Bigfoot

[creature386]

mountainlord
Well, the experts you mentioned are even less numerous than creation scientists and vastly outnumbered by scientists who ridicule the concept of Bigfoot.

As for no-one debunking the Patterson footage, well, what are you supposed to do with a low-quality film without corroborating evidence? If you had physical evidence, you could at least let scientists make experiments which other scientists can test by replicating them.
For all we know, this might just been a guy in an ape custome.

Since it belongs in a profile, here's the footage in question:

[smedz]

      I found this video, pretty much debunks bigfoot tracks.

[mountainlord]

Nov 2, 2019 0:01:59 GMT 5 dinosauria101 said:

mountainlord

You mean like another one of the many hominid species we've found, like a North American caveman of sorts?

Yes, exactly. Except these are giant hominids. 

[mountainlord]

Nov 2, 2019 1:05:56 GMT 5 creature386 said:

mountainlord
Well, the experts you mentioned are even less numerous than creation scientists and vastly outnumbered by scientists who ridicule the concept of Bigfoot.

As for no-one debunking the Patterson footage, well, what are you supposed to do with a low-quality film without corroborating evidence? If you had physical evidence, you could at least let scientists make experiments which other scientists can test by replicating them.
For all we know, this might just been a guy in an ape custome.

Since it belongs in a profile, here's the footage in question:

Did you even read what I wrote properly? Experts have admitted that they can't debunk the Patterson film, period. There's no way thats a guy in an ape costume. Even experts on primate anatomy like Jeff Meldrum, Grover Krantz etc....have stated thats a 100% real creature. Watch the cleared up definition of that footage, you can tell thats a real Bigfoot.

Even the best Hollywood costume designers in the world, at that time, admitted they cannot make a costume as realistic as the Patterson footage. And that footage was filmed in 1967, the same year that Planet of the Apes came out. So what does that tell you??...

And now, even in 2019, more than 5 decades later, still experts can't debunk that footage because its real. Footprints were also cast from the Patterson creature, they were examined by leading expert authorities on primate anatomy/footprints, like Jeff Meldrum, and he said the prints were 100% real and authentic.

Not to mention the numerous DNA hair samples that prove the existence of Bigfoot.

Also, you need to understand one very important thing. ALOT of scientists are very ignorant, and unaware of most of the Bigfoot evidence out there. The science world is full of politics too. They're totally ignorant to plenty of the evidence out there. We need more people like Meldrum, Grover Krantz etc....because thats exactly how new species will be discovered. 

[mountainlord]

Nov 2, 2019 20:13:59 GMT 5 smedz said:

      I found this video, pretty much debunks bigfoot tracks.

No smedz, that video you posted didn't even come close to "debunking" Bigfoot tracks. 

I've seen the documentary to that video, its a joke. They fail to mention the tons of evidence there is on Bigfoot. And what about Dr Jeff Meldrum? Who's a world leading authority and expert on primate/human footprints and anatomy. He's examined HUNDREDS of authentic Bigfoot footprints which even show DERMAL RIDGING of a hominid type creature. Bears don't have that, lol.

No offence intended, but you barely know anything about this subject. Trust me.

You also failed to acknowledge the fact that there's been NUMEROUS legit hair samples (DNA PROOF) which confirms the existence of this creature. But no, these ignorant scientists still won't believe it until you dump a bloody dead Bigfoot carcass on their table. Its ridiculous.

And Bigfoot has been caught on camera trap before: 



The incident to this camera trap photo, was even reported on the news!

And this is real and can never be debunked:





I've always been fascinated by Bigfoot and looked into this phenomena since I was a child, and believe me, there's mountains of proof, which confirms the existence of this beast.

[mountainlord]

Forensic Expert says Bigfoot is Real

From Dr Jeff Meldrum:

"Given the scientific evidence that I have examined, I'm convinced there's a creature out there that is yet to be identified," said Jeff Meldrum, a professor of anatomy and anthropology at Idaho State University in Pocatello."

"Meldrum, meanwhile, says a 400-pound (180-kilogram) block of plaster known as the Skookum Cast provides further evidence of Bigfoot's existence. The cast was made in September 2000 from an impression of a large animal that had apparently lain down on its side to retrieve some fruit next to a mud hole in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest in Washington State."...

"Meldrum says the cast contains recognizable impressions of a forearm, a thigh, buttocks, an Achilles tendon and heel. "It's 40 to 50 percent bigger than a normal human," he said. "The anatomy doesn't jive with any known animal."...

Now from FBI Investigator Jimmy Chilcutt of the Conroe Police Department in Texas, who specializes in finger- and footprints, has analyzed the more than 150 casts of Bigfoot prints that Meldrum, the Idaho State professor, keeps in a laboratory.

"Chilcutt says one footprint found in 1987 in Walla Walla in Washington State has convinced him that Bigfoot is real."

"The ridge flow pattern and the texture was completely different from anything I've ever seen," he said."It certainly wasn't human, and of no known primate that I've examined. The print ridges flowed lengthwise along the foot, unlike human prints, which flow across. The texture of the ridges was about twice the thickness of a human, which indicated that this animal has a real thick skin."

From leading Chimpanzee expert - Jane Goodall:

"Renowned chimpanzee researcher Jane Goodall last year surprised an interviewer from National Public Radio when she said she was sure that large, undiscovered primates, such as the Yeti or Sasquatch, exist."

www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/forensic-expert-says-bigfoot-is-real/

[smedz]

mountainlord


Alright then, if bigfoots do exist, (and like I asked before) why aren't there already tons of trail camera photos of these creatures already? A lot of people, both scientists and hunters use these to take pictures of animals in the ecosystems. And every single large forest animal in North America has been on at least one trail camera photo. And here's another skepticism video.

[mountainlord]

Nov 2, 2019 23:52:06 GMT 5 smedz said:

mountainlord


Alright then, if bigfoots do exist, (and like I asked before) why aren't there already tons of trail camera photos of these creatures already? A lot of people, both scientists and hunters use these to take pictures of animals in the ecosystems. And every single large forest animal in North America has been on at least one trail camera photo. And here's another skepticism video.

Why aren't they "tons" of trail cam photos, you ask....OK, first of all, we don't even know the population numbers of Bigfoot. Unlike bears and wolves, who are in the hundreds of thousands, we don't know how many Bigfoot they are. For all we know, they could be living in very small pockets of the vast wilderness out there.

I already posted one trail cam photo, which hasn't been debunked by anyone. And didn't you read my last post? I posted clear evidence from a FORENSIC EXPERT who 100% believes from the blatant evidence he has examined, that Bigfoot is real. These are world leading specialists in the field of human and primate fingerprints/footprints and anatomy, and they think the evidence is completely legit and real.

And smedz, your not addressing the fact that DNA evidence of Bigfoot exists too. There's multiple hair samples that have been tested, which confirm that there's an unknown and undiscovered hominid species out there.

Now, according to you, if Bigfoot is fake, then tell me, what animal could those hairs belong too??

And that skeptic video you posted, again didn't prove anything. Her refutation attempt of Bigfoot footprints was ridiculous. And like all the skeptics, she just cherry-picks the stuff that suits her agenda and leaves out all the other hard evidence and factors that prove Bigfoot exists. She hasn't got a clue, period.

Watch this Bigfoot encounter story from "Survivorman" Les Stroud:



Les Stroud is a hardcore woodsman, who has spent OVER 40 years surviving and spending time in the wilderness. He knows the sounds and behaviour of all the North American animals in the forest very well, and he said it was none of them. It sounded like a Great Ape.

Now, if it wasn't a bear, moose, cougar or wolf....then what was it? 

[smedz]

mountainlord 


One your first point, the North American continent has been very well explored. So it's impossible for an unknown large mammal to have remained hidden for such a long time. Plus I found a new video.  



       


And as for those hair samples, just found this article. 


www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/07/bigfoot-samples-analyzed-lab   


Bigfoot' samples analyzed in lab
By Sarah C. P. WilliamsJul. 1, 2014 , 7:15 PM

In North America, they’re called Bigfoot or Sasquatch. In the Himalayan foothills, they’re known as yeti or abominable snowmen. And Russians call them Almasty. But in the scientific laboratory, these elusive, hairy, humanoid creatures are nothing more than bears, horses, and dogs. That’s the conclusion of a new study—the first peer-reviewed, genetic survey of biological samples claimed to be from the shadowy beasts.

“There are very few reputable scientists who have ever been willing to go publicly on record as far as Bigfoot and yeti,” says anthropologist Todd Disotell of New York University in New York City, who was not involved in the new work but has performed unpublished analyses of anomalous primate samples in the past. “This study did it right, reducing contamination and following all the standard protocols.”

Supposed evidence for Bigfoot and its ilk comes from observers who spot apelike creatures darting through the woods or who find giant footprints in the mud. Bigfoot believers have various ideas about what the animals are, often revolving around the survival of a prehistoric humanoid. Yet many sightings have later turned out to be hoaxes, and scientific support for the existence of the primates is scant.


In 2012, researchers at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom and the Museum of Zoology in Lausanne, Switzerland, put out a call for hair samples thought to be from anomalous primates. They received 57 hairs from Bigfoot enthusiasts and museums around the world, including samples from Washington, Texas, Oregon, Russia, and India—a few as old as 50 years. Some “hairs” immediately turned out not to be hairs at all, but rather plant or glass fibers; others were too worn to study.

The researchers, led by Oxford geneticist Bryan Sykes, focused on the remaining 37 samples, isolating and cleaning a 2- to 4-centimeter segment of each hair, many of which have been extensively handled by people, contaminating them with foreign DNA. To identify the evolutionary source of each sample, the team determined the sequence of a gene—found inside the mitochondria of cells—that encodes the 12S RNA, which is often used for species identification. Unlike standard DNA, mitochondrial genes are passed only from mother to offspring.

Seven of the samples didn’t yield enough DNA for identification. Of the 30 that were sequenced, all matched the exact 12S RNA sequences for known species, the team reports online today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B. Ten hairs belonged to various bear species; four were from horses; four were from wolves or dogs; one was a perfect match to a human hair; and the others came from cows, raccoons, deer, and even a porcupine. Two samples, from India and Bhutan, matched polar bear 12S RNA—a surprising finding that Sykes is following up on to determine whether some Himalayan bears are hybrid species with polar bears.

“I’ve had very good cooperation with the Bigfoot community, who are generally pleased that there is now a method of identifying their quarry in a way that would be universally accepted,” Sykes says. “They are returning to the forests with renewed enthusiasm in search of the ‘golden hair’ which proves their beliefs.”

The fact that the findings now appear in a peer-reviewed paper, says New York University’s Disotell, is key to bridging the gap between enthusiasts hoping to understand Bigfoot and professional scientists with access to modern labs. It also illustrates the proper protocol that’s needed to test a scientific hypothesis, he adds. “I think this study will bring home the message that you can’t go off and make any old claim you want; there are scientific methods to testing claims.”


And speaking of hairs, young sasquatch's would be ideal food items for predators and therefore, hair samples would have been found in wolf, bear, and cougar scats.    



As for those sounds that guy heard, you sure that wasn't just another person just messing with him? 

[theropod]

mountainlord You say there is unequivocal DNA evidence for an unknown hominid species in North America? Do you have a peer-reviewed paper describing said evidence, and what kind of responses did it get in the technical literature?

[Infinity Blade]

One your first point, the North American continent has been very well explored. So it's impossible for an unknown large mammal to have remained hidden for such a long time.

Heck for what it's worth, there are critically endangered species that are extremely rare and only live in a few, or even as little as one small pocket in the world, and yet we've still been able to clearly document them.

[mountainlord]

smedz

No, it is not "impossible" for an unknown large mammal to remain undiscovered in the millions of acres of vast wilderness of North America, especially considering the fact that Bigfoot's would clearly be by far the most intelligent and elusive of all animals. On top of that, we have discovered Bigfoot, hard proof exists, from hundreds of footprints, DNA hair samples, ongoing credible sightings, vocalizations and the Patterson footage which experts still, to this day, CANNOT DEBUNK.

Most scientists don't want to risk ridicule by coming out and saying they believe in Bigfoot, period. I've actually heard other scientists say the same thing on countless of documentaries.

Again, you post videos which don't even come close to debunking Bigfoot. Keep trying, but you'll never succeed. The guy in the last video you posted....What type of expert is he? Is he a world leading scientific authority on primate/human anatomy like Dr Jeff Meldrum??....Is he a forensic expert on footprints and stuff?? My guess is a definite no. He never said anything of substance. All he said about the Patterson footage was he thinks it looks like a man in an ape suit, thats all. In which world does that "debunk" Bigfoot?... These are ridiculous and pointless videos, that don't prove anything. I can easily debunk these stupid skeptics.

Here, read this article from Jeff Meldrum, who exposes the skeptics!....

Idaho State professor says FBI research dilutes evidence of bigfoot’s existence

"For the pursuers of the elusive bigfoot, skin and hair samples belonging to a deer provided a dead end. Newly released FBI records detail a 1976 request by Peter C. Byrne, who submitted samples he thought belonged to the beast. An Idaho State University professor who researches bigfoot says this is a misdirection, and he has hair samples he is confident belong to the legend."

Now watch Meldrum debunk these skeptics:

“It’s a tempest in a teapot,” said Jeff Meldrum, an anatomy and anthropology professor at ISU. “Just from that poor quality black-and-white image, you can tell it’s not primate hair. I could have told you on the basis of that photo alone that it was almost certainly ungulate.”

"News like this is a disservice to the bountiful evidence that does exist, Meldrum said."

“Skeptics love it, but it diverts attention away from the more compelling evidence, like the hair that I’ve mentioned and all the other evidence,” Meldrum said. “The footprint evidence, the vocalizations, the photographic evidence, the continuing, ongoing eyewitness accounts by credible, reliable, less impressionable witnesses.”

More on Meldrums hair sample evidence, read carefully....

"Meldrum said he currently has bigfoot hair samples that are clearly primate, but are distinct enough in their variations that they could not be human hair. Another clue? They’ve never been cut."

“Just about every person alive out there has had a haircut at some point after a few months or years, at least in their lifetime,” Meldrum said. “And so that cut end, unless it’s so split or frayed that it’s no longer distinguishable, will have a very obvious signature cut pattern.”

"In Meldrum’s book “Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science,” an entire chapter is devoted to hair analysis."

 
Now, as a scientist, Meldrum has to (professionally) leave some room for doubt, but here's what he says....

"Meldrum does leave room for doubt, but he feels fairly certain bigfoot is out there."

“I can’t say I’m 100%,” Meldrum said. “That wouldn’t be an honest position because we don’t have the conclusive evidence … but I wouldn’t have dedicated much of my career, my reputation on this question if I wasn’t very early on quite convinced on the basis of the evidence I had examined.”

www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/jun/06/idaho-state-professor-says-fbi-research-dilutes-ev/

You see smedz, thats the difference. I'm showing evidence and testimonies from leading, renowned experts in this field, whereas your posting ridiculous videos of skeptics who are cherry-picking evidence to suit their agenda, who are blatantly ignoring the other compelling evidence out there and who's arguments are pathetic.

Remember, a skeptic saying that the Patterson film looks like a man in an "Ape costume" is NOT a refutation, whatsoever! Its a joke.

[mountainlord]

Nov 3, 2019 23:50:50 GMT 5 theropod said:

mountainlord You say there is unequivocal DNA evidence for an unknown hominid species in North America? Do you have a peer-reviewed paper describing said evidence, and what kind of responses did it get in the technical literature?

Read some of my previous posts for it. I posted some articles from Meldrum and a forensic expert; Jimmy Chilcutt.

[mountainlord]

Nov 4, 2019 0:06:47 GMT 5 Infinity Blade said:

One your first point, the North American continent has been very well explored. So it's impossible for an unknown large mammal to have remained hidden for such a long time.

Heck for what it's worth, there are critically endangered species that are extremely rare and only live in a few, or even as little as one small pocket in the world, and yet we've still been able to clearly document them.

And yet, despite what you said...scientists to this day, still say that there's other undiscovered creatures out there, that are yet to be discovered.

Also, humans have documented probably millions of different species in our worlds oceans, and yet only 5% of our worlds oceans have been explored. So what you said proves nothing.

[theropod]

I did, and none of it appeared to be peer-reviewed. With such groundbreaking evidence, one would expect there to be at least one full study in a proper journal (In fact I’d expect such a study to make it into Nature, no questions asked). So surely such a thing exists, since you have repeatedly hinted at conclusive DNA evidence for the existence of Bigfoot?

As for your earlier claim that the Patterson footage would have been impossible to produce back in 1967.

These are the primitive hominids shown in 2001 - A Space Odyssey, released in 1968. Ergo, probably pretty much the same age as the Patterson footage. Creating a sufficiently realistic-looking ape costume wasn’t an issue even back then.

What kind of evidence would you expect in order to "debunk" this footage? Then we can evaluate the likelihood of actually finding said evidence given that the footage is fake.