Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Bigfoot: The New Evidence


Myles

Recommended Posts

I watched a few episodes over the weekend.   Pretty good show.   They didn't sensationalize it.   They did tests on all the evidence found.  

I'd recommend it.   Believers may not like it much because all the DNA tests done on the shows I watched came back as known animals.   

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The DNA coming back as known animals is what I would expect in and honest search for any cryptid. If you go in the woods and find hair or any other sort of DNA bearing evidence it is always more likely to be a common animal than a very rare one.

The thing is though, even if you have bigfoot DNA all you will really have is DNA that can't be identified and as such it will be suspect in the minds that are closed to this possibility. Honestly I'm not even sure that a body would lay it to rest.

The thing I like about Bigfoot hunting is that almost anywhere you have bigfoot stories and can personally participate. I have spent a lot of time in the woods and have always kept my eyes open for anything different. I have actually seen a couple of critters that authorities say don't exist here but so far no bigfoot.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DanL said:

The DNA coming back as known animals is what I would expect in and honest search for any cryptid.

Eh? Why couldn't you get unidentified DNA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't believe in Bigfoot until I can go to a zoo and see one walking around miserably in a cage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that unidentified DNA doesn't tell you much, just what kind of animal you're not dealing with.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The episodes I've seen, they didn't have any unidentified DNA.   There was deer, bear, porcupine and one was glass thread.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DanL said:

The thing is though, even if you have bigfoot DNA all you will really have is DNA that can't be identified and as such it will be suspect in the minds that are closed to this possibility. Honestly I'm not even sure that a body would lay it to rest.

Perhaps you should save that excuse when you get bigfoot DNA.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 9:17 AM, Myles said:

I watched a few episodes over the weekend.   Pretty good show.   They didn't sensationalize it.   They did tests on all the evidence found.  

I'd recommend it.   Believers may not like it much because all the DNA tests done on the shows I watched came back as known animals.   

 

 

I watched the whole thing and agree it was well done but the conclusion is that the existence of bigfoot is extremely unlikely due to a complete lack of evidence.  I think they did an OK job of explaining how poor eyewitness testimony is as evidence but should've shown some more examples of just how easy it is to fool our minds.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-05-23 at 6:59 AM, DanL said:

I have actually seen a couple of critters that authorities say don't exist here but so far no bigfoot.

Examples?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an interesting documentary, but that they constantly call it "bigfoot" really makes my teeth grind. Normally I don't care but hearing it so many times over and over and over :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2017 at 9:59 AM, DanL said:

I have actually seen a couple of critters that authorities say don't exist here but so far no bigfoot.

Of course animals wonder and sometimes go into areas where they generally don't live but if an animal does have a breeding population or isn't habitually in a area, then it doesn't have a home range there and any wildlife agency will say it doesn't live there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

Of course animals wonder and sometimes go into areas where they generally don't live but if an animal does have a breeding population or isn't habitually in a area, then it doesn't have a home range there and any wildlife agency will say it doesn't live there.

I understand that these animals aren't native to this area and that parks and wildlife will say that. What I find offensive is that they say that we are not seeing these cats. We had the same thing about black bears for decades until one finally got hit and killed on a highway a few years ago. If they are telling us we are crazy when we see animals that DO exist and have a natural range not very many hundred miles away what chance does someone have when they see something that SUPPOSEDLY does not exist? 

Honestly I don't think that even a body would end the discussion. Those that did not personally get to examine the body immediately would declare it a hoax and as soon as a doubter got their hands on it it would disappear. This has happened before and will happen again. Sometimes it actually was a hoax but even then why does the evidence disappear? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
2 minutes ago, DanL said:

I understand that these animals aren't native to this area and that parks and wildlife will say that. What I find offensive is that they say that we are not seeing these cats. We had the same thing about black bears for decades until one finally got hit and killed on a highway a few years ago. If they are telling us we are crazy when we see animals that DO exist and have a natural range not very many hundred miles away what chance does someone have when they see something that SUPPOSEDLY does not exist? 

Honestly I don't think that even a body would end the discussion. Those that did not personally get to examine the body immediately would declare it a hoax and as soon as a doubter got their hands on it it would disappear. This has happened before and will happen again. Sometimes it actually was a hoax but even then why does the evidence disappear? 

 

More often than not they say you are not seeing X animal because you are not seeing X animal. Wildlife biologists are constantly doing surveys and I guarantee they spend more time in the wild than even the most avid outdoors man. People are constantly misidentifying common animals as something unique or strange. There are multiple ways to know if a certain species is in an area besides actually seeing it. Scat is a great example. Of course, no one has ever found bigfoot scat because they most probably do not exist. A carcass would most assuredly prove their existence. No need for wacky conspiracy theories about missing (non-existence) evidence.

I had a point in the beginning but now i'm just rambling.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My nonexistent black cat had a paw that left a track print that was as big as a coffee can. I assure you, that ain't no house cat. Many of your wildlife biologist experts are university professors that seldom leave their hallowed halls. Most of their "knowledge" is second hand and not at all experience based. That is how we end up with things like the spotted owl fiasco in California a few years ago. "Some of these "experts" went into the woods and declared that the spotted owl was an endangered species and shut down the timber industry in that area. Now personally I don't know that this was a bad thing and that is a different debate. The fact is they based their findings on the fact that they couldn't spot any spotted owls in an area that was previously known to have a substantial number of them. They also based it on the fact that they couldn't even find any owl pellets that all owls spit up. It is the undigesable parts of the little animals that they eat and swallow whole. 

After several years of this a REAL expert went in and found that they were pretty much every where and even nesting in K-mart signs so the logging had little effect on their populations. The first group of "experts" failed to understand that the birds are nocturnal and during the day they lived in hollow trees. That is also where they spit up their pellets so there weren't any laying around the base of the trees they lived in. They were inside. 

Sad to say but if people are involved in about anything where money is also involved then honesty goes out the door. People often don't pay for honest wildlife study. They pay to have certain points of view confirmed. That runs true for most things. Corn syrup is found to be BAD because the cane sugar companies pay for that result just like they did with saccharin. They killed rats by force feeding them huge amounts of it and then declared that it was deadly. A person would have to eat a BRICK of it daily to reach that level of toxicity. The government proved that Marijuana was deadly by killing a bunch of monkeys via smoke inhalation. They would have been just as dead had it been lawn trimming. Not all conspiracy theories are just crazy imaginings. 

The only thing that has as much power as money when it comes to academics is their reputation and that is based on always being RIGHT...even when they are NOT. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DanL said:

Many of your wildlife biologist experts are university professors that seldom leave their hallowed halls. Most of their "knowledge" is second hand and not at all experience based.

Is it really? 

 

2 hours ago, DanL said:

That is how we end up with things like the spotted owl fiasco in California a few years ago. "Some of these "experts" went into the woods and declared that the spotted owl was an endangered species and shut down the timber industry in that area. Now personally I don't know that this was a bad thing and that is a different debate. The fact is they based their findings on the fact that they couldn't spot any spotted owls in an area that was previously known to have a substantial number of them. They also based it on the fact that they couldn't even find any owl pellets that all owls spit up. It is the undigesable parts of the little animals that they eat and swallow whole. 

After several years of this a REAL expert went in and found that they were pretty much every where and even nesting in K-mart signs so the logging had little effect on their populations. The first group of "experts" failed to understand that the birds are nocturnal and during the day they lived in hollow trees. That is also where they spit up their pellets so there weren't any laying around the base of the trees they lived in. They were inside. 

 Ha, those dumb scientists, looking for an owl in broad daylight and not finding it! Imagine it. Imagine them not even realising that the reason they didn't find it was because it was nocturnal and they went looking in the day.

 Actually I can't imagine that. In fact I doubt that's what happened at all. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DanL said:

My nonexistent black cat had a paw that left a track print that was as big as a coffee can. I assure you, that ain't no house cat. Many of your wildlife biologist experts are university professors that seldom leave their hallowed halls. Most of their "knowledge" is second hand and not at all experience based. That is how we end up with things like the spotted owl fiasco in California a few years ago. "Some of these "experts" went into the woods and declared that the spotted owl was an endangered species and shut down the timber industry in that area. Now personally I don't know that this was a bad thing and that is a different debate. The fact is they based their findings on the fact that they couldn't spot any spotted owls in an area that was previously known to have a substantial number of them. They also based it on the fact that they couldn't even find any owl pellets that all owls spit up. It is the undigesable parts of the little animals that they eat and swallow whole. 

After several years of this a REAL expert went in and found that they were pretty much every where and even nesting in K-mart signs so the logging had little effect on their populations. The first group of "experts" failed to understand that the birds are nocturnal and during the day they lived in hollow trees. That is also where they spit up their pellets so there weren't any laying around the base of the trees they lived in. They were inside. 

Sad to say but if people are involved in about anything where money is also involved then honesty goes out the door. People often don't pay for honest wildlife study. They pay to have certain points of view confirmed. That runs true for most things. Corn syrup is found to be BAD because the cane sugar companies pay for that result just like they did with saccharin. They killed rats by force feeding them huge amounts of it and then declared that it was deadly. A person would have to eat a BRICK of it daily to reach that level of toxicity. The government proved that Marijuana was deadly by killing a bunch of monkeys via smoke inhalation. They would have been just as dead had it been lawn trimming. Not all conspiracy theories are just crazy imaginings. 

The only thing that has as much power as money when it comes to academics is their reputation and that is based on always being RIGHT...even when they are NOT. 

So you're one of those "I hate academics" people. You're not worth my time.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I hated academics all of my kids and my wife wouldn't have degrees. That said though I don't feel that they live in a real world and many have little understanding of the real world that the rest of us have to deal with. I'm sorry to bust your bubble but like most people academics have a rather narrow view of the world based on what they experience. They have never worked for a living and often don't have any respect for the people that work to keep this world working. I don't dislike most of them at all. I actually have several friends with PHDs. I try to deal with everyone the same. I base what I think about you on your actions and how you treat me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, DanL said:

If I hated academics all of my kids and my wife wouldn't have degrees. That said though I don't feel that they live in a real world and many have little understanding of the real world that the rest of us have to deal with. I'm sorry to bust your bubble but like most people academics have a rather narrow view of the world based on what they experience. They have never worked for a living and often don't have any respect for the people that work to keep this world working. I don't dislike most of them at all. I actually have several friends with PHDs. I try to deal with everyone the same. I base what I think about you on your actions and how you treat me. 

How many PhD's is several?   I ask because that is a bizarre statement to make and usually only people in academia or the hard sciences know "several PhD's" personally as opposed to in other ways not involving being friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, no new evidence, just the usual believers versus skeptics argument. Really no need for this thread, at all. We have plenty of those, already.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL, I live in a town that is about half university. 20,000 kids in a town of less than 40,000. You can't shake a tree without a half dozen Doctors falling out of it. I also have a couple of PHDs in my family. One Aeronautical engineer and one Historian. I only sound like a redneck. I'm actually pretty well read and can hold my own with most people. There are also quite a few PHDs in Mensa as well. I'm just not as impressed with it as some people. One of my friends explained it to me like this. BS= bull****, MS=More of the same, PHD Piled Higher and Deeper. His PHD was in Divinity by the way. Most are pretty good people but then some are like one of my uncles. He couldn't set it down. I think it bothered him that his Mama didn't call him Doctor. His wife even referred to him a "The Doctor". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

So, no new evidence, just the usual believers versus skeptics argument. Really no need for this thread, at all. We have plenty of those, already.

It always seems to come down to that doesn't it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DanL said:

LOL, I live in a town that is about half university. 20,000 kids in a town of less than 40,000.  

Why LOL?  It isn't a normal thing to be friends with several PhDs unless you are in a field populated by them so I asked and your answer explains it perfectly so thanks for that.

Quote

You can't shake a tree without a half dozen Doctors falling out of it. I also have a couple of PHDs in my family. One Aeronautical engineer and one Historian. I only sound like a redneck. I'm actually pretty well read and can hold my own with most people. There are also quite a few PHDs in Mensa as well. I'm just not as impressed with it as some people. One of my friends explained it to me like this. BS= bull****, MS=More of the same, PHD Piled Higher and Deeper. His PHD was in Divinity by the way. Most are pretty good people but then some are like one of my uncles. He couldn't set it down. I think it bothered him that his Mama didn't call him Doctor. His wife even referred to him a "The Doctor".

Fine but dismissing someone's opinion because they are educated makes zero sense and is just as wrong as accepting everything a professional in the field has to say.   If the vast majority of people in a field all agree that something does not exist then that should be a big warning sign that your belief in said object is probably misplaced.   Even Meldrum won't come out and say that Bigfoot exists in any professional journal because he has no proof the creature exists. 

Quote

Sad to say but if people are involved in about anything where money is also involved then honesty goes out the door. People often don't pay for honest wildlife study. They pay to have certain points of view confirmed. That runs true for most things. Corn syrup is found to be BAD because the cane sugar companies pay for that result just like they did with saccharin. They killed rats by force feeding them huge amounts of it and then declared that it was deadly. A person would have to eat a BRICK of it daily to reach that level of toxicity. The government proved that Marijuana was deadly by killing a bunch of monkeys via smoke inhalation. They would have been just as dead had it been lawn trimming. Not all conspiracy theories are just crazy imaginings. 

The bolded above is truly **** backwards given that there are, literally, hundreds if not thousands, making money pushing Bigfoot paraphernalia, everything form books to TV shows to websites yet not one academic making a dime (except Dr. Meldrum) form Bigfoot.  Please explain to me how a biologist discovering that Bigfoot is real, and presenting his or her empirical evidence to the field, would cost them money?  I daresay they'd get more funding than they would know what to do with.  There is no money in denying Bigfoot but there is in proving it exists yet not one person has ever come forth, in all these years, and presented empirical evidence that is both verifiable and undeniable.  

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Fine but dismissing someone's opinion because they are educated makes zero sense and is just as wrong as accepting everything a professional in the field has to say.   If the vast majority of people in a field all agree that something does not exist then that should be a big warning sign that your belief in said object is probably misplaced.   Even Meldrum won't come out and say that Bigfoot exists in any professional journal because he has no proof the creature exists. 

 

 

I don't dismiss an opinion because someone has a bunch of degrees. I just don't place them up on a pedestal and think that they can't possibly be in error. The one thing that I have noticed though is that years and years of schooling often seems to make people think in an extremely linear fashion making it hard for them to think outside the box. I'm sorry if you find it offensive because I don't intend it to be so but education as it is done in America is mostly a regurgitive experience. "Facts" are given to you and you spit them back.No thinking allowed!  Even in the upper levels in areas of investigative research it is still much the same and anything that wanders very far from the ACCEPTED facts known at that time are stringently discouraged. To some extent it is easy to fall into the mind set that we now know it all and anything new is automatically branded a heretical and not possible. In general the opinion of someone with a PHD carries no more weight than anyone else except in a very narrow area of knowledge and even that area is time sensitive. 

When ever something new pops up people entrenched in their thoughts have a harder time adapting to new ideas. This isn't at all limited to highly educated people. Open and closed minds can be found in all walks of life and educational levels. The difference is that when someone has a PHD people seem to think that means that they know it all and sadly too many of them think it of themselves. When some regular person sees or thinks of something their experience or thought is tossed out and they are often denigrated as being ignorant and uneducated and their opinions worthless. That type of thought is narrow and incorrect. If you will look at the history of most advances in science you will find it covered up with people that were not highly educated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, DanL said:

I don't dismiss an opinion because someone has a bunch of degrees. I just don't place them up on a pedestal and think that they can't possibly be in error. The one thing that I have noticed though is that years and years of schooling often seems to make people think in an extremely linear fashion making it hard for them to think outside the box. I'm sorry if you find it offensive because I don't intend it to be so but education as it is done in America is mostly a regurgitive experience. "Facts" are given to you and you spit them back.No thinking allowed!  Even in the upper levels in areas of investigative research it is still much the same and anything that wanders very far from the ACCEPTED facts known at that time are stringently discouraged. To some extent it is easy to fall into the mind set that we now know it all and anything new is automatically branded a heretical and not possible. In general the opinion of someone with a PHD carries no more weight than anyone else except in a very narrow area of knowledge and even that area is time sensitive. 

You are generalizing greatly in order top justify your prejudice and to negate the vast majority that say Bigfoot most likely does not exist.   As proof I offer the fact that new discoveries are occurring every single day by people with PhD after their names, just peruse the Space forum.  Many of the new species being discovered are discovered by people with a PhD or some education and training.    Yes some are stuck in their ways but that is true across all humans but there are always new and different thinking people rising up.

31 minutes ago, DanL said:

When ever something new pops up people entrenched in their thoughts have a harder time adapting to new ideas. This isn't at all limited to highly educated people. Open and closed minds can be found in all walks of life and educational levels. The difference is that when someone has a PHD people seem to think that means that they know it all and sadly too many of them think it of themselves. When some regular person sees or thinks of something their experience or thought is tossed out and they are often denigrated as being ignorant and uneducated and their opinions worthless. That type of thought is narrow and incorrect. If you will look at the history of most advances in science you will find it covered up with people that were not highly educated. 

Except, after 6 decades since the P&G film, nothing new that is worth consideration has "popped up".   To further muddy the waters the entire field is populated with "respected researchers" who have perpetrated outright frauds!  It isn't close minded to think that something extraordinary doesn't exist when no proof has been presented of its existence, it is close minded to block out all reason and maintain that it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The only thing needed to establish the existence of Bigfoot is a Bigfoot. That would be unrefutible evidence. Everyone here is very open-minded about that sort of evidence. It does not require a leap of faith to believe in something real. Anything that does is suspect.

Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.