Possible reason why there are no good photos of Bigfoot.

Hi,

They do exist and they can be seen by you like any other object but the reason why they sometimes just vanish or cannot be found is because of them not living in this dimension.

These branch of hominid creatures have the ability to travel between dimensions. So let's say that sometimes they just pop briefly in ours.

originally posted by: trollz

originally posted by: Pitou
a reply to: qmantoo

I don't really know much yet of the Bigfoot phenomenon, but you said they found and analysed hairs of it. What did they see? Did it have DNA, could they trace or see a link with any existing known species such as apes, bears, etc?

Yeah, human.

“Genetically, the Sasquatch are a human hybrid with unambiguously modern human maternal ancestry,” reads a statement released last weekend by former veterinarian Melba T. Ketchum, the lead researcher of the study. “Researchers’ extensive DNA sequencing suggests that the legendary Sasquatch is a human relative that arose approximately 15,000 years ago.”

Source

"4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them"

I don't mean to piss on your Christmas because personally I would love for sasquatch be real. However I'm far more skeptical of the alleged DNA analysis of Bigfoot samples than I am of Bigfoot itself. It's extremely questionable when a researcher refuses to publish their results for peer review and even more so when they won't release the data at all let alone disclose where and how she obtained the alleged samples. And that doesn't even touch on Ketchum's own credibility issues regarding her company DNA Diagnostics which received an F rating by the better business bureau or the fact that an early draft of her report claimed that the unknown genetic contributor was angels.

a reply to: aseruk

I have seen Bigfoot. Entire encounter was 5 seconds tops. Off the charts athletic abilities. Search my posts for the story.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Kandinsky - your argument, if I am understanding you correctly, is the lack of any remains (dead body, skeleton or whatever) or that they're just not being caught by hunters or whatever.

In a different thread I had replied that these are dark haired, bi-pedal creatures that live in the deep forests where no man has likely ever been and they do not want to be around humans. I live in Washington state and there are literally dozens of crashed airplanes in the forests of the Pacific Northwest that are still undiscovered. These are big, shiny airplanes just laying there not moving - and they can't be found...

www.oregonlive.com...

From the link: " I am unaware of one crashing there but there are probably 30 military aircraft not accounted for in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana from the mid 1930s through mid 1940s."

Big, shiny, stationary crashed aircraft that have been there for 80ish years that can't be found - but a dark-haired apelike creature that doesn't want to be found can't be believed in?

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: trollz

originally posted by: Pitou
a reply to: qmantoo

I don't really know much yet of the Bigfoot phenomenon, but you said they found and analysed hairs of it. What did they see? Did it have DNA, could they trace or see a link with any existing known species such as apes, bears, etc?

Yeah, human.

“Genetically, the Sasquatch are a human hybrid with unambiguously modern human maternal ancestry,” reads a statement released last weekend by former veterinarian Melba T. Ketchum, the lead researcher of the study. “Researchers’ extensive DNA sequencing suggests that the legendary Sasquatch is a human relative that arose approximately 15,000 years ago.”

Source

"4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them"

I don't mean to piss on your Christmas because personally I would love for sasquatch be real. However I'm far more skeptical of the alleged DNA analysis of Bigfoot samples than I am of Bigfoot itself. It's extremely questionable when a researcher refuses to publish their results for peer review and even more so when they won't release the data at all let alone disclose where and how she obtained the alleged samples. And that doesn't even touch on Ketchum's own credibility issues regarding her company DNA Diagnostics which received an F rating by the better business bureau or the fact that an early draft of her report claimed that the unknown genetic contributor was angels.

I don't have a link to the video but, some smart people got ahold of her data and tore her study apart. It appears the DNA came from humans, cats, dogs, and a panda. Her data and paper have been described as garbage.

Are you aware that she was also involved in the research into the Starchild skull?

a reply to: tallcool1

Did you tell that to the people that claim Bigfoot comes over and hangs out with them? Some of these vast forests that people claim to see one in are as small as 40 acres.

I remember seeing a psychologist on TV at one point, and the way he put is was that Bigfoot is something we see because we have just the kind of brains that would see these things. So when we see or photograph something that kind of looks like what we expect Bigfoot to be, that's what it becomes in our minds.

Add that kind of psychological predisposition to a situation where there are bears doing unusual things, or hoaxers, or just weird stuff happening, and it turns into Bigfoot.

originally posted by: anton74
Some of these vast forests that people claim to see one in are as small as 40 acres.

so what....
people being wrong or fabricating evidence and sightings does not mean bigfoot does not exist.....

some are as small as 40 acres....ok

others are as big as this...

this is a sat photo of the pacific northwest.....

pretty sure anything can hide in there

en.wikipedia.org.../FileacNW_satellite.JPG

tallcool1, good point man....i never even thought of that......

very, very good point

originally posted by: Blue Shift
I remember seeing a psychologist on TV at one point, and the way he put is was that Bigfoot is something we see because we have just the kind of brains that would see these things. So when we see or photograph something that kind of looks like what we expect Bigfoot to be, that's what it becomes in our minds.

Add that kind of psychological predisposition to a situation where there are bears doing unusual things, or hoaxers, or just weird stuff happening, and it turns into Bigfoot.

That's true. When you go for a walk in the woods, tree stumps look like tree stumps. When you are hunting Turkeys, ever tree stump looks like a turkey.

originally posted by: Grovit

originally posted by: anton74
Some of these vast forests that people claim to see one in are as small as 40 acres.

this is a sat photo of the pacific northwest.....

pretty sure anything can hide in there

en.wikipedia.org.../File

acNW_satellite.JPG

I'm aware of how big it is and I'm also aware of the fact that throughout most of it, you aren't very farm from a road. Anything could hide in there but, that doesn't mean they are real.

tons of roads through here
www.fs.usda.gov...

looks like 1 road....singular



www.fs.usda.gov...

of course there is concrete in the area but i would not go so far as to say that through most of it you are close to a road....i could be wrong...
either way, what is close to a road?

even 40 acre patches are pretty damn big areas...
we are not talking about patches of 40 acres of manicured land...this is dense forest

ahhh..i said i wouldnt debate but i cant help it...

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Grovit
Have you ever crunched the numbers of how much vegetation a primate needs to eat to survive? Or how many it takes to ensure a surviving population. It's a LOT of eating and a lot of mating.

Bears and other large mammals get by just fine, and they have to eat a lot to survive. By the way, I'm pretty sure sasquatches are omnivorous. Deer remains have been found, for example, indicating that they'd been killed by sasquatches. One indicator is finding deer remains where the legs have been violently broken.
Again, as for the mating, bears and other large mammals get by just fine, sometimes despite very low population counts.

originally posted by: Grovit
tons of roads through here
www.fs.usda.gov...

looks like 1 road....singular



www.fs.usda.gov...

of course there is concrete in the area but i would not go so far as to say that through most of it you are close to a road....i could be wrong...
either way, what is close to a road?

even 40 acre patches are pretty damn big areas...
we are not talking about patches of 40 acres of manicured land...this is dense forest

ahhh..i said i wouldnt debate but i cant help it...

Try Google earth instead.

Within a mile or 2 I would call close and I wouldn't call 40 acres big, even if it was very dense.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: trollz

originally posted by: Pitou
a reply to: qmantoo

I don't really know much yet of the Bigfoot phenomenon, but you said they found and analysed hairs of it. What did they see? Did it have DNA, could they trace or see a link with any existing known species such as apes, bears, etc?

Yeah, human.

“Genetically, the Sasquatch are a human hybrid with unambiguously modern human maternal ancestry,” reads a statement released last weekend by former veterinarian Melba T. Ketchum, the lead researcher of the study. “Researchers’ extensive DNA sequencing suggests that the legendary Sasquatch is a human relative that arose approximately 15,000 years ago.”

Source

"4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them"

I don't mean to piss on your Christmas because personally I would love for sasquatch be real. However I'm far more skeptical of the alleged DNA analysis of Bigfoot samples than I am of Bigfoot itself. It's extremely questionable when a researcher refuses to publish their results for peer review and even more so when they won't release the data at all let alone disclose where and how she obtained the alleged samples. And that doesn't even touch on Ketchum's own credibility issues regarding her company DNA Diagnostics which received an F rating by the better business bureau or the fact that an early draft of her report claimed that the unknown genetic contributor was angels.

I think you're right to be skeptical of the analysis, but there are good reasons for refusing to publish the results for peer review. When people in academia or science so much as mention the possibility of sasquatches, they sometimes tend to get laughed out of their careers. The way I see it is that her results are for the believers, not the people who are simply out to demonize her as a conspiracy nutjob.
Maybe her company isn't run properly, maybe it sucks; but that doesn't mean she doesn't know what she's doing as far as dna analysis.
As for the angels thing; most of the world believes in some version of God, and in spiritual beings. Why is it crazy to imagine spiritual intervention being the cause of their existence? I know that in the bible, there are passages suggesting that exact thing; that angels "mated" with (or messed with the dna of) humans, and created a race of savage half-human creatures. I'm not saying I believe or do not believe such a thing, I'm just saying that the stories have been out there and are already believed by many people. I don't think it's crazy at all to consider that sasquatches may be the result of spiritual or extraterrestrial activity. In fact, that may explain why many people attribute supernatural abilities to them.

originally posted by: trollz

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Grovit
Have you ever crunched the numbers of how much vegetation a primate needs to eat to survive? Or how many it takes to ensure a surviving population. It's a LOT of eating and a lot of mating.

Bears and other large mammals get by just fine, and they have to eat a lot to survive. By the way, I'm pretty sure sasquatches are omnivorous. Deer remains have been found, for example, indicating that they'd been killed by sasquatches. One indicator is finding deer remains where the legs have been violently broken.
Again, as for the mating, bears and other large mammals get by just fine, sometimes despite very low population counts.

Bigfoot would have eat a lot of meat with the type of body it has. I don't buy into the argument that an animal that size could run that fast. Why haven't these deer legs been tested to see how they where broken?

originally posted by: anton74
I don't have a link to the video but, some smart people got ahold of her data and tore her study apart. It appears the DNA came from humans, cats, dogs, and a panda. Her data and paper have been described as garbage.

Are you aware that she was also involved in the research into the Starchild skull?

How do you know that's even true?
Alot of people assume she's either lying or doesn't know what she's doing; why is it never the other way around? Nobody considers that maybe there ARE organized governmental efforts to hide the existence of these creatures. For all we know, the people in that video could have been paid to make things up to discredit her.
And for anyone who tries to nay-say and call nonsense, just remember that the government DOES lie and hide truths from the public. You'd have to be truly blind to think these things don't happen on a regular basis.

Alot of people were interested in the starchild skull. It was an interesting find. There's nothing wrong with researching things. Her involvement in it, whatever it may have been, says nothing about her credibility.

originally posted by: anton74
a reply to: tallcool1

Did you tell that to the people that claim Bigfoot comes over and hangs out with them? Some of these vast forests that people claim to see one in are as small as 40 acres.

I'm a bit skeptical myself of claims that sasquatches were seen in areas that shouldn't be able to support them. Of course, location is just one thing you have to consider when looking at all the evidence. Some people do make up encounters, I won't deny that. But in many aplaces where they are encountered, there's more than enough area for them to survive comfortably.

originally posted by: trollz

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: trollz

originally posted by: Pitou
a reply to: qmantoo

I don't really know much yet of the Bigfoot phenomenon, but you said they found and analysed hairs of it. What did they see? Did it have DNA, could they trace or see a link with any existing known species such as apes, bears, etc?

Yeah, human.

“Genetically, the Sasquatch are a human hybrid with unambiguously modern human maternal ancestry,” reads a statement released last weekend by former veterinarian Melba T. Ketchum, the lead researcher of the study. “Researchers’ extensive DNA sequencing suggests that the legendary Sasquatch is a human relative that arose approximately 15,000 years ago.”

Source

"4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them"

I don't mean to piss on your Christmas because personally I would love for sasquatch be real. However I'm far more skeptical of the alleged DNA analysis of Bigfoot samples than I am of Bigfoot itself. It's extremely questionable when a researcher refuses to publish their results for peer review and even more so when they won't release the data at all let alone disclose where and how she obtained the alleged samples. And that doesn't even touch on Ketchum's own credibility issues regarding her company DNA Diagnostics which received an F rating by the better business bureau or the fact that an early draft of her report claimed that the unknown genetic contributor was angels.

I think you're right to be skeptical of the analysis, but there are good reasons for refusing to publish the results for peer review. When people in academia or science so much as mention the possibility of sasquatches, they sometimes tend to get laughed out of their careers. The way I see it is that her results are for the believers, not the people who are simply out to demonize her as a conspiracy nutjob.
Maybe her company isn't run properly, maybe it sucks; but that doesn't mean she doesn't know what she's doing as far as dna analysis.
As for the angels thing; most of the world believes in some version of God, and in spiritual beings. Why is it crazy to imagine spiritual intervention being the cause of their existence? I know that in the bible, there are passages suggesting that exact thing; that angels "mated" with (or messed with the dna of) humans, and created a race of savage half-human creatures. I'm not saying I believe or do not believe such a thing, I'm just saying that the stories have been out there and are already believed by many people. I don't think it's crazy at all to consider that sasquatches may be the result of spiritual or extraterrestrial activity. In fact, that may explain why many people attribute supernatural abilities to them.

The problem is that her paper has been reviewed and it was found not to be what she says it is.

One of the Bigfoot Forums has a video discussion about her report and rips it too pieces. You can also find expert opinions on her findings.

Why is it that a lot of people in the bigfoot community are calling her a fraud if what she says is legit?

originally posted by: anton74

originally posted by: trollz

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Grovit
Have you ever crunched the numbers of how much vegetation a primate needs to eat to survive? Or how many it takes to ensure a surviving population. It's a LOT of eating and a lot of mating.

Bears and other large mammals get by just fine, and they have to eat a lot to survive. By the way, I'm pretty sure sasquatches are omnivorous. Deer remains have been found, for example, indicating that they'd been killed by sasquatches. One indicator is finding deer remains where the legs have been violently broken.
Again, as for the mating, bears and other large mammals get by just fine, sometimes despite very low population counts.

Bigfoot would have eat a lot of meat with the type of body it has. I don't buy into the argument that an animal that size could run that fast. Why haven't these deer legs been tested to see how they where broken?

Why would it have to eat alot of meat? Look at something like a moose, or a gorilla. They're large and muscular, but survive off of plants.
I don't remember all the specifics I've read about broken deer legs, but it would make sense with ambush hunting. Grab the deer's leg and snap it in half so the deer can't run, then break it's neck, strangle it, or beat it to death with a rock or large stick while it lays there helpless. Maybe it's even so the deer can't kick. It'd be much easier to grab the leg of a deer running by than brain it over the head at just the precise moment.

originally posted by: trollz

originally posted by: anton74

originally posted by: trollz

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Grovit
Have you ever crunched the numbers of how much vegetation a primate needs to eat to survive? Or how many it takes to ensure a surviving population. It's a LOT of eating and a lot of mating.

Bears and other large mammals get by just fine, and they have to eat a lot to survive. By the way, I'm pretty sure sasquatches are omnivorous. Deer remains have been found, for example, indicating that they'd been killed by sasquatches. One indicator is finding deer remains where the legs have been violently broken.
Again, as for the mating, bears and other large mammals get by just fine, sometimes despite very low population counts.

Bigfoot would have eat a lot of meat with the type of body it has. I don't buy into the argument that an animal that size could run that fast. Why haven't these deer legs been tested to see how they where broken?

Why would it have to eat alot of meat? Look at something like a moose, or a gorilla. They're large and muscular, but survive off of plants.
I don't remember all the specifics I've read about broken deer legs, but it would make sense with ambush hunting. Grab the deer's leg and snap it in half so the deer can't run, then break it's neck, strangle it, or beat it to death with a rock or large stick while it lays there helpless. Maybe it's even so the deer can't kick. It'd be much easier to grab the leg of a deer running by than brain it over the head at just the precise moment.

Look at a silverback for example. I can eat 50lbs of food per day. If you notice the big belly, that is due to the length of intestines needed to digest its diet. A silverback is not going to run down a deer.

The speed and agility attributed to bigfoot is more of what we would find in a predator and not a herbivore.

We can examine a deer leg and determine if it was snapped by a big ape. Go to a meat processor during hunting season and get some legs and test them to see what to look for and take that knowledge into the woods and separate fact from fiction, no conspiracy needed.