Bigfoot researcher claims creature may pose a risk to human life

[MysteryMike]

On 1/5/2023 at 6:17 PM, stereologist said:

When people ask for evidence they get zilch, nada, nothing.

Here you claim it exists. Where are the fossils, scat, bones, teeth, hair, DNA, ....? It's not there is it? By now we'd expect to find some evidence. People like to parade in all sorts of things like the okapi, mountains gorillas, and colossal squid. But in all of those cases something was already in hand such as a piece of hide, a skull, or a beak.

What is there to BF? Just tracks and other casts that could easily be faked.  and many are exposed as hoaxes. You know I just went to a cryptid convention and listed to all of the speakers. I saw tracks for sale. All were perfectly flat with perfectly defined toes. All fakes. Every one a fake. It takes skill and care to make such perfect unblemished tracks.

There's also the fact too all those things we discovered notably gorillas and the okapi. That was back in the early 1900s, when technology wasn't as advanced as it is now. Notably as soon as stories of gorillas came, people looked for them, found them immediately, why haven't we found Bigfoot? Hmmm...

[MysteryMike]

Let me remind people.

Bears on hind legs, hermits living out in the woods. Mystery solved.

You'd also be very surprised how easy it is for your eyes to play tricks on you.

Your forgetting several factors as well.

We see megafauna such as bears, wolves, cougars and deer all the time but no bigfoots?

No dead bodies especially after natural disasters such as forest fires.

No fossil record of a giant primate in North America.

eDNA aka Environmental DNA alone would have proven this creatures existence a long time ago.

The absurdity that a superprimate could remain hidden for so long as there'd have to be a breeding population, people can't even get a single photo that isn't blurry? They can somehow avoid all the advanced tech we've developed? People this day of age alone has a phone on them with a camera in it. Satellite notably satellite mapping having mapped every corner of the world.

The largest creatures we've discovered in recent years had been small deer inhabiting Nepal but that still doesn't compare to a 600-800 pound superprimate.

Edited January 8, 2023 by MysteryMike

[+DieChecker]

On 1/6/2023 at 6:45 PM, stereologist said:

Stories, no matter how many stories there are, does  in no way support the reality of an issue.

People are story tellers. Despite all of the stories of human language speaking animals none are known to exist. There are far more stories of talking animals than BF sightings.

People thinking the large number of stories of BF meaning some support are not thinking well.

This is like a group of farmers deciding to make the world's largest pile of manure. They truck it in, they bull doze it up and pretty soon it is an enormous mountain of steaming manure. It grows and grows and begins to act like a volcano. Rumors begin that a pile of manure that big must be more than manure. The crew from Oak Island comes down to dig for treasure. The BF groups come down and spot BF. UFOs are seen. Fairies and dwarfs do dances in the presence of this roaring, farting belching, behemoth of manure.

But you know in the end it is just another stinking pile of **** surrounded by clueless onlookers

Science is about observation. Repeated observations. Often with no one else there observing. Modern technology has made it so many things can now be recorded and reviewed easily. Which can then prove or not, if human observations are correct. This hasn't necessarily been done on subjects like bigfoot, and to do so would be hard, since the areas involved are so large.

There has been much great ape activity in North America for thousands of years. Human activity. If BF is a marginal human how much would the DNA look different? How different is DNA between a African Pygmy and a Laplander? And if you, or I, found some DNA and it came back human, would it say "African Pygmy" or "Laplander", or just "human"?

If I got DNA from Andre the Giant, would it be easily decermable as someone who was not a baseline appearing person? 

Just saying...

Edited January 8, 2023 by DieChecker

[+DieChecker]

5 hours ago, MysteryMike said:

Let me remind people.

Bears on hind legs, hermits living out in the woods. Mystery solved.

You'd also be very surprised how easy it is for your eyes to play tricks on you.

Your forgetting several factors as well.

This is almost assuredly the case. However, I'd disagree on some of your points below.

Quote

We see megafauna such as bears, wolves, cougars and deer all the time but no bigfoots?

We know that tens of thousands claim to have seen it. They even take pictures and videos. Many post them online.

Quote

No dead bodies especially after natural disasters such as forest fires.

No fossil record of a giant primate in North America.

This is true. But what if BF is just a big hairy human. The Native Americans, some at least, thought they were simply Wild Men. The word Sasquatch is a bastardization of a word meaning wild man.

Thousands of dead people are found and never identified each year. If just a handful were found in the woods, and unusually tall/heavy, and written off as vagrants, it would not be unusual.

Quote

eDNA aka Environmental DNA alone would have proven this creatures existence a long time ago.

Not if the DNA said human.

Quote

The absurdity that a superprimate could remain hidden for so long as there'd have to be a breeding population, people can't even get a single photo that isn't blurry? They can somehow avoid all the advanced tech we've developed? People this day of age alone has a phone on them with a camera in it. Satellite notably satellite mapping having mapped every corner of the world.

True. But try this experiment. Place your locked phone on your lap while driving at night. Then, say, when you see a guy on a bicycle about 100 yards out, whip out that phone, unlock it with one hand, zoom it with one hand at the bike, and take a pic. See if it isn't badly aimed, or blurry.

Maybe after practicing a dozen times, you'll get it. But assume you are only going to see that bike rider once....

People like to say, "Just take a pic", if you see BF cross a road, but it's not that easy actually. And phone cameras don't self focus very well, and don't auto zoom. And while some people do take a actual camera everywhere, I'd argue they are by far a extreme minority. 

Most complaints I see are that the focus is off, or the zoom is too far out. Both true, but because the average person is only good at taking pics of themself and their dinner.

The one arguement I have is trail cams. They should eventually catch a BF, if it exists. And so far no pic. So, so far, no "BF are REALZ". 

The only good evidence of a lack of BFs is the lack of Physical Evidence. "No body" is the best arguement, and most other arguments are (IMHO) just opinions.

[stereologist]

19 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Science is about observation. Repeated observations. Often with no one else there observing. Modern technology has made it so many things can now be recorded and reviewed easily. Which can then prove or not, if human observations are correct. This hasn't necessarily been done on subjects like bigfoot, and to do so would be hard, since the areas involved are so large.

There has been much great ape activity in North America for thousands of years. Human activity. If BF is a marginal human how much would the DNA look different? How different is DNA between a African Pygmy and a Laplander? And if you, or I, found some DNA and it came back human, would it say "African Pygmy" or "Laplander", or just "human"?

If I got DNA from Andre the Giant, would it be easily decermable as someone who was not a baseline appearing person? 

Just saying...

You seem rather interested in DNA and yet you wonder about it. The DNA from an African Pygmy or a Laplander or any other human would be seen as human. Depending on what is found it is possible to determine many characteristics of the person. The following article is from 2009 and describes what can be determined from DNA. Andre the Giant was larger due to excess growth hormone. I'll let you figure out if that is detectable in DNA.

https://www.officer.com/home/article/10233457/new-dna-testing-technique-pinpoints-hair-eye-and-skin-color

But the DNA doesn't really matter does it? Why? Because the problem is that the human skeleton is limited as to how tall a person can be. Also, the excess growth  hormone leads to an early death as seen in people like Andre the Giant.He died at 46 of congestive heart failure.

The size of the search area is not really big. Most reports are from crowded areas where staying hidden is not that easy.

 

[stereologist]

11 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

This is almost assuredly the case. However, I'd disagree on some of your points below.

We know that tens of thousands claim to have seen it. They even take pictures and videos. Many post them online.

This is true. But what if BF is just a big hairy human. The Native Americans, some at least, thought they were simply Wild Men. The word Sasquatch is a bastardization of a word meaning wild man.

Thousands of dead people are found and never identified each year. If just a handful were found in the woods, and unusually tall/heavy, and written off as vagrants, it would not be unusual.

Not if the DNA said human.

True. But try this experiment. Place your locked phone on your lap while driving at night. Then, say, when you see a guy on a bicycle about 100 yards out, whip out that phone, unlock it with one hand, zoom it with one hand at the bike, and take a pic. See if it isn't badly aimed, or blurry.

Maybe after practicing a dozen times, you'll get it. But assume you are only going to see that bike rider once....

People like to say, "Just take a pic", if you see BF cross a road, but it's not that easy actually. And phone cameras don't self focus very well, and don't auto zoom. And while some people do take a actual camera everywhere, I'd argue they are by far a extreme minority. 

Most complaints I see are that the focus is off, or the zoom is too far out. Both true, but because the average person is only good at taking pics of themself and their dinner.

The one arguement I have is trail cams. They should eventually catch a BF, if it exists. And so far no pic. So, so far, no "BF are REALZ". 

The only good evidence of a lack of BFs is the lack of Physical Evidence. "No body" is the best arguement, and most other arguments are (IMHO) just opinions.

I am going to very much disagree with some of your statements.

1. We know that people claiming to see something happens. But what they see is not clear to them.

2. The pictures and videos are terrible as we see time after time.

3. Humans cannot exist and be 8 to 9 feet tall generation after generation.

4. The Native American stories are not BF. That's a modern twisting of the facts to pretend that they are BF stories.

5. Your thousands of dead people suggests that BF doesn't exist.

6. Please tell us how many 8 to 9 foot tall dead people are found in the woods. I believe the answer to that is 0.

Frankly, none of this has any real bearing on the issue that no BF has ever been found. There is nothing out there. Nothing. Around a century has gone by without a single piece of evidence.

Lots of really bad stories sure. Lots of blurry blobsquatch photos but nothing of value. Even P-32 was photographed.

 

[stereologist]

As I've pointed out and others have, humans cannot survive at the height of 8 to 9 feet.

The world's tallest person was 8'11" and he required leg braces to walk because his skeleton could not carry all of that weight. He died at age 22.

I don't recall any photos of BF with leg braces, using wheelchairs, or crutches to get around.

[+DieChecker]

30 minutes ago, stereologist said:

You seem rather interested in DNA and yet you wonder about it. The DNA from an African Pygmy or a Laplander or any other human would be seen as human. Depending on what is found it is possible to determine many characteristics of the person. The following article is from 2009 and describes what can be determined from DNA. Andre the Giant was larger due to excess growth hormone. I'll let you figure out if that is detectable in DNA.

https://www.officer.com/home/article/10233457/new-dna-testing-technique-pinpoints-hair-eye-and-skin-color

True, but if the DNA was sent to a lab and asked, what animal is this, they would respond with "human". They would not say a blue eyed, Anglo male, with Northern European ancestors. 

Quote

But the DNA doesn't really matter does it? Why? Because the problem is that the human skeleton is limited as to how tall a person can be. Also, the excess growth  hormone leads to an early death as seen in people like Andre the Giant.He died at 46 of congestive heart failure.

The size of the search area is not really big. Most reports are from crowded areas where staying hidden is not that easy.

And yet Andre had children.

Acromegaly is almost always not genetic, and caused by tumors. But 5% of cases are not tumor related.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acromegaly

Quote

Acromegaly is a disorder that results from excess growth hormone (GH) after the growth plates have closed. The initial symptom is typically enlargement of the hands and feet.[3] There may also be an enlargement of the forehead, jaw, and nose. 

Large hands and feet. Enlarged jaw and forehead. Sound familiar in context?

[Grim Reaper 6]

12 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Science is about observation. Repeated observations. Often with no one else there observing. Modern technology has made it so many things can now be recorded and reviewed easily. Which can then prove or not, if human observations are correct. This hasn't necessarily been done on subjects like bigfoot, and to do so would be hard, since the areas involved are so large.

Yes, it has in fact the Pacific Northwest the subjected has been scientifically investigated

12 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

There has been much great ape activity in North America for thousands of years. Human activity. If BF is a marginal human how much would the DNA look different? How different is DNA between a African Pygmy and a Laplander? And if you, or I, found some DNA and it came back human, would it say "African Pygmy" or "Laplander", or just "human"

No, your comments are not actually correct.

Your, comments on DNA really give away your very minimal knowledge of that subject in fact no offense, your comments completely show your ignorance concerning how genetic studies are conducted and how  DNA is broken down to individual bodily functions. For, instance I have 

The entire genetic code has been broken down since 1966. Here is article that explains that in detail its listed as Deciphering the Genetic Code: Deciphering the Genetic Code: Deciphering the Genetic Code - National Historic Chemical Landmark - American Chemical Society (acs.org)

For instance, my family came from Northern Germany, both my mother and fathers' families were living in the area around Flensburg, Germany as far back in history to when records were kept. Flensburg, Germany is on the border of Demark and while I am aware that my genetic heritage was linked to Germany and Danish ancestry, I want to know in more detail what Genetic Heritage I came from, So, I had a DNA test perform at a Military Hospital for free and I ordered a DNA test from a company online I wanted to see how close the tests were.

I was surprised when had both results in my hands, it turned out that I had genetics that showed a tied between Danish and German ancestry, because Germanic ancestry is over all not uncommon in Europe. But what surprised me is that I had a large percentage of Neandertal DNA also. The maximum amount of Neandertal DNA found in humans is 3% and that is what both tests said that I had 3%. Now, when it comes to Neandertal DNA, it's only becoming clear recently before they didn't know what effects it has in humans, or even what purpose it services so they call it Junk DNA.

However, there are things I have in common with Neandertals and when I was working on my Bachelor's degree biology my teacher was interested my Ancestry, concerning Neandertal DNA. He wAS VERY very interested because he was working on his Doctorate in Genetic Studies. He asked me if I would participate in a study he was doing on DNA, especially Neanderthal DNA still existing in Living humans. I said sure if you give me a 3.8 or above on this last requirement for my degree. he laughed and said yes.

Well, long story short I have Characteristics that are associated with Neanderthals. Cold weather doesn't bother me at all, I am stocky, but I have never had to watch my weight because I have a high metabolism, and I never get fat in addition, and I was born with exceptional eye which is 15/20 in both eyes, and I have the extreme ability to see in very dark places other can't follow. Last, my body chemistry is not normal like most peoples, those like me make up a small percentage of the earth's population, and almost all of us have AB Neg Blood.

What this comes down to is simple, when I take medications that make almost everyone drowsy, it affects me the opposite way. Instead of becoming drowsy it is like I have drake an entire pot of coffee I am wide awake and unable to sleep for hours after. Well, to sum it up, it appears that the Neanderthal DNA does actually have effects that are measurable , and I think over time more information will become available on this topic!

 

 

12 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

If I got DNA from Andre the Giant, would it be easily decermable as someone who was not a baseline appearing person? 

Just saying...

 

[+DieChecker]

26 minutes ago, stereologist said:

I am going to very much disagree with some of your statements.

1. We know that people claiming to see something happens. But what they see is not clear to them.

So people are bad witnesses?

If a driver said, "I almost hit a bear", or a cougar, or and elk... There'd be no questioning, but say Bigfoot, and now you're a bad witness.

Overall, I'd agree most reports are misidentifications. Especially the stupid, "find Waldo" pics of stumps in the woods.

Quote

2. The pictures and videos are terrible as we see time after time..

Because? People are bad at taking pictures. They simply are. Especially when excited. Like when you thought you just saw bigfoot.

Quote

3. Humans cannot exist and be 8 to 9 feet tall generation after generation.

True. But there are Bigfoot reports of 5 and 6 feet tall. And some of even 12 feet tall.

It's a fact, like you implied above, people are often mistaken. Height of what they saw is one of these.

One famous bigfoot video claimed the BF was 9 feet tall, standing on a ridgeline. But when a investgator went to the same spot, it was clear the figure was only about 6.5 feet tall. 

Quote

4. The Native American stories are not BF. That's a modern twisting of the facts to pretend that they are BF stories.

I've seen several actual NA state that some Wildman myths were actually directly corellated with Bigfoot. So, IMHO, many of the claims by "Bigfoot experts", are bogus, but some of them are correct.

Quote

5. Your thousands of dead people suggests that BF doesn't exist.

They suggest unknown humans die. Probably everywhere. 

Quote

6. Please tell us how many 8 to 9 foot tall dead people are found in the woods. I believe the answer to that is 0.

I don't know that to be true, or false. It is known that people 7 foot and taller are about one in 3 million. So odds are pretty low. Maybe zero. 

People 6.5 feet tall though is pretty common. About 1%. So that would be possibly dozens.

Quote

Frankly, none of this has any real bearing on the issue that no BF has ever been found. There is nothing out there. Nothing. Around a century has gone by without a single piece of evidence.

Lots of really bad stories sure. Lots of blurry blobsquatch photos but nothing of value. Even P-32 was photographed

I think a century would be stretching things. I think 60 years, going back into the 1960s would be fair. Records before that exist, but are often suspect IMHO. 

[Grim Reaper 6]

9 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

So people are bad witnesses?

If a driver said, "I almost hit a bear", or a cougar, or and elk... There'd be no questioning, but say Bigfoot, and now you're a bad witness.

Overall, I'd agree most reports are misidentifications. Especially the stupid, "find Waldo" pics of stumps in the woods.

Because? People are bad at taking pictures. They simply are. Especially when excited. Like when you thought you just saw bigfoot.

True. But there are Bigfoot reports of 5 and 6 feet tall. And some of even 12 feet tall.

It's a fact, like you implied above, people are often mistaken. Height of what they saw is one of these.

One famous bigfoot video claimed the BF was 9 feet tall, standing on a ridgeline. But when a investgator went to the same spot, it was clear the figure was only about 6.5 feet tall. 

I've seen several actual NA state that some Wildman myths were actually directly corellated with Bigfoot. So, IMHO, many of the claims by "Bigfoot experts", are bogus, but some of them are correct.

They suggest unknown humans die. Probably everywhere. 

I don't know that to be true, or false. It is known that people 7 foot and taller are about one in 3 million. So odds are pretty low. Maybe zero. 

People 6.5 feet tall though is pretty common. About 1%. So that would be possibly dozens.

I think a century would be stretching things. I think 60 years, going back into the 1960s would be fair. Records before that exist, but are often suspect IMHO. 

Here, is a scientific paper that describes why eyewitness testimony isn't reliable: Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts - Scientific American 

[+DieChecker]

7 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Yes, it has in fact the Pacific Northwest the subjected has been scientifically investigated

You yourself said few people walk all those woods. Are you suggesting the entire PNW has been scanned, all animals censused, and nothing unusual found? Or did I misunderstand your post here?

Quote

Your, comments on DNA really give away your very minimal knowledge of that subject in fact no offense, your comments completely show your ignorance concerning how genetic studies are conducted and how  DNA is broken down to individual bodily functions. For, instance I have

I don't need extensive knowledge, I just need to know what a DNA lab looking for animal DNA is going to respond with if they find human DNA. They're going to say, "Human", or "Racoon", or "Cow", and not look into the ancestory unless paid to do so. They're not going to do it out of curiosity, or free of charge.

Quote

But what surprised me is that I had a large percentage of Neandertal DNA also. The maximum amount of Neandertal DNA found in humans is 3% and that is what both tests said that I had 3%. Now, when it comes to Neandertal DNA, it's only becoming clear recently before they didn't know what effects it has in humans, or even what purpose it services so they call it Junk DNA.

I have done the 23AndMe DNA analysis. I'm at about 70%, IIRC, of Neanderthal maximum. The site links dozens of possible effects from higher percentages.

Quote

However, there are things I have in common with Neandertals and when I was working on my Bachelor's degree biology my teacher was interested my Ancestry, concerning Neandertal DNA.

Did you finish up your degree?

[+DieChecker]

Just now, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Here, is a scientific paper that describes why eyewitness testimony isn't reliable: Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts - Scientific American 

Which is why the more witnesses the better, right? 

[Grim Reaper 6]

20 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Which is why the more witnesses the better, right? 

Here you may enjoy this the tests were conducted by the FBI Lab: 

Bigfoot Files FBI

FBI Records: The Vault — Bigfoot Part 01 of 01

Edited January 8, 2023 by Grim Reaper 6

[stereologist]

7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

True, but if the DNA was sent to a lab and asked, what animal is this, they would respond with "human". They would not say a blue eyed, Anglo male, with Northern European ancestors. 

And yet Andre had children.

Acromegaly is almost always not genetic, and caused by tumors. But 5% of cases are not tumor related.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acromegaly

Large hands and feet. Enlarged jaw and forehead. Sound familiar in context?

Your story of only receiving animal as an answer if you pretending that is all you would get for an answer. You have no idea about DNA and then you pretend it is not used to its full potential.

So Andre had kids. Big deal he was only 7'4", not 8 to 9 feet as BF is supposed to be.

Acromegaly shows that there are not human groups out there that are 8 to 9 feet tall. Thanks for showing more evidence against BF being human.

[stereologist]

7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

So people are bad witnesses?

If a driver said, "I almost hit a bear", or a cougar, or and elk... There'd be no questioning, but say Bigfoot, and now you're a bad witness.

Overall, I'd agree most reports are misidentifications. Especially the stupid, "find Waldo" pics of stumps in the woods.

Because? People are bad at taking pictures. They simply are. Especially when excited. Like when you thought you just saw bigfoot.

True. But there are Bigfoot reports of 5 and 6 feet tall. And some of even 12 feet tall.

It's a fact, like you implied above, people are often mistaken. Height of what they saw is one of these.

One famous bigfoot video claimed the BF was 9 feet tall, standing on a ridgeline. But when a investgator went to the same spot, it was clear the figure was only about 6.5 feet tall. 

I've seen several actual NA state that some Wildman myths were actually directly corellated with Bigfoot. So, IMHO, many of the claims by "Bigfoot experts", are bogus, but some of them are correct.

They suggest unknown humans die. Probably everywhere. 

I don't know that to be true, or false. It is known that people 7 foot and taller are about one in 3 million. So odds are pretty low. Maybe zero. 

People 6.5 feet tall though is pretty common. About 1%. So that would be possibly dozens.

I think a century would be stretching things. I think 60 years, going back into the 1960s would be fair. Records before that exist, but are often suspect IMHO. 

People are bad witnesses. Quite a few people in my area claim to have almost hit a cougar. Extremely unlikely yet they claim that. So when you say "There'd be no questioning" I disagree.

Besides that is all there is to BF - stories and stories are not backed up by any physical evidence.

The videos are terrible, simply worthless. They in no way support the existence of BF. Making up excuses about bad videos simply is not what is given for videos. Your excuses do not match the vast majority of videos.

Videos don't matter. They are just part of the story telling process and are not backed up by any physical evidence.

The heights are impossible at the 8 to 9 foot height. The 12 foot height is just more BS. The shorter height of course is seen in hoaxes where someone is wearing a costume.

You mentioned Native Americans that puts the timeline back centuries. I do not believe that any of the Native American stories refer to BF.

The 1924 story from Oregon is a century ago. A century of BF and nothing to value ever found. Why? Because BF does not exist.

[stereologist]

7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

You yourself said few people walk all those woods. Are you suggesting the entire PNW has been scanned, all animals censused, and nothing unusual found? Or did I misunderstand your post here?

I don't need extensive knowledge, I just need to know what a DNA lab looking for animal DNA is going to respond with if they find human DNA. They're going to say, "Human", or "Racoon", or "Cow", and not look into the ancestory unless paid to do so. They're not going to do it out of curiosity, or free of charge.

I have done the 23AndMe DNA analysis. I'm at about 70%, IIRC, of Neanderthal maximum. The site links dozens of possible effects from higher percentages.

Did you finish up your degree?

Once again you are pretending to know what a lab will report. You have no idea what a lab does and yet you claim to know what a lab will do. How bizarre.

You claim it's an extra charge to do something yet you have no idea what they do.

Here you make it abundantly clear that you know nothing about DNA. You posted: "I'm at about 70%, IIRC, of Neanderthal maximum." Here is a link and you can learn how no one is even close to that amount.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/how-much-neanderthal-dna-do-humans-have

[stereologist]

7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Which is why the more witnesses the better, right? 

No. A good example of more witnesses not improving the observation is this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

A large crowd reported the Sun dancing yet many in the crowd saw nothing.

With BF reports we do not have many people seeing the same event. We have all sorts of different events tossed into the same bin. Priming causes people, especially the fantasy prone, to imagine that they are seeing BF.

[stereologist]

A great example of bad witnesses comes from Vermont. In 1960 a magazine called Vermont ran a story on Champ. In the article the author traces back the earliest sighting to Samuel Champlain. He reported a serpentine creature with a head like a horse raised out of the water. Throughout the 1960s, 1970s, and onward many witnesses reported a serpentine creature with a head like a horse.

@DieChecker asked this question "Which is why the more witnesses the better, right?"

The answer of course is no. Here is the reason why.

A real researcher took the time to read Champlain's logbook from that voyage and found out that the Vermont article lied about Champlain seeing the monster. What the article did do was have witnesses repeating that made up story for decades.

What can we learn from this? What witnesses report is what they have seen in the form of hoaxes like the PG film, from statues carved from wood, from online art, etc.

[MysteryMike]

10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Not if the DNA said human.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_DNA

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2009.02152.x

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8837273/

Cameras (We get clear photos of wolves, bears, deer and cougars by millions of people but not bigfoots?) aren't nearly the best biodiversity monitoring tool we have today. Not even close. We also have this thing called environmental DNA (eDNA). eDNA is DNA collected from samples in a given region (such as rivers, air, snow, or soil) and it gives you a pretty good idea of anything that used to pass through that environment. It can even detect the presence of small and elusive species, it has been successfully used in environments difficult to access (like the Arctic), and it is regularly used by conservationists to get an idea of what lives where. No matter how elusive Bigfoot is, even it needs to defecate. Its **** would eventually get into the water or into the soil (heck, even air works sometimes) and be found by those people monitoring black bear populations or whatever. And DNA samples from a North American non-human hominoid primate would be hard to confuse or mix up with anything else.

I rest my case.

Edited January 8, 2023 by MysteryMike

[MysteryMike]

10 hours ago, DieChecker said:

We know that tens of thousands claim to have seen it. They even take pictures and videos. Many post them online.

All of which had always been blurry or out of focus yet that doesn't seem to be the case with bears, wolves, cougars and deer, such megafauna...

But when its bigfoot it is...Pretty suspicious don't you think? Given how many people there are in the world, you'd think one of them would have gotten a clear photo by now...8 billion people in this world, what are the chances they'd keep getting a blurry photo?

Also thousands of missing people never found can't compare to an 8-9 foot species of superprimate especially a breeding population.

And again satellite mapping, we've mapped every corner of the world, even the most remote regions.

The largest species we've recently discovered at best is a small deer of Nepal, that still doesn't compare to a 600-800 pound primate in North America.

No amount of intelligence or how elusive such a creature could be would help it hide for so long from all the tech we've developed. Only way it would exist is if its extraterrestrial in origin or supernatural by any means such as a dimensional being.

"Bu-b-but gorillas were thought to be a myth".

Yeah back in the early 1900s when tech wasn't as advanced and even then when stories were first being heard by Europeans, guess what, as soon as they decided to seek them out, they discovered them immediately. So it doesn't compare.

Now compare today with the crazy tech we got.

Face it, 99.9% of cryptids (At least on land) especially bigfoot doesn't exist.

Edited January 8, 2023 by MysteryMike

[the13bats]

14 hours ago, DieChecker said:

This is almost assuredly the case. However, I'd disagree on some of your points below.

We know that tens of thousands claim to have seen it. They even take pictures and videos. Many post them online.

This is true. But what if BF is just a big hairy human. The Native Americans, some at least, thought they were simply Wild Men. The word Sasquatch is a bastardization of a word meaning wild man.

Thousands of dead people are found and never identified each year. If just a handful were found in the woods, and unusually tall/heavy, and written off as vagrants, it would not be unusual.

Not if the DNA said human.

True. But try this experiment. Place your locked phone on your lap while driving at night. Then, say, when you see a guy on a bicycle about 100 yards out, whip out that phone, unlock it with one hand, zoom it with one hand at the bike, and take a pic. See if it isn't badly aimed, or blurry.

Maybe after practicing a dozen times, you'll get it. But assume you are only going to see that bike rider once....

People like to say, "Just take a pic", if you see BF cross a road, but it's not that easy actually. And phone cameras don't self focus very well, and don't auto zoom. And while some people do take a actual camera everywhere, I'd argue they are by far a extreme minority. 

Most complaints I see are that the focus is off, or the zoom is too far out. Both true, but because the average person is only good at taking pics of themself and their dinner.

The one arguement I have is trail cams. They should eventually catch a BF, if it exists. And so far no pic. So, so far, no "BF are REALZ". 

The only good evidence of a lack of BFs is the lack of Physical Evidence. "No body" is the best arguement, and most other arguments are (IMHO) just opinions.

In one statement trying to support BF you point out pics are posted online then knowing that all the pics and video are trash you go on to make excuses why the pictures and video are crap, yet there are countless pics of known some rare forest creatures and many of those pictures are very clear and of no question what they show we have zero like that of BF unless i missed it and if you have a smoking gun best pic of BF please do post it.

As far as DNA its complicated but read up on it i have to a lot to keep up but bottom line if there was "bigfoot" DNA we would know its BF not the bs "almost human" tripe believers spew.

[the13bats]

20 hours ago, MysteryMike said:

Let me remind people.

Bears on hind legs, hermits living out in the woods. Mystery solved.

You'd also be very surprised how easy it is for your eyes to play tricks on you.

Your forgetting several factors as well.

We see megafauna such as bears, wolves, cougars and deer all the time but no bigfoots?

No dead bodies especially after natural disasters such as forest fires.

No fossil record of a giant primate in North America.

eDNA aka Environmental DNA alone would have proven this creatures existence a long time ago.

The absurdity that a superprimate could remain hidden for so long as there'd have to be a breeding population, people can't even get a single photo that isn't blurry? They can somehow avoid all the advanced tech we've developed? People this day of age alone has a phone on them with a camera in it. Satellite notably satellite mapping having mapped every corner of the world.

The largest creatures we've discovered in recent years had been small deer inhabiting Nepal but that still doesn't compare to a 600-800 pound superprimate.

And what us logical skeptics have done is push the believers into a cornor since they cant come up with good excuses why they have no supportive evidence they have to go deep in the rabbit hole and suggest BF is a spirit, ghost, shape shifter interdimensional alien pet etc in other words try to prove an unproven with other unproven theories of course it doesnt wash.

No, believers can not explain without the use of fantasy and make believe why we do not have a BF body or even large part of one when we do have a specimen for every other creature in the woods.

[the13bats]

13 hours ago, DieChecker said:

So people are bad witnesses?

If a driver said, "I almost hit a bear", or a cougar, or and elk... There'd be no questioning, but say Bigfoot, and now you're a bad witness.

Yes, people are bad eye witnesses, and if a driver claims to almost hit a known creature so what? Its when a driver claims to hit a mythical creature that ears prick up.

Thing is BF isnt proven to exist so i would have the same reaction if a driver claimed to habe almost hit any creature thats made up.

A couple months ago coming home from the club about 3am i see what i thought was a small kangaroo on the side of the road, tina was up i said look a kangaroo, she said its a deer, but as i pass its a coyote trying to dump a load.

[the13bats]

13 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I don't need extensive knowledge, I just need to know what a DNA lab looking for animal DNA is going to respond with if they find human DNA. They're going to say, "Human", or "Racoon", or "Cow", and not look into the ancestory unless paid to do so. They're not going to do it out of curiosity, or free of charge.

You back pedal a lot, one post you will rail that DNA should tell you

 

14 hours ago, DieChecker said:

blue eyed, Anglo male, with Northern European ancestors. 

when you are clued in you fall back on you just need very basic DNA knowledge and split hairs just what will a DNA lab look at and that depends now doesnt it? No, human DNA wont come back bear BF DNA wont come back human.

When sykes first tested the hymilayan alleged yeti DNA he didnt show what it was unknown, that doesnt mean jump to yeti.

Then a decade later he tests several samples sworn to be yeti, all came back known creatures and that old sample now came back a type of bear, some critics claimed at first he named wrong type of bear however it was still a polar bear type which is what monks said all along yeti was type of bear a lot of believers wont accept it still.