|
|
Post by theropod on Feb 8, 2015 19:03:33 GMT 5
Isn’t it the slightest bit suspicious that someone without even enough money to do so would just happen to rent a camera the day he went to the woods and stumbled across a bigfoot?
You want to produce fake bigfoot footage. You only have enough money to either rent a camera, or buy/rent/build a bigfoot suit. You know not paying for either will attract attention. What will you rather use the money for? What will be worse for the credibility of your bigfoot video, being publicly called out for not paying for the camera, or being called out for not paying for a costume?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Feb 8, 2015 21:08:48 GMT 5
Mechafire, "suits get lost or destroyed" that's fine. but how about records of said transactions? a sales receipt?something to prove the validity it's a suit that actually has something supporting it?
Also, i never said anything about peer reviewed -- though this one was, i guess.
Novel north american hominids, next generation sequencing of three whole genomes and associated studies
(Ketchum 2013)
and, like i commented on the thread thatinitially posted this study, i wouodn't back it 100% due to the lead person behind it.
you seem to be assuming that i believe all of this is authentic, which i do not.
Theropod, you make a good point.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Feb 8, 2015 23:52:36 GMT 5
About the receipt, if I eat a piece of chocolate, and you haven’t heard of any receipt for it, do you assume that chocolate grew on a tree in the forest?
If that was a suit, it could have come from all kinds of places, maybe bought by a conspirator, or even self-made from poached gorilla fur (I think poachers don’t make a lot of publicity of their prey…). Even if the guy responsible bought it himself, why should a receipt turn up somewhere?
|
|
|
|
Post by mechafire on Feb 9, 2015 1:04:09 GMT 5
Mechafire, "suits get lost or destroyed" that's fine. but how about records of said transactions? a sales receipt?something to prove the validity it's a suit that actually has something supporting it? Also, i never said anything about peer reviewed -- though this one was, i guess. Novel north american hominids, next generation sequencing of three whole genomes and associated studies (Ketchum 2013) and, like i commented on the thread thatinitially posted this study, i wouodn't back it 100% due to the lead person behind it. you seem to be assuming that i believe all of this is authentic, which i do not. Theropod, you make a good point. I wouldn't put too much stock in that study. "Ketchum's study had been rejected by other scientific journals. So what about the journal that finally published the study, "DeNovo Scientific Journal"? The journal has no other studies, articles, papers or reviews. Ketchum's is the only paper the journal has "published." No libraries or universities subscribe to it, and the journal and its website apparently did not exist three weeks ago. There's no indication that the study was peer-reviewed by other knowledgeable scientists to assure quality. It is not an existing, known, or respected journal in any sense of the word." m.livescience.com/27140-bigfoot-dna-study-questioned.html"This week, the team behind the claims published a paper in a journal that they appear to have setup themselves, " "However, geneticists who have seen the paper are not impressed. “To state the obvious, no data or analyses are presented that in any way support the claim that their samples come from a new primate or human-primate hybrid," Leonid Kruglyak of Princeton University told the Houston Chronicle." www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34395/title/Bigfoot-DNA-is-Bunk/ |
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Feb 10, 2015 8:07:04 GMT 5
I've already stated a couple of times now that i do not.
|
|
|
|
Post by kingkazma on Jun 21, 2015 0:12:27 GMT 5
definetly the thylacine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jun 21, 2015 0:56:12 GMT 5
^Gun to my head, I think I'd actually agree.
|
|
Apex
Junior Member
Posts: 207
|
Post by Apex on Jun 22, 2015 5:48:32 GMT 5
Britains big cats-exotic pets released in the 90''s
They're probably all dead now though
|
|
|
|
Post by kingkazma on Jun 24, 2015 3:06:02 GMT 5
i don't know.. there would be a lot of deer,badgers,rabbits,foxes,house cats, dogs, sheep, mink,etc. to hunt.
|
|
Apex
Junior Member
Posts: 207
|
Post by Apex on Jul 3, 2015 1:53:47 GMT 5
Too many people have seen them for them not to be true
It makes logical sense that they were released instead of owners paying huge amounts to keep them and the sightings have slowly diminished over the years correlating with the big cats average lifespan
|
|
full
Junior Member
Posts: 104 
|
Post by full on Dec 9, 2015 3:11:48 GMT 5
British big cats shouldn't even be regarded as "cryptids" anymore, we've had jungle cats found dead at the side of roads, Lynx end up in peoples back gardens, even a fulll grown female mountain lion was found just wandering around the Highlands of Inverness in the 1980's.
People have gone on record stating they released their animals in the face of the Exotic animals act, and evidently they were telling the truth.
What I am skeptical of, however, is if any of them actually established self sustaining breeding populations. I doubt it, it would mean crossing vast tracts of lands criss crossed by roads and railway lines to do so. Most likely all of the original releases/escapees died long ago.
In my area there were sheep and deer killed and tracks found, was big news for a while, but the last story was reported nearly seven years ago. The cat, if there ever was one, likely died in winter, or moved on.
The least likely cryptid imo, is Bigfoot, just seems ridicolous that a mammal that size with a range that allegedley stretches from Alaska to Florida has evaded being struck by a car, shot by someone, or even walked in front of someone with a HD capable camera.
|
|
|
|
Post by An Goldish Jade on Mar 1, 2016 13:21:23 GMT 5
I would say that if the description of its anatomy, is suited with living in the claimed environment, then it have an higher possibly of existence.
|
|
full
Junior Member
Posts: 104
|
Post by full on Mar 1, 2016 23:19:00 GMT 5
Came across "Finding Bigfoot" while flicking through channels last night, got me thinking so I thought I'd vent in the appropriate thread.
Basically, I've never, ever considered the Sasquatch as anything even remotely plausible, and here's why:
.It has a range which is purported to extend from Alaska to Florida, yet no bodies found in any of those areas. Other large mammals (black bear, deer) have a similar range and annually they are killed in road collisions or by hunters in the hundreds, perhaps even thousands, yet no one ever sees a bigfoot on the side of the road, a hunter has never bought one in. That's pretty suspicious when you take into account it's purported range.
.There are biologists working in the field every day of the week, why do they never snap a bigfoot on a trailcam, or accidentally catch one in a snare or a culvert trap intended for another species? The cascades mountain project has been running for years cataloging as many of the predatory species in the region as they can via trailcams and fieldwork, not once have they encountered evidence of a bipedal primate of the non human variety. They have compiled thorough data on Wolverines and Fishers, two species notoriously difficult to study due to their elusiveness and not a track or hair sample from anything that was unidentifiable. That's just one study, there are hundreds of others dedicated to species cataloging in other areas where bigfoot sightings are prevalent, yet none yields anything.
.Native stories are not much to go on, really. Of course the native peoples of the time will be extremely knowledgeable of their historic homelands and the species within, yet the Aztecs who at one time had a thriving civilization worshiped bat-gods and giant flying bird snakes. Stories related of shadowy forest spirits and creatures are just that, stories, perhaps they are based upon memories of interactions with species from the past, but they hold little relevance today.
.No fossil evidence exists of any such creatures existing in North America. Obviusly this is not as strong a point as the aforementioned due to the fact new fossils can appear anywhere at any time, but still, for the time being there is no paleontologist basis for the Sasquatch.
There are other reasons to but those for me are the strongest ones as to disbelieve the stories.
.On the other hand, the sheer volume of sightings cannot be discounted, people from all walks of life have claimed to see this thing, I don't believe they are all liars, but that doesn't mean I believe they saw what they claim to have seen.
|
|
Apex
Junior Member
Posts: 207
|
Post by Apex on Mar 2, 2016 17:24:01 GMT 5
I think that a bigfoot like creature may have existed especially the yeti like one in the Himalayas however I do think that they were just relic populations and probably went extinct 100-200 years ago tiny populations or individuals plausibly could still exist but they would have to live in the most remote parts of the world
|
|
|
|
Post by fishfossil on Mar 10, 2016 4:18:59 GMT 5
I consider the ChickCharney of the Andros islands to be a real animal, as its description is extremely similar to that of the extinct Tyto pollens. I also think that the Dobhar-chú of ireland may be a real animal, since its description suggests it may be a late surviving Ambulocetid, or perhaps a Mesonychid.
|
|
