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 -
david4121

Do bigfoots exist really?

532 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

seanjo
Quote

Do bigfoots exist really?



NO!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1
4 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 

A curiosity: If all BF footprint castings are made by fakers, why don't they have 5 toes?

 

 

Ummm... that right there shows that they are fake. All primates have 5 digits. 

Edited by Imaginarynumber1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew
19 hours ago, PrisonerX said:

There is a government coverup of these creatures. Dig deep enough and you will soon learn this for yourself. 

 

 

For what purpose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
4 hours ago, stereologist said:

1. Fits a bell curve in what way?

2. Dermal ridges are in fact artifacts of the casting process. These are known as dessication artifacts.

3. What does recordings have to do with anything? Just because there is a recording which does not match a known animal does not mean it matches an unknown animal.

4. I said evidence. Proof is something not done by science. What photos other than blob squatches and blur squatches have been shown to be something other than a hoax?

What does 5 toes have to do with anything? Although people claim apes not a single print has an ape type foot.

The DNA was never verified in Ketchum's favor. It was finally released to a reporter in Houston who took it to a lab and it turned out to be opossum. That is the only other test as far as I know.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/03/bigfoot-dna-test-results_n_3541431.html

So now that it becomes known that BF is nonexistent people question those pointing out that the emperor is naked. Unlike the tooth fairy and Santa and the great pumpkin, people do fall for the bigfoot hoaxing that is promoted by TV shows and others. The simple fact is that despite over half a century of looking not a single BF sample has turned up. Think about floods, fires, cars, storms, lightning, etc. that could result in a dead squatch. Think about the supposed stories of people actively looking for BF. Think about all of the bear sampling lines. Not a single piece of BF has turned up.

What happens is that people resort to the trite old excuses about how clever BF is. Really? People are found dead in floods, fires, and other accidents. This BF must be more clever than people. The BF is so clever that they have chosen not to apply their amazing cleverness by building homes or tools. That would lead to their discovery. Then there is the effort by SCAM, the Secret Cabal of Academic Mainstream, to hide the existence of BF. There must be tons of people in the know to actively hide everything BF. The purpose of this is to avoid becoming one of the most famous people in history and possibly winning a Nobel prize? 

1. You can' be serious, can you? A bell curve indicates a natural population including juveniles, not a bunch of random creations by fakers. Every faker would create an enormous foot, but we don't see that here. It's natural, and the splay of data fits a bell curve and in fact almost makes a perfect normal distribution. And a subset of a normal distribution of data that also makes a bell curve - as is the case here, is data that was distributed by NATURE, not jokers.

2. So a plaster cast of a shoe box has dermal ridges on it?? Really!? A shoe box with finger prints. My, my.

3. "What does recordings have to do with anything?"  Flippin' unbelievable. Again, do I have to draw you pictures??? do you need chimes or something? These recordings tested mean that in the US somewhere, there is a new species of hominid (likely. The tester said the animals that came the closest to a match were the hominids) and it has one bodacious roar. Now, putting BF aside, wouldn't you want to know what that creature might be ?? Seriously.

4. I can show you some. Patty was one. The eye on patty was too big to be a man's - even if there was no monkey suit to make the eye seem to sink into the skull. And the eye moves! And Patty has HAIR, not fur. All Hollywood monkey suits of the era had FUR, not hair. So, Patty is one example. And I have another from Siberia that - for one reason or another, has been overlooked in here, at least while I was around.

It's amazing to me how people who refuse to even give BF a shot to exist will make up any excuse in the world how evidences really are not that. Very creative. And frankly, written in desperation.The evidences are very strong. Not proof, but very strong evidences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
3 hours ago, Resume said:

Where?  By whom?

Maybe someone can help me out here. This documentary was aired in England and the US and I can't recall who aired it. On a prior mission, this explorer went to Buhtan to find yeti. He found prints and took pics. Since then, eDNA has come on board, e=enviromental. He had a large crew and brought with him a woman researcher from University of Grenoble, who specialized in this field of science. They did not find Yeti prints to test but they did take a sample from a pond that - when tested back in Grenoble, yielded the DNA of a creature that is 99% human. And as the head of the expedition said, "that means it is not human". Hope that works for you. For now. I'll see if I can google it,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
7 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

These recordings tested mean that in the US somewhere, there is a new species of hominid

Um....there are no new species of anything.   There are yet undiscovered species of insects, etc.  There are no 'undiscovered' species of hominids.   Fact!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
6 hours ago, stereologist said:

There are plenty of idiots that still think BF exists when there is zero evidence.

 

It's amazing to me that you actually get away with this crap.

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps
refit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1
2 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

It's amazing to me that you actually get away with this crap.

Study some basic primatology and you will quickly understand why there is no undiscovered primate in the US.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
17 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Maybe someone can help me out here. This documentary was aired in England and the US and I can't recall who aired it. On a prior mission, this explorer went to Buhtan to find yeti. He found prints and took pics. Since then, eDNA has come on board, e=enviromental. He had a large crew and brought with him a woman researcher from University of Grenoble, who specialized in this field of science. They did not find Yeti prints to test but they did take a sample from a pond that - when tested back in Grenoble, yielded the DNA of a creature that is 99% human. And as the head of the expedition said, "that means it is not human". Hope that works for you. For now. I'll see if I can google it,

From a pond?  Right?  That is so ridiculous.  I'm not a forensic scientist but it sounds just dumb.  A pond has ...water in it...there would be no way to test the DNA of the water in the pond...against what?  Hominids we think might exist.  The whole thing is hokey.

Edited by joc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
4 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

1. You can' be serious, can you? A bell curve indicates a natural population including juveniles, not a bunch of random creations by fakers. Every faker would create an enormous foot, but we don't see that here. It's natural, and the splay of data fits a bell curve and in fact almost makes a perfect normal distribution. And a subset of a normal distribution of data that also makes a bell curve - as is the case here, is data that was distributed by NATURE, not jokers.

2. So a plaster cast of a shoe box has dermal ridges on it?? Really!? A shoe box with finger prints. My, my.

3. "What does recordings have to do with anything?"  Flippin' unbelievable. Again, do I have to draw you pictures??? do you need chimes or something? These recordings tested mean that in the US somewhere, there is a new species of hominid (likely. The tester said the animals that came the closest to a match were the hominids) and it has one bodacious roar. Now, putting BF aside, wouldn't you want to know what that creature might be ?? Seriously.

4. I can show you some. Patty was one. The eye on patty was too big to be a man's - even if there was no monkey suit to make the eye seem to sink into the skull. And the eye moves! And Patty has HAIR, not fur. All Hollywood monkey suits of the era had FUR, not hair. So, Patty is one example. And I have another from Siberia that - for one reason or another, has been overlooked in here, at least while I was around.

It's amazing to me how people who refuse to even give BF a shot to exist will make up any excuse in the world how evidences really are not that. Very creative. And frankly, written in desperation.The evidences are very strong. Not proof, but very strong evidences.

1. I am serious because I want to know what you think it means. A bell curve does not indicate a natural population since natural populations are tailed. Please provide the evidence that your imaginary bell curve exists. I'm calling your bluff on this because a perfect bell curve indicates that the data is faked since natural populations are tailed.

2. I see you know nothing at all about casting. Thanks for pointing that out so clearly. BTW, the dermal ridges were not finger prints. LOL.

3. What a joke. "there is a new species of hominid" It seems logical thinking is out the window. A sound is recorded and it must be a hominid. How about a prankseter. Or is this in the same category as the unknown hominid that turned out to be an opossum.

4. Patty looks like a person walking around in a cheap suit. You point out that the eye was wrong. Never noticed that when I was watching a guy in a cheapo monkey suit. Patty is a guy walking like he'd never been in the woods before. Keep dreaming.

There is no evidence for BF. You have a known scammer who shot a video and made money off the gullible. Is that all there is?

If you want to really appeal to posters here please provide links to some of these dubious tales you have mentioned.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
4 minutes ago, joc said:

Um....there are no new species of anything.   There are yet undiscovered species of insects, etc.  There are no 'undiscovered' species of hominids.   Fact!  

How would you know if they haven't been discovered, sunshine? that's a fact for you.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
6 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Maybe someone can help me out here. This documentary was aired in England and the US and I can't recall who aired it. On a prior mission, this explorer went to Buhtan to find yeti. He found prints and took pics. Since then, eDNA has come on board, e=enviromental. He had a large crew and brought with him a woman researcher from University of Grenoble, who specialized in this field of science. They did not find Yeti prints to test but they did take a sample from a pond that - when tested back in Grenoble, yielded the DNA of a creature that is 99% human. And as the head of the expedition said, "that means it is not human". Hope that works for you. For now. I'll see if I can google it,

No DNA has ever come up that indicates an unknown creature like a BF or yeti. So far we have tests coming out human, bear, and opossum.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
1 minute ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

How would you know if they haven't been discovered, sunshine? that's a fact for you.

So sonny is your claim to fame nothing? That's what you have so far - nada, nothing.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
4 minutes ago, stereologist said:

1. I am serious because I want to know what you think it means. A bell curve does not indicate a natural population since natural populations are tailed. Please provide the evidence that your imaginary bell curve exists. I'm calling your bluff on this because a perfect bell curve indicates that the data is faked since natural populations are tailed.

2. I see you know nothing at all about casting. Thanks for pointing that out so clearly. BTW, the dermal ridges were not finger prints. LOL.

3. What a joke. "there is a new species of hominid" It seems logical thinking is out the window. A sound is recorded and it must be a hominid. How about a prankseter. Or is this in the same category as the unknown hominid that turned out to be an opossum.

4. Patty looks like a person walking around in a cheap suit. You point out that the eye was wrong. Never noticed that when I was watching a guy in a cheapo monkey suit. Patty is a guy walking like he'd never been in the woods before. Keep dreaming.

There is no evidence for BF. You have a known scammer who shot a video and made money off the gullible. Is that all there is?

If you want to really appeal to posters here please provide links to some of these dubious tales you have mentioned.

1. A Bell curve *IS* tailed. Geezus,

2. "dermal ridges weren't fingerprints".  You're just lightning in a bottle today!

3. I don't really care what you think of PAtty but that eye is not a human eye, and it moves. And the so-called monkey suit has "hair", not fur. that is evidence it's "not a monkey suit", so, not a man in a monkey suit. The mammaries of that being stretch. No such monkey suit in 1967 hollywood had stretch material. Again, not proof, but strong evidence.

One thing I see you are excellent at, smashing good evidences when they don't please you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
11 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

How would you know if they haven't been discovered, sunshine? that's a fact for you.

Because species don't just ...poof...appear...out of thin air.  Species ...all species...evolved over milions and millions of years...not over a couple of decades.  There are no new species...only undiscovered ones.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
2 minutes ago, joc said:

Because species don't just ...poof...appear...out of thin air.  Species ...all species...evolved over milions and millions of years...not over a couple of decades.  There are no new species...only undiscovered ones.  

How about species from other dimensions? They can't just *poof*... appear?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
1 minute ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

How about species from other dimensions? They can't just *poof*... appear?

Okay...you got me there...species from other dimensions...

...alligators in the sewer...

smh

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
2 minutes ago, joc said:

Okay...you got me there...species from other dimensions...

...alligators in the sewer...

smh

Well, Joc, now you know why I think it possible that BF could exist. I believed at one time BF did not exist for all the reasons that y'all do. No one ever captured one. How can this be?? All the millenia that american indians have been here and, nothing.

But looking at evidences, I've changed a bit. And I read what the Indians were saying. It's a possibility. Not proven but possible, IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
8 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

1. A Bell curve *IS* tailed. Geezus,

2. "dermal ridges weren't fingerprints".  You're just lightning in a bottle today!

3. I don't really care what you think of PAtty but that eye is not a human eye, and it moves. And the so-called monkey suit has "hair", not fur. that is evidence it's "not a monkey suit", so, not a man in a monkey suit. The mammaries of that being stretch. No such monkey suit in 1967 hollywood had stretch material. Again, not proof, but strong evidence.

One thing I see you are excellent at, smashing good evidences when they don't please you.

1. Let me help your through your ignorance on populations. Populations are not symmetrical. They  are heavy toward the younger or the older populations. A symmetrical population such as the perfect bell curve you claim exists, but have shown no links for, is not a natural population.  So learn something for a change.

2. You have no idea what I wrote do you. The so-called dermal ridges in the FOOT prints were due to dessication of the casts.

3. I see you didn't mention the recording which you pretend exists.

4. I don't care how easily fooled you are by Patty. It loks like a guy who has spent little time in the woods walking along in a cheapo suit. It's not proof of anything other than a fake.

I see you can't tell what is evidence and what is a cheap scam.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
11 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

How about species from other dimensions? They can't just *poof*... appear?

So now you rely on another unproven whatever because the evidence for BF doesn't exist. That's what I pointed out earlier. BF is more about the excuses than anything else.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
5 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Well, Joc, now you know why I think it possible that BF could exist. I believed at one time BF did not exist for all the reasons that y'all do. No one ever captured one. How can this be?? All the millenia that american indians have been here and, nothing.

But looking at evidences, I've changed a bit. And I read what the Indians were saying. It's a possibility. Not proven but possible, IMO

So which of the many contradictory stories are you relying on now? Is it the creature that lives with the family and is peaceful? Is it the creature that is more the will-o-the-wisp? Is it the malevolent creature that brings destruction?

BF believers love to pretend that there is a consistency to the stories which does not exist.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sakari
On ‎9‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 6:17 AM, fred_mc said:

I don't think they exist but if they do I guess they would have a bigger chance of existing without being spotted today than in older times since fewer people are living in remote locations today, a lot of people have moved to cities.

No offense, but that is 100% backwards. The population has exploded, including in rural areas. Including the population of trail cams hunters have all over the place for scouting. There are more "eyes" in the rural areas now, more than ever.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

This is where we know that the data is a fake set of data:

Quote

the splay of data fits a bell curve and in fact almost makes a perfect normal distribution.

Real world populations do not have this type of data. 

So Earl.Of.Trumps, please provide us a link to this farcical data. Please tell us what the variables are for each axis of the population. Is this an age distribution, foot size distribution, height distribution, or what is it?

Please tell us what other natural populations have such "perfect normal distribution" as you claim.

Can't wait for you to once post something solid instead of the whimsical off the cuff story telling.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DebDandelion

*** I have missed the verbal jousting***

 

 

 

Smiles and reads on while sipping hazelnut cappuccino.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
4 minutes ago, stereologist said:

1. Let me help your through your ignorance on populations. Populations are not symmetrical. They  are heavy toward the younger or the older populations. A symmetrical population such as the perfect bell curve you claim exists, but have shown no links for, is not a natural population.  So learn something for a change.

2. You have no idea what I wrote do you. The so-called dermal ridges in the FOOT prints were due to dessication of the casts.

3. I see you didn't mention the recording which you pretend exists.

4. I don't care how easily fooled you are by Patty. It loks like a guy who has spent little time in the woods walking along in a cheapo suit. It's not proof of anything other than a fake.

I see you can't tell what is evidence and what is a cheap scam.

All of a sudden you need links???

2. I know exactly what you said. I'll ask you again, does a plaster of paris cast of a shoe box have FOOT prints OR fingerprints? Dermal ridges can be either.

3. There is s link out there that gives all american voice prints of what is to believed BFs. All of them. I ain't fetching it for you.

4. And I don't care how easily fooled YOU are about patty and the evidences that you seem to always slough off. There has to be an explanation in order for the MIAMS theory to hold.And you just don't seem like taking a crack at it.

As long as you keep ignoring hard evidences, I'm sure you don't think any exist.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.