Do You Believe In Bigfoot?

[Got Yeti Yet?]

I don't. Never have.

My interest in bigfoot is the PGF and its ensemble.

But I don't believe in bigfoot. How about the rest of you?

[CMcMillan]

Well what is your Intrest in the PGF?
Are you just intrested in the fact that it is a supposed great hoax?
I think if you read the forums here it is obvious who believes and who doesn't

[BurdenOfProof]

I dont believe in bigfoot but if it were ever proven to be real it would be great!

The entire subject is entertaining, humourous and fascinating.

[SasquaiNation]

I don't "believe in" Bigfoot, but I think that Bigfoot exists. I can only speak in reference to where I live near when I say this. There is an ample food supply, fresh water sources, plenty of seclusion, and suitable areas for dwellings.
Bears hibernate in the winter so there would be less competition for prey.
Of course that's my personal opinion and I haven't seen a Sasquatch yet, but I do think they are out there. No slam against you, but I get tired of the "believer" moniker. Some proudly embrace it, I don't. I do my best to remain objective, and my goal is to find worthy evidence.

[BurdenOfProof]

I don't "believe in" Bigfoot, but I think that Bigfoot exists. I can only speak in reference to where I live near when I say this. There is an ample food supply, fresh water sources, plenty of seclusion, and suitable areas for dwellings.
Bears hibernate in the winter so there would be less competition for prey.
Of course that's my personal opinion and I haven't seen a Sasquatch yet, but I do think they are out there. No slam against you, but I get tired of the "believer" moniker. Some proudly embrace it, I don't. I do my best to remain objective, and my goal is to find worthy evidence.

Have you seen any evidence first hand? Prints? Sounds? Structures? Scat?

[StankApe]

g

[Got Yeti Yet?]

Well what is your Intrest in the PGF?
Are you just intrested in the fact that it is a supposed [great] hoax?
I think if you read the forums here it is obvious who believes and who doesn't

Yup.

Thanks for answering my question so concisely.

[Danny Squatchanini]

Honk if you love Bigfoot!



Honk Honk

[Tzieth]

There is no question for belief for me.. I KNOW "Sasquatch" exists. My interest is in how many different types of Hominids are called "Bigfoot."

Though I grew up believing due to my mother and grandmother's stories of their encounters, I had one my self much later. I did not see it, just heard it walking back and fourth while making loud vocals. I did not even think "Bigfoot" at the time. Then a little later I came across an audio clip and realized it was making the exact same sounds. When i played these sounds to my mother, she said what she saw was not even close to sounding the same. Her encounter was in Missouri and mine was in Washington.

I notice most skeptics say "No conclusive evidence." and it dumbfounds me every time. How could it be any more conclusive? We have the DNA for Christs sake... And the very same ones who chime-in that "DNA means nothing without a type specimen." are not stating the obvious. What it means is that there IS a creature out there that we do not have record of. So though it may not "Prove" the existence of Sasquatch it does prove the existence of an unknown hairy creature which you would think would debunk the "If there was an unknown animal we would have found it by now." argument.

We have eye-witnesses and they are immediately pegged as either liars or misidentifying what they saw because of the fact that some Biology Professor who probably grew up in some large city and read or wrote X-amount of books knows more about the witnesses local wildlife than the witness who saw the creature in their own back yard?

But if the same witness was robbed and saw they robber then their testimony counts.

The Footprints them selves... The first thing skeptics say "Easily faked." This is the one thing that cannot be faked. You can make a wooden cut-out foot and the woodgrain might even look like dermal ridges if you are lucky. But what you will get is a hole in the ground shaped like a foot that may or may not show what looks like dermal ridges. And to some camper this might look convening. But to a hunter, the first thing they will see is that the prints are all wrong. They have steep walls. a real foot impression would make a gradual decline into the impression and not a steep wall. A tracker would not only notice the walls, but the fact that there is no articulation of bones. There is no weight being equally distributed as the bones of the foot are rolling through the step. Oh and most of these fake foots are mistakenly made to resemble a human foot as found in a human footprint complete with a ball and shape of an arch. A Sasquatch foot-print resembles the same fossilized hominid footprints found in Africa, Asia and Europe. (And yet nobody seems to notice this.) If you look at the Neanderthal footprints found in that cave in Spain and if you look at the footprints found in Africa that they think were made by Homo-Erectus , and then you look at what is said to be a true sasquatch foot-print, you will see they all look the same in shape with the main difference being mostly in size.

There is a serious double standard here. Biologists and Anthropologists readily dismiss the possibility of other Homo-Hominids surviving to the present, yet they seem to readily keep accepting new theories as facts about human origins all the time, the newest being that there were people here (Homo-Sapiens) before the Clovis based on possible tools found along with fossilized feces yet no bodies. So there is technically more hard evidence of Sasquatch than there is for these Pre-Clovis people being Homo-Sapiens. For that matter they think Clovis were homo-sapiens only because they found other Homo-Sapiens remains scattered along with Mammoth remains among Clovis tools with absolutely not mention of the possibility that Clovis could have just as easily been other Hominids that were hunting both Mammoths and Homo-Sapiens. (Not saying I believe this, but it should be at least a theory.)

Sorry for that rant lol. But when I see the "No evidence" argument and then I see what science says is fact with even less evidence, it bother me

Sincerely,

Heath

[StankApe]

g.

[Tzieth]

What DNA do we have? where is this Bigfoot DNA you speak of? All we have is allegations and conjecture. I have seen no study that says "Bigfoot DNA".... Don't make the mistake of assigning a conclusion to an assertion without seeing what the data says. That's called "confirmation Bias" and it's not good science.

The DNA is not under debate. We have it. What is under debate is what exactly it is. The fact is that we indeed have DNA that we cannot identify. Forget Melba Ketchum if you are one of those who hate her for whatever reason. What about oxford University? You can't study DNA you do not have.

[Tzieth]

What DNA do we have? where is this Bigfoot DNA you speak of? All we have is allegations and conjecture. I have seen no study that says "Bigfoot DNA".... Don't make the mistake of assigning a conclusion to an assertion without seeing what the data says. That's called "confirmation Bias" and it's not good science.

Here you go, is this one clear enough? http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/23/oxford-makes-big-push-into-bigfoot-research-enlists-swiss-zoolo/

The DNA comes from remains, hair, blood and fecal samples that were tested and not identified. Thus can we say it is "Bigfoot"? No.. But again it is DNA that is not on record. Same DNA but from different sources. That is what sparked the Ketchum study. As to why Oxford University is now also doing this under Bigfoot/Yeti could mean they may have the specimen perhaps in the form of DNA from a known "extinct" hominid. (I am speculating)

But there it is. If there was not unrecognizable DNA then there could be no study on it at all.

The argument is in proving it is what we call Bigfoot without a type specimen (A body).

[YSPR]

Believe, yes!

[StankApe]

g

[CMcMillan]

What DNA do we have? where is this Bigfoot DNA you speak of? All we have is allegations and conjecture. I have seen no study that says "Bigfoot DNA".... Don't make the mistake of assigning a conclusion to an assertion without seeing what the data says. That's called "confirmation Bias" and it's not good science.

Here you go, is this one clear enough? http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/23/oxford-makes-big-push-into-bigfoot-research-enlists-swiss-zoolo/

The DNA comes from remains, hair, blood and fecal samples that were tested and not identified. Thus can we say it is "Bigfoot"? No.. But again it is DNA that is not on record. Same DNA but from different sources. That is what sparked the Ketchum study. As to why Oxford University is now also doing this under Bigfoot/Yeti could mean they may have the specimen perhaps in the form of DNA from a known "extinct" hominid. (I am speculating)

But there it is. If there was not unrecognizable DNA then there could be no study on it at all.

The argument is in proving it is what we call Bigfoot without a type specimen (A body).

Nowhere in that article did it say they had Bigfoot DNA


You don't start with a conclusion and work backwards. You acquire samples, do he analysis then post the conclusions.

He has samples of DNA but there is no evidence,as yet, that it is any unknown animal. His analysis may reflect they are all of known animals. (again, this won't dismiss that Bigfoot exists, just that THOSE SAMPLES are of known animals).

You are putting the cart before the horse at this time. IF Sykes' study points towards unknown animal, then great! You can hang your hat on that and the community will move forward. But until the results of the study are released, it is inaccurate to state that we "have Bigfoot DNA" for all we know, he has bear and human DNA....

Stank you always bring science into it.
Science creates a Hypothesis This is a Conclusion. It describes if I do this then the affect should result with this. THEY work with a Conclusion and then do testing to see if the conclusion or Hypothesis holds merit.

[girl56]

Yes. I am convinced Bigfoot exists. My questions are who are they? What do they want...if anything?

[Tzieth]

working backwards? lol Okay perhaps that was the wrong article to have used. You are right, it is speaking of the genetic testing and did not mention DNA.(But how can you do one without the other?) But what was not being said in this article was that what is being sent is unknown DNA. Bear, Moose, etc.. was already ruled out. It is the same for Ketchum's study. Only you seem to find more on Oxford than you do on Melba Ketchum. (Unless you listen to what Robert Lindsay has to say, but I don't)

This one explains a little more.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18160673

However the last link I sent stated that Oxford was already setting up for peer review which canonly mean that they found what they were looking for.

[StankApe]

g

[Kel]

What the article says, is he is only getting the highest quality samples from people who have the strongest chain of custody and a better vetted chain of events for acquiring the sample.

This. I know a guy who sent part of his sample to Sykes, but not just anybody could. First you informed them of your sample, then a Sykes team member asked a lot of questions about the source, presumed age, why my friend thought it could be authentic, and so on. Only then was he given the proper mailing address to send his package.

[*****]

No personal attacks. " I don't think you understand this very well. "

You can disagree without taking shots, your points are reasonable, but let's play nice. The sandbox is big enough for everybody, and their opinions.

[StankApe]

g

[StankApe]

g

[*****]

Let's be generous to new members gang. I've changed my tune, as has Stank. Let's just try to disagree without belittling one another from now on. It's something I've agreed to. I'm not mistake free, but am trying to change for the better. Can't we all?

[Mr.Lee]

Not trying to be a smartass but would a skeptic believe in bigfoot if they saw one in the forest with their own eyes or would they still need proof. Just curious if they would need a scientist to confirm with DNA that what they experienced was real.

[GT3Paul]

No DNA? Are you kidding Stank? Where do you put all the samples that have come back as unknown primate? Goats? How many unknown primates do you
know of in North America. I have read I dont know how many books where samples have been sent off to labs and come back unknown primate in North America.
Go talk to Dr. Meldrum at Idaho State for a start, and when you finish with him years from now you can then go talk to Dr. Bindernagel.
Your retort was silly. Not to mention all the ones that are in the study soon to be published. That there is unknown primate DNA in North America is not even up for debate. Thats not conjecture or speculation. There are so many I will leave that up to the student in this case to go validate the many, many samples that have been tested.
Your completely right Mr Lee, some times the skeptics ignore everything to where it gets just plain silly. I bet if Stank got sat on by a 1000 lb male and it busted all his ribs he would claim it was some UFO type orb in the emergency room.
When are you going to start debating the Periodic Table?

[Sponsored content]