generous and say that the ability to take high resolution photographs and high definition video has been around for a decade or so. Plenty of time for there to be hundreds if not thousands of photos of old squatch. We don't seem to have any problems taking such photos of even more rare creatures as I stated above. And yes, while the one-oft photo can be hoaxed or manipulated, one would think we would reach a point where the amount of high quality photographic evidence was so significant, that it could no longer be questioned.

And no, that's not apples and oranges.

I have no idea what you mean by "internet squatchers".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have any of these same wildlife photographers you speak of gone out to specifically get an HD pic of bf?

Yes. If not professional wildlife photographers, then certainly amateurs. I believe there's even a television show about it called Finding something or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be generous and say that the ability to take high resolution photographs and high definition video has been around for a decade or so. Plenty of time for there to be hundreds if not thousands of photos of old squatch.

Right. 10 years is plenty of time for wildlife photographers to get out there to specifically get an HD pic of a squatch. Have they attempted that yet?

We don't seem to have any problems taking such photos of even more rare creatures as I stated above. And yes, while the one-oft photo can be hoaxed or manipulated, one would think we would reach a point where the amount of high quality photographic evidence was so significant, that it could no longer be questioned.

And no, that's not apples and oranges.

What I meant was, you're implying that taking an HD pic of a BF is no different than taking an HD pic of any other rare animal. Really?? you see no difference? So it's the same difficulty factor taking an HD pic of a Kangaroo as it is a Snow Leopard?

I have no idea what you mean by "internet squatchers".

I'll have to show you, it's badass and alot of fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. If not professional wildlife photographers, then certainly amateurs. I believe there's even a television show about it called Finding something or another.

If the source was an amateur, down in flames it goes. The show Finding whatever isn't about getting any kind of conclusive evidence. It's for entertainment only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And just how long has HD photography been around?

A lot longer than digital photography has been around. 35mm film has been capturing crystal clear video and photographs of rare animals for a long time. Until recently, film photography was still the standard for the likes of landscape photography, portraits and wedding photos, etc. because until the recent advent of 20Mp+ digital cameras, it could actually capture more detail than and digital cameras. Digital photography is simply far more convenient for obvious reasons.

Professional photographers have been capturing 'high definition' colour photographs of wildlife for decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right. 10 years is plenty of time for wildlife photographers to get out there to specifically get an HD pic of a squatch. Have they attempted that yet?
Isn't the onus on the bigfoot hunters claiming he exists to go out there and get the photographs? If none (or hardly any) have attempted to get decent quality photos of bigfoot, then what does that tell you about how serious they are about their quest to prove his existence? And 10 years is a serious underestimate for the time hd photography has been around, like I already said, 35mm film in a decent camera more than qualifies as high definition.

If I was a bigfoot hunter, a digital SLR with a zoom lens would be part of my standard kit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You sir are correct. HD technology has been around for a while, albiet that type of pre-digital photography was very cumbersome to transport, set-up, and maintain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the onus on the bigfoot hunters claiming he exists to go out there and get the photographs? I

For some I guess. But I can't seem to get him to come out into the open and pose for a nice shot.

If I was a bigfoot hunter, a digital SLR with a zoom lens would be part of my standard kit.

I have an old dinosaur Sony video cam. It takes nice pics but the resolution is poor. What I have in mind is something about cell-phone sized that can take high quality/resolution sound, video, and pictures. Any suggestions? Something that doesn't look like the standard camera/video cam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Photo's can be hoaxed and manipulated and your reply didn't really answer my question.

Photos certainly can be hoaxed. But if you're familiar with photo manipulation you'll know that it is far easier to manipulate and hoax poor quality photos. It's not too hard to hoax a monster or ghost or whatever into an image, and then deliberately degrade the quality of the image by reducing the resolution, adding noise or grain, blurring it a bit, etc.

I don't know the origins of the following pic, but it's not hard to imagine how it could have been photoshopped or that it's some dude in an ape costume or just a blurry picture of a gorilla.

bigfoot_bear_032010b.jpg

On the other hand, it's a hell of a lot harder to hoax any of the really good quality amateur and professional wildlife photography that exists. Do a Google image search for gorilla, orangutan, chimpanzee, etc. and then do one for bigfoot. The whole subject of bigfoot is too much like other fringe areas, full of excuses for the lack of evidence or poor quality of the evidence.

Edited by Archimedes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You sir are correct. HD technology has been around for a while, albiet that type of pre-digital photography was very cumbersome to transport, set-up, and maintain.

Pre-digital SLRs were no bigger or cumbersome than current models. 35mm SLRs generally use the same body style and size as digital SLRs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

For some I guess. But I can't seem to get him to come out into the open and pose for a nice shot.

Forest dwelling wildlife in general doesn't come out and pose for photographers but that hasn't prevented innumerable quality pics from both amateurs and pros from being taken of all sorts of weird and wonderful and sometimes extremely rare forest species.
I have an old dinosaur Sony video cam. It takes nice pics but the resolution is poor. What I have in mind is something about cell-phone sized that can take high quality/resolution sound, video, and pictures. Any suggestions? Something that doesn't look like the standard camera/video cam.

You can get entry level DSLRs that not only take great quality pics, but that come with full HD video recording functionality for less than $500. You'll need to spend extra for a decent zoom lens if you need it though. And if you want, they typically have stereo mic inputs so you can hook up an external microphone for better sound quality. Edited by Archimedes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One problem with bigfoot pics is that usually they are enlargements of an original pic. Usually the "bigfoot" in the pic was a tiny little enlongated dot on the original photo and whoever owned it blew it up to look for bigfoots. And a snag, stump, or even a dark bush look a lot like a bigfoot from a quarter mile away.

The problem with game cams is that people set the timer, or it comes pre-timed, and whatever was there triggers it and is gone. But, that is really just an excuse, because pics of deer, and other fast animals are taken all the time.

Sakari often posts pics of the deer living by him and if the deer are moving the game cam picks are often blurry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. 10 years is plenty of time for wildlife photographers to get out there to specifically get an HD pic of a squatch. Have they attempted that yet?

What I meant was, you're implying that taking an HD pic of a BF is no different than taking an HD pic of any other rare animal. Really?? you see no difference? So it's the same difficulty factor taking an HD pic of a Kangaroo as it is a Snow Leopard?

I'll have to show you, it's badass and alot of fun.

I'm not implying that it's no different. I'm stating for a fact that it would be much harder to take a picture of a Red Wolf, for example, than a Bigfoot. Did you even look at the link I posted? There are roughly 100 red wolves in the wild and yet plenty of high quality, crystal clear, photographs.

https://www.google.com/search?q=red+wolves&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=FDM&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=7qQ3UcO5M83U0gGN14CgCg&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=2133&bih=1492

According to the bigfoot experts, bigfoot ranges the world over and by necessity must have a breeding population in the tens of thousands to support that. So where are the photos? There are tens of thousands of trail cams set out annually. And millions of HD still and video cameras going into the woods each and every year. Not to mention the specific expeditions that set out each year to find old squatch.

And yet, not one, single definitive photograph. Not one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet, not one, single definitive photograph. Not one.

Without a body to back it up there'll never be such a photograph. Not one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without a body to back it up there'll never be such a photograph. Not one.

With habituation sites, why speak of only one definitive photograph? There should be dozens of them. Showing bf eating and playing with the toys and whatever else. Videos would also be "de rigueur" by now. And they'd go a long way in proving bigfoot's existence or at least in luring in science.

Biology has no blobology or blurrology as it is, so you can't blame them.

And for the millionth time "Why? Why? would a bf be afraid of or avoid cameras?" I want just one good reason.

I've heard it said bf smell film. Even if they could, that doesn't answer "why" they are afraid. And what about digital cameras?

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.