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 7
Ohelemapit

DNA Proves Bigfoot Is real

119 posts in this topic

Odd that there are no reports of attempted kidnappings by Bigfoot. I guess it's real easy for a nine foot 800 pound creature to sneak up on people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for a moment lets consider that BF is real. Logically if it is....8' tall, wouldn't that mean that its brain would be larger than ours. So couldn't we assume a certain degree of intelligence.

My point being maybe they don't want to be seen, maybe they bury there dead, deep, maybe like cats(sort of) they bury their "droppings". And as most of the truly wilderness areas are extremely unihabited, maybe they know where the best locations for being able to exist, without human contact are. Maybe they realize how violent humans are and have made the conscience decision to avoid us.

Remember as a kid playing headlights where when you saw a car coming you hid. Its not really that hard not to be seen if you don't want to.

Just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for a moment lets consider that BF is real. Logically if it is....8' tall, wouldn't that mean that its brain would be larger than ours. So couldn't we assume a certain degree of intelligence.

No we can't. Lots of animals have larger brains than us and they're not smarter.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The heading say's DNA proves Bigfoot is real.That's not what the article says. they found some unusual things in the hair. But there wasn't enough DNA to conclusively verify what they were seeing.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The heading say's DNA proves Bigfoot is real.That's not what the article says. they found some unusual things in the hair. But there wasn't enough DNA to conclusively verify what they were seeing.

We don't need no stinkin conclusive evidence to prove bigfoot is real?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Earl.Of.Trumps. "People have written to Paulides and told him it is not BigFoot that is responsible, it is aliens - particularly, "reptilians" - which Paulides claims he has no knowledge of. (nor do I)"

Is this what we toss in to now validate BF? You toss this in as if these alien people are crazy so that's why we BF people are not and are correct. From what facts you posted in this he has proven his theory wrong with other missing person stats from Europe. The end. Come back with new facts

So you have to be "factual" to think?? I mean,. is that by your decree or something?

I was not necessarily validating BF or anything else. All I did was paraphrase Paulides and speculate.

there is a lot of mystery there and I do like mysteries. Perhaps I should aspire to be more like you.

good god

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for a moment lets consider that BF is real. Logically if it is....8' tall, wouldn't that mean that its brain would be larger than ours. So couldn't we assume a certain degree of intelligence.

Well yes, as intelligent as a whale perhaps. And those buggers can't hide in an ocean if the Japanese Scientific Research brigade and tourist boats are anything to go by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Just for a moment lets consider that BF is real. Logically if it is....8' tall, wouldn't that mean that its brain would be larger than ours. So couldn't we assume a certain degree of intelligence.

My point being maybe they don't want to be seen, maybe they bury there dead, deep, maybe like cats(sort of) they bury their "droppings". And as most of the truly wilderness areas are extremely unihabited, maybe they know where the best locations for being able to exist, without human contact are. Maybe they realize how violent humans are and have made the conscience decision to avoid us.

Remember as a kid playing headlights where when you saw a car coming you hid. Its not really that hard not to be seen if you don't want to.

Just a thought.

I see what you are saying, trouble is, imo:

Pick a sighting map. Bigfoot are seen. Everywhere. They are "scared" off too--- before they can bury their scat? bury their dead? gather up all their hair and cover their footprints?

We have to also assume, if we assume they are real, that they are a One-Cryptid CSI Team, collecting all traces of personal evidence so no one else can.

Edited by QuiteContrary
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't need no stinkin conclusive evidence to prove bigfoot is real?

LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see what you are saying, trouble is, imo:

Pick a sighting map. Bigfoot are seen. Everywhere. They are "scared" off too--- before they can bury their scat? bury their dead? gather up all their hair and cover their footprints?

We have to also assume, if we assume they are real, that they are a One-Cryptid CSI Team, collecting all traces of personal evidence so no one else can.

I just imagined "CSI Kentucky" for some reason.......oh dear I think I need help.....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Fecal detection meter off the charts. If they could provide ONE scenario where a giant hairy ape could survive in that ecological niche it would be a miracle. Instead BF is apparently invisible, desintergrates upon death, does not eat, does not poop, does not mate, does not have children, does not die accidentally, cannot be tracked, sleeps underground or in another dimension, makes no noise that cannot be attributed to another animal or hoaxers, cannot be filmed properly, cannot be photographed (blobsquatches do not count)....etc.

I claim the area I live in is overrun by dodo birds. I have proof because I say so.

I wish they would put this effort into something useful. Then again I suppose it is to them, for fleecing people who do not want to use critical thinking. JMO.

Big foot is Cane from the bible who was cast out and his body transformed so he would stand out from the rest of us and made to live alone from man kind until the end of the world. Just one theory which would explain why we can never catch him or find him when we want too. But then again maybe Big foot just doesn't exist.

link to article about cain and big foot connection

http://weirdthings.com/2011/12/mormon-columnist-bigfoot-is-really-cain-from-the-bible/

Edited by Xzenox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been throughout history undocumented species that were discovered. I've always believed that there is very real possibility that Bigfoot could be one of those undocumented and unexplored species. Maybe even the missing link between cavemen and current man. Whatever the case may be, it is interesting that DNA evidence has been found. That's the first real step towards proving the existence of these creatures. What we really need to verify them is an actual body. I dunno if that'll ever happen, but if it did it would be a big achievement for science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been throughout history undocumented species that were discovered. I've always believed that there is very real possibility that Bigfoot could be one of those undocumented and unexplored species. Maybe even the missing link between cavemen and current man. Whatever the case may be, it is interesting that DNA evidence has been found. That's the first real step towards proving the existence of these creatures. What we really need to verify them is an actual body. I dunno if that'll ever happen, but if it did it would be a big achievement for science.

And if this would be in Papua New Guinea or Borneo I might even agree with you. However, it's the American continent and though I understand it's not 100% explored, it's pretty damned close, so if there were an unknown specimen, you'd think some proof would have turned up in the last 200 years or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And if this would be in Papua New Guinea or Borneo I might even agree with you. However, it's the American continent and though I understand it's not 100% explored, it's pretty damned close, so if there were an unknown specimen, you'd think some proof would have turned up in the last 200 years or so.

There is a lot of area that we are simply not at every day. About 73% of the population only lives on 5% of the area, and most of those people do not leave the cities or highways.

Edited by Insanity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been throughout history undocumented species that were discovered. I've always believed that there is very real possibility that Bigfoot could be one of those undocumented and unexplored species. Maybe even the missing link between cavemen and current man. Whatever the case may be, it is interesting that DNA evidence has been found. That's the first real step towards proving the existence of these creatures. What we really need to verify them is an actual body. I dunno if that'll ever happen, but if it did it would be a big achievement for science.

The problem is that this 'species' has been looked for by thousands of people for many years without any solid evidence.

It's a highly documented creature (falsely documented that is), the focus of which has gained worldwide attention - if it was out there it would have been found a long time ago.

In comparison, take the giant squid as an example.

The ocean covers ~71% of the Earths surface, roughly 361,000,000 km^2 and is estimated to have a volume of 1.3 billion km^3. The giant squid was documented for years and has been proven to exist.

That's ~15x the surface area of North America (not even thinking about the ocean having volume) and human population is quite sparse in the ocean.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a lot of area that we are simply not at every day. About 73% of the population only lives on 5% of the area, and most of those people do not leave the cities or highways.

And if Bigfoot were only occasionally seen in those areas, I might buy it. But he's seen EVERYWHERE - from the backwoods of Washington State to within a few miles of New York City.

And as I've said many times and will continue to say - such a diverse and widespread population requires a BREEDING POPULATION in the entire of North America. If that were truly the case, Bigfoot would be as known and accepted as black bears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get what you're saying Rafter, there are times it seems they're practically dancing around begging to be seen by everyone but me. Yet, no one can take a decent picture of them. Sort of reminds me of pictures of UFO's I hear and read witness accounts and the witness' all give detailed accounts, but if a picture comes along with the story then the picture is little better than a blobsquatch pic.......it's a blob-ufo, but the witness can describe seeing inside through windows and describing the aliens right down to their clothing details. Yet the pictures are a blurry, out of focused mess.

Go figure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if Bigfoot were only occasionally seen in those areas, I might buy it. But he's seen EVERYWHERE - from the backwoods of Washington State to within a few miles of New York City.

And as I've said many times and will continue to say - such a diverse and widespread population requires a BREEDING POPULATION in the entire of North America. If that were truly the case, Bigfoot would be as known and accepted as black bears.

What is a breeding population?

The minimum viable population (MVP) is a lower bound on the population of a species, such that it can survive in the wild, and to assure a 90-95% chance of survival for the next 100 to 1,000 years. MVP is the smallest possible size at which a biological population can exist without facing extinction from natural disasters or demographic, environmental, or genetic stochasticity. The actual number needed varies from species to species. An MVP of 500 to 1,000 individuals is usually given as an average for terrestrial vertebrates when inbreeding or genetic variability is ignored. When inbreeding effects are included, estimates of MVP for many species are in the thousands. Traill et al. reported a median MVP of 4,169 individuals, though apparently for pandas their MVP is 50 to 60 individuals.

Seems a population could only be a few thousand individuals, maybe as low as several hundred and be sufficient to maintain a breeding population. In the case of the panda, less than a hundred is enough.

A population in the millions or even hundreds of thousands is not needed, a few thousand is enough and maybe more than enough.

I get what you're saying Rafter, there are times it seems they're practically dancing around begging to be seen by everyone but me. Yet, no one can take a decent picture of them. Sort of reminds me of pictures of UFO's I hear and read witness accounts and the witness' all give detailed accounts, but if a picture comes along with the story then the picture is little better than a blobsquatch pic.......it's a blob-ufo, but the witness can describe seeing inside through windows and describing the aliens right down to their clothing details. Yet the pictures are a blurry, out of focused mess.

Go figure?

This is likely just do to a lack of zoom lenses in peoples' iphones or whatever mobile device they have. To the human eye with 20/20 vision, at 500 feet a person's head is a blur. It is going to be a blur to any camera without a zoom lens feature. Digitally enlarging the picture is not anywhere as near as good as a 30x zoom lens. Mobile devices are inherently limited to what level of zoom they can achieve, if any at all, and many have a fixed lens. While they may be good for catching clear images within 10s of feet, getting an image with high detail of something at 500 feet is not going to happen with them.

An 8x zoom lens for an iphone looks like this;

5H1SgEJs.jpg

The following image shows what some levels of zoom capture. The frame for each shows what portion of the entire scene.

xZxPyEQs.jpg

A zoom lens is needed to get clear images of anything that is of some distance away, and focusing on a moving object with a zoom lens can be just as difficult as aiming on a moving target with a high-powered rifle scope. The actual field of view is quite small and the object covers it quite quickly.

How many images exist of moving deer that were taken using a 8x or more zoom lens?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is a breeding population?

The minimum viable population (MVP) is a lower bound on the population of a species, such that it can survive in the wild, and to assure a 90-95% chance of survival for the next 100 to 1,000 years. MVP is the smallest possible size at which a biological population can exist without facing extinction from natural disasters or demographic, environmental, or genetic stochasticity. The actual number needed varies from species to species. An MVP of 500 to 1,000 individuals is usually given as an average for terrestrial vertebrates when inbreeding or genetic variability is ignored. When inbreeding effects are included, estimates of MVP for many species are in the thousands. Traill et al. reported a median MVP of 4,169 individuals, though apparently for pandas their MVP is 50 to 60 individuals.

Seems a population could only be a few thousand individuals, maybe as low as several hundred and be sufficient to maintain a breeding population. In the case of the panda, less than a hundred is enough.

A population in the millions or even hundreds of thousands is not needed, a few thousand is enough and maybe more than enough.

And yet pandas are hardly unknown animals. Neither are some of the even more endangered mammals on the planet.

So let's run with your point and for the sake of argument, let's say a breeding population of Bigfoot is 1,000 creatures. That's not 1,000 creatures spread over North America. That's 1,000 in South Florida, 1,000 in the Texas hill country, 1,000 in Upstate New York, 1,000 in Manitoba, 1,000 in Ontario, 1,000 in Northern California, 1,000 in Oregon, 1,000 in Washington, 1,000 in Pennsylvania, etc. etc. You need a breeding population in every area where Bigfoot is sighted for the species to be viable. That's a lot of Bigfoot.

Arguing against these kinds of realities, it's no wonder you'd rather focus on camera equipment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So let's run with your point and for the sake of argument, let's say a breeding population of Bigfoot is 1,000 creatures. That's not 1,000 creatures spread over North America. That's 1,000 in South Florida, 1,000 in the Texas hill country, 1,000 in Upstate New York, 1,000 in Manitoba, 1,000 in Ontario, 1,000 in Northern California, 1,000 in Oregon, 1,000 in Washington, 1,000 in Pennsylvania, etc. etc. You need a breeding population in every area where Bigfoot is sighted for the species to be viable. That's a lot of Bigfoot.

Great point. It's an entire large continent we're talking about.

Edited by QuiteContrary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet pandas are hardly unknown animals. Neither are some of the even more endangered mammals on the planet.

True, but the panda's distribution range covers 29,500 sq km, of which probably only 5,900 sq km is actual habitat.

North America is about 800 times the area. So we can find animals that have a density, i.e. of pandas, 1,600 within 29,500 sq km =~ 0.05 individuals per sq km. Let's compare with the a little over the median of 4,000 individuals for MVP, say 8,000 (twice actually) over the 24,709,000 sq km of North America =~ a density of 0.0003 individuals per sq km. Two magnitudes difference from the panda and ~170x lower density.

So let's run with your point and for the sake of argument, let's say a breeding population of Bigfoot is 1,000 creatures. That's not 1,000 creatures spread over North America. That's 1,000 in South Florida, 1,000 in the Texas hill country, 1,000 in Upstate New York, 1,000 in Manitoba, 1,000 in Ontario, 1,000 in Northern California, 1,000 in Oregon, 1,000 in Washington, 1,000 in Pennsylvania, etc. etc. You need a breeding population in every area where Bigfoot is sighted for the species to be viable. That's a lot of Bigfoot.

It doesn't mean that that population has to be present in every conceivable division of the entire distribution range. That is your conception of it, and with due respect, it's probably inaccurate.

Habitat wise, North America has roughly 7 areas, and I could agree with a separate population in each, excluding the far north of Canada.

If you do want to think that means there needs to be a 1,000 in every state and province/territory, 62,000 across 24,709,000 sq km is a density =~ 0.0025 per sq km. One magnitude difference from the panda, ~20x lower density.

Maybe we should research what species we are aware of that has the lowest population density?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it goes without saying (or at least it should) that the lower the population the smaller the area that a species needs to occupy to ensure that breeding pairs 'hook up'. Unless Biff has a harem which bring up a whole new set of questions regarding 'packs' of Bigfeet roaming around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let's run with your point and for the sake of argument, let's say a breeding population of Bigfoot is 1,000 creatures. That's not 1,000 creatures spread over North America. That's 1,000 in South Florida, 1,000 in the Texas hill country, 1,000 in Upstate New York, 1,000 in Manitoba, 1,000 in Ontario, 1,000 in Northern California, 1,000 in Oregon, 1,000 in Washington, 1,000 in Pennsylvania, etc. etc. You need a breeding population in every area where Bigfoot is sighted for the species to be viable. That's a lot of Bigfoot.

I think the minimum population would depend greatly on the communication and traveling abilities of a bigfoot. If they can cover 200 miles in 3 days, then they could be very far apart, as long as they have some way of communicating to locate each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that we MUST consider the whole continent. Bigfoot is like a wolf. people will report seeing wolves in places where they don't exist, and are known not to exist. Because some people have a preconcieved idea of what they think they saw, or heard. So even if Bobo is in the woods of Burmuda, he's going to think he saw and heard a bigfoot, and it will go down in the "Official" reports as a sighting. Just because bigfoot is reported everywhere does not mean that everywhere Must be considered habitat. I think each case needs to be considered individually with those involved and the situation being taken into consideration.

I really think there is something to the Bigfoot Phenomena, even if there is not some kind of giant ape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the minimum population would depend greatly on the communication and traveling abilities of a bigfoot. If they can cover 200 miles in 3 days, then they could be very far apart, as long as they have some way of communicating to locate each other.

What would these hominids use to locate each other over long distances of hundreds of miles?

Or is that what the humans are for?

Thus, hybrids are born.

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 7

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.