I gotta admit that this is a topic that's intrigued me for many years. There are now just so many videos relating to this that I find myself spending countless hours watching usually late at night when I'm bored but are so fascinating.
I'm wondering what your opinions are on if they exist or not. This guy has lots of great hunting stories to tell and several Sasquatch encounters if you like this type of thing.
Originally Posted by Jerm:
Les Stroud’s story on Rogan’s podcast is super interesting and kind of leans in to that remote/uncharted forest angle….even though Les kind of lost me by trying to go to bat for Todd Standing.
I saw a part of his series on searching for Bigfoot. Definitely some hair-raising stories in there. And a couple vid clips that make you wonder. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
I saw a part of his series on searching for Bigfoot. Definitely some hair-raising stories in there. And a couple vid clips that make you wonder.
The one I’m talking about, he was setting up for Survivorman…he was on a remote inlet/island I think in Alaska…well he talks about hearing primate noises from the bush and tree shaking. He mimicked the noises he heard and it sends just like a big ass primate. He also heard a large bipedal something running through the bush. I’ll try and find the clip….
Edit: shit I can’t find it…I think the episode has been taken down. [Reply]
Sure but the ocean covers more than 2x the amount of planet than the land does. It is much more plausible that we discover unknown creatures in the ocean. Plus, thousands of people covering several decades have searched for hard evidence of Big Foot and have found fuck all, in terms of verified actual evidence. [Reply]
I don't know why you all keep saying there's no evidence when ther's actually tons of footage, pics, dna , footprints etc... out there and collected. Just because we don't have one in a cage don't mean shit. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Hog's Gone Fishin:
I don't know why you all keep saying there's no evidence when ther's actually tons of footage, pics, dna , footprints etc... out there and collected. Just because we don't have one in a cage don't mean shit.
Originally Posted by Hog's Gone Fishin:
I don't know why you all keep saying there's no evidence when ther's actually tons of footage, pics, dna , footprints etc... out there and collected. Just because we don't have one in a cage don't mean shit.
Originally Posted by tooge:
You ever heard of the Coelocanth? Was supposedly extinct millions and millions of years ago. We had fossils and nothing more. In the early 1900s one was caught off the coast of S. Africa. Now, they have filmed a breeding population at great depths in the same area. I'm not saying Bigfoot or Loch Ness are real, but I woulnd't say they are surely BS because we haven't found one yet.
We don't even have fossils of a creature that is supposedly alive and well with a breeding population in some of the most non-remote states in the country.
Having physical, no bullshit, proof of something existing at one point in time but just not seeing one alive in so many years and then labeling it extinct, only to find out later there is very small population still alive is one thing. There was a show on called Extinct or Alive and IIRC that guy has an episode where he finds a species of monkey that was believed to be extinct.
We have nothing but a single video from a couple of guys with shady backgrounds that went out and on the first night of searching found the holy grail of bigfoot footage and recorded a large bipedal ape with no ass crack walking across a dry river bed. Other than that it's bonfire stories and footprint "evidence."
We also know that bigfoot is so smart that they avoid trail cameras because they know what they are without having any knowledge of the technology. We know what they eat without having a single sample of feces. We know they follow power lines when traveling but can't get a picture of one. We know they can mimic the sound of many known calls of animals that we know do exist without actually believing the call is coming from the existing animal. All that we know about an animal we don't know about is fascinating. [Reply]
Genetic testing confirms the legendary Bigfoot is a human relative that arose some 15,000 years ago — at least according to a press release issued by a company called DNA Diagnostics detailing supposed work by a Texas veterinarian.
The release and alleged study by Melba S. Ketchum also suggests such cryptids had sex with modern human females that resulted in hairy hominin hybrids, but the scientific community is dubious about her claim.
"A team of scientists can verify that their five-year long DNA study, currently under peer-review, confirms the existence of a novel hominin hybrid species, commonly called 'Bigfoot' or 'Sasquatch,' living in North America," the release reads. "Researchers' extensive DNA sequencing suggests that the legendary Sasquatch is a human relative that arose approximately 15,000 years ago."
I know, I know, the next comment is the site is not legit because it's not Fox News [Reply]
If you're a believer, which I lean that way, you'll know there are a lot of things about this creature that disclose the potential of an alien aspect to the creature. Footprints that just stop in stride where they are moving through snow or mud. And the presence of orbs often witnessed in their presence. Lots of "not of this Earth" type stuff [Reply]
Genetic testing confirms the legendary Bigfoot is a human relative that arose some 15,000 years ago — at least according to a press release issued by a company called DNA Diagnostics detailing supposed work by a Texas veterinarian.
The release and alleged study by Melba S. Ketchum also suggests such cryptids had sex with modern human females that resulted in hairy hominin hybrids, but the scientific community is dubious about her claim.
"A team of scientists can verify that their five-year long DNA study, currently under peer-review, confirms the existence of a novel hominin hybrid species, commonly called 'Bigfoot' or 'Sasquatch,' living in North America," the release reads. "Researchers' extensive DNA sequencing suggests that the legendary Sasquatch is a human relative that arose approximately 15,000 years ago."
I know, I know, the next comment is the site is not legit because it's not Fox News
Lol...
From the very same article you link as DNA proof:
Originally Posted by :
Any proof?
It's a fascinating theory.
So where's the evidence? Well, there is none. Not yet, anyway: Ketchum's research has not appeared in any peer-reviewed scientific journal, and there's no indication when that might happen.
Genetic testing confirms the legendary Bigfoot is a human relative that arose some 15,000 years ago — at least according to a press release issued by a company called DNA Diagnostics detailing supposed work by a Texas veterinarian.
The release and alleged study by Melba S. Ketchum also suggests such cryptids had sex with modern human females that resulted in hairy hominin hybrids, but the scientific community is dubious about her claim.
"A team of scientists can verify that their five-year long DNA study, currently under peer-review, confirms the existence of a novel hominin hybrid species, commonly called 'Bigfoot' or 'Sasquatch,' living in North America," the release reads. "Researchers' extensive DNA sequencing suggests that the legendary Sasquatch is a human relative that arose approximately 15,000 years ago."
I know, I know, the next comment is the site is not legit because it's not Fox News
Do you understand why your quote is contradictory? There is no existing known sasquatch DNA. It's impossible to confirm the existence of DNA that doesn't exist. They could compare DNA to other known primate DNA that has been sequenced. But they can't confirm DNA that they've never sequenced before.
As your source mentions:
Originally Posted by :
There is no reference sample of Bigfoot DNA to compare it with, so by definition, there cannot be a conclusive match.
And this is quite telling...
Originally Posted by :
Because Ketchum has released no information at all about her findings (nor have they been examined by outside experts), it's impossible to evaluate the validity of her conclusions.
Article is over 10 years old. Still none of her evidence shared with anyone else to verify what would be the biological discovery of the century?
And her "Peer review" process? It turns out every single scientific journal she submitted her study to, rejected it. So what did she do? She created her own scientific journal to submit it to. :-)... can't make this up...
Originally Posted by :
not only is DeNovo's website shoddy and amateurish, the domain was registered all of nine days before it published Ketchum's study, which, by the way, is its only article.
