Woman records eerie 'Bigfoot' howling in Ohio

[Hyperionxvii]

When the coyotes and owls out back of my house here get going at the same time at night, it sounds pretty crazy. If you just wanted to use your imagination, you could concoct up all sort of hobgoblins and what have you. 

[stereologist]

22 hours ago, LadyPhoenix said:

The eDNA evidence was identified as "chimp-like", but not chimp, if I recall correctly.  There are certainly no chimps running wild in Kentucky.  Some found in the NW (I don't recall which state) were quite similar to orangutan, but not that.  DNA testing isn't usually so vague, unless no match can be found due to deterioration.  When you get unknowns, that's notable.  I don't know if they released technical details or not, but you could likely look that up.  Unknown primate is pretty interesting, however.  When their team includes a serious scientist who demands solid proof, though, and she accepts the evidence, that's a good indicator. 

As for the sounds, infrasound isn't known to be used by recognized animals in the United States, as it's known to be used with some from other places, such as tigers.  When they have recorded infrasound in areas believed to be inhabited with Bigfoot, that's interesting.  It isn't "incompetence" to record such sounds and state honestly that they aren't able to ID the source.  While one member of the team does believe they are from BF, nothing certain was stated, which is good science.  The team behaves nothing like the myriad of ghost teams out there.  Almost all of those assume any sound "must be a ghost", and usually offer up histories on those.  Same for some other BF shows.  This one isn't like that.  I wouldn't watch it if that was the case. 

As fr bears, if you had human beings very close to some cluster, and at night, you'd hear some sounds.  You'd likely see some reaction.  Bears respond to other animals.  They don't always attack, but they do respond.  Besides which, the shapes didn't look like bears.  They've encountered those, and IDed them as such.  Footage one person thought was a bear - daytime footage, not a thermal - turned out not to be one, as it stood up and walked away, both definitely NOT a bear in two feet.  The gait of a bear moving in that fashion is quite different from that of a person or other primate. 

I know that there is a lot of nonsense out there regarding this topic, but that's not a sound reason to toss out everything, or to assume that anything stated is always in that category.  Animals thought to be mythical have been discovered, because some were willing to actually look, and sometimes even by accident.  I watch a lot of videos posted that are claimed to be Bigfoot, and some are obviously just a person.  Some are not, and some, many, you can't tell for certain.  I don't just happily accept any and all claims, but this group, on this show, are being more careful.  LeBlanc is a true believer, but he's balanced by the others. 

You are suggesting that there is some genuine effort on the part of a TV show to be truthful. That's rare. In fact this show relies on BS as it's basis.

The eDNA evidence seems to be bad. Chimp-like but not chimp sounds sketchy at best. It's chimpanzee or not chimpanzee, not like. The possibility of chimps in Kentucky is as likely as the existence of BF. It's not "DNA testing isn't usually so vague". No, it's clear or the DNA is damaged.

That infrasound is BS as well. The existence of infrasound could be the wind.

Your idea that bears make sound is a guess. Young bears maybe. Older bears are amazingly quiet. And I see bears about every other week.  I know what bears do and they often do not react to me ut wonder off silently looking for a meal.

Please give me examples of this: "Animals thought to be mythical have been discovered"What I have learned is that all of the animals proposed for this category were already known by physical samples. Maybe you know of one in which that was not the case

[stereologist]

22 hours ago, LadyPhoenix said:

You  can look up the research, to see if it is posted or not, for those details. 

Yes, I know what eDNA is.  That we can obtain samples from the environment is pretty cool, as that allows for much greater understanding of an area, though it's not going to provide a complete picture.  As for what some scientist would state, that would depend on the scientist.  Some would assume that it meant nothing, no matter how compelling, and others would look and consider the evidence for what it is.  Scientists are certainly not without their own biases.  I recall an early Monster Quest episode, wherein they proved a cat filmed was at least double the length of a house cat, but one "expert" claimed it was "just a house cat", because of not believing that it could be anything else.  That sort of reaction is common with many scientists.  If it's something they don't already know, they will reject evidence. 

As for the 2012 nonsense, none of that was even close to scientific study. 

No. Monster Quest is a dubious show with dubious stories. In other words it's a sad joke. And they did not prove it was double the length. Your notion that someone else exposed their failure and showed it was just a house cat you dismiss because you want to believe hoaxers making a joke of a show.

[stereologist]

8 hours ago, Myles said:

It is amazing the amount of people who think T.V. shows have to be factual.   It is entertainment for ratings.  The Curse of Oak Island can purposely bury and plant stuff for themselves to find while filming.  The is no rule against it (I don't know that they do this).  The History Channel has not presented Only Facts for many years now. 

I thought they might be switching from being the Hysteria channel back to Nazis 24/7

[the13bats]

9 hours ago, Resume said:

It should occur to those people that if a DNA blast indicated a novel primate, biologists, primatologists, etc., would tripping over themselves to try and replicate the results, and begin their own research expeditions.  The results of such a blast, if replicated,  would be published in Nature, The International Journal of Primatology, etc., not simply announced off-handedly on a teevee show.  And guess what, they would be announced as soon as verified, without waiting as a cliffhanger for the season's premiere.  A novel primate species would be a game-changer for biology in general, and likely evolutionary biology in particular.

Pt Barnum and many others like the warrens made a wonderful living off duping the credulous some people love to have someone put something over on them.

These same types think teevee shows that have words like "hunting" or "looking" "quest" etc in their names are some credible scientific outlet.

[the13bats]

7 hours ago, Hyperionxvii said:

When the coyotes and owls out back of my house here get going at the same time at night, it sounds pretty crazy. If you just wanted to use your imagination, you could concoct up all sort of hobgoblins and what have you. 

The first time i heard a cat in heat or a ranting peacock yeah i thought it was a banshee from hell,

Im in my teens Its about around 1980 1am im under my camaro working on it ahem scared of what the hell creature is that, much to my embarrassment my grandmother comes out asking me if i hear the horny cat.

 

[the13bats]

On 11/22/2022 at 8:05 PM, LadyPhoenix said:

There are certainly no chimps running wild in Kentucky. 

How arrogant and utterly riduculous besides climate that would be hard on it if too cold too long any state could support apes or monkeys, ( especially short term ) turned out or escaped pets or zoo creatures.

We have lots in florida its where the skunk ape stories come from.

 

 

[qxcontinuum]

Still nothing like this:

 

[Trelane]

[Trelane]

16 hours ago, qxcontinuum said:

Still nothing like this:

 

Small, child or infant. Too easy.

[qxcontinuum]

4 hours ago, Trelane said:

Small, child or infant. Too easy.

 The child has foolef me too, just listen to the whole thing

Edited November 25, 2022 by qxcontinuum

[Trelane]

13 minutes ago, qxcontinuum said:

 The child has foolef me too, just listen to the whole thing

If there's something in the background, I can't hear it on my crummy work laptop's speakers. I'll have to give it another go when I get home and listen with my headphones.

[Jon the frog]

2 minutes ago, Trelane said:

If there's something in the background, I can't hear it on my crummy work laptop's speakers. I'll have to give it another go when I get home and listen with my headphones.

Just someone using poison ivy after doing a number two...

[Dejarma]

2 minutes ago, Trelane said:

If there's something in the background, I can't hear it on my crummy work laptop's speakers. I'll have to give it another go when I get home and listen with my headphones.

you're being polite- just say what you really think 

[Trelane]

2 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

you're being polite- just say what you really think 

I only hear the infant or small child making noises. That's all. If there's something off in the distance, I can't hear it my work laptop. I'll guess that it's a misidentified animal as usual.

[Dejarma]

Just now, Trelane said:

I only hear the infant or small child making noises. That's all. If there's something off in the distance, I can't hear it my work laptop. I'll guess that it's a misidentified animal as usual.

why bother is my point! you know bigfoot does not exist- what's on the recording is irrelevant, isn't it? Or is my logic flawed?

[Trelane]

2 hours ago, Dejarma said:

why bother is my point! you know bigfoot does not exist- what's on the recording is irrelevant, isn't it? Or is my logic flawed?

No, no you're right. I will attempt to at least humor those who are still so determined to believe the creature exists. Within reason of course.

[Harte]

16 hours ago, Trelane said:

I will attempt to at least humor those who are still so determined to believe the creature exists.

Harte

[Harte]

On 11/23/2022 at 10:26 PM, qxcontinuum said:

Still nothing like this:

 

Harte

[+Hammerclaw]

No mystery, just a moose, noisy blighters.

 

[+Hammerclaw]

Coyote Howls

 

[Resume]

Lynx foreplay:

 

[LadyPhoenix]

On 11/23/2022 at 6:21 AM, the13bats said:

Rubbish, go youtube bears walking on rear legs its out right creepy.

Hilarious, MQ is an entertainment show not a science report, i saw that episode and it was a house cat, they was not way to gauge its true size past housecat.

And that geeky kid you had a paper cut and claimed a large cat attacked him,too funny.

Whether you find a bear walking on its hind legs "creepy" or not isn't relevant.  What is relevant is that a bear doing so looks nothing like a human doing so.  We're meant to walk on two legs, while quadrupeds are meant to walk on four.  The movements of a bear on its hind legs are far different from those of a bipedal creature.  If you don't know this already, not sure I can help you.

No, the animal they measured was not a house cat.  House cats don't get anywhere near that long.  The length could be confirmed by comparison to another photo, with a human of known height in it, and that's what they did.  That's not the only photograph of that sort that's been verified in such a fashion, either.  That this was shown n a television show doesn't make the proof less valid. 

*snip*

Edited November 29, 2022 by Saru
Removed personal attack

[LadyPhoenix]

On 11/23/2022 at 8:07 AM, Resume said:

Please provide a citation for an DNA blast result for "novel primate."  Not silly declarations like "99% human" or other known primates.  That citation should also demonstrate independent attestation for those results.

Lots of things look like other things from other places and turn out to be mundane.  So what?

And that something new could just be a new vocalization for an established species. We haven't cataloged every sound every creature makes.

 

So lets apply common sense.  Your claim here, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that a large (6-9ft) undocumented bipedal primate with alleged continental distribution has lived alongside millions of human beings for eons, yet no hide nor hair has ever been independently affirmed. That claim doesn't seem like common sense.

 

If you want citations, go look them up.  I am not your researcher.  Certainly, something close to chimp DNA wouldn't be mundane in Kentucky. 

We likely have not, but when a sound matches nothing known, there is a good chance that it is because the sound is from an animal that isn't yet catalogued.  New species are discovered far more often than many realize.  Assuming some wild, prolonged howl, unlike anything anyone has heard from "known" species, is something we have simply missed cataloguing before is a bit presumptuous.  Common sense dictates that all possibilities be considered, including that the sound could be from an  animal not yet "discovered" as being just as likely as a new sound from an animal long known and studied.

Hair doesn't always produce DNA, and analysis isn't 100% certain.  Many animals, however, avoided leaving such evidence for ages, some of which have been discovered quite recently. 

[Rolltide]

7 pages in, lol...

Edited November 28, 2022 by Rolltide