Why wouldn't bigfoot hunt humans?

[William Parcher]

I suspect it. I can't say I know for certain. If someone believes Bigfoot is real, they will most likely go to an area where they think they exist and at least try to get evidence.

Maybe a proponent would make hoaxes so that it looks like Bigfoot exists and to show that their trips to the forest aren't a waste of time?

 

[OntarioSquatch]

Maybe a proponent would make hoaxes so that it looks like Bigfoot exists and to show that their trips to the forest aren't a waste of time?

That sounds more like a full-blown hoaxer.

 

[Cervelo]

I suspect it. I can't say I know for certain. If someone believes Bigfoot is real, they will most likely go to an area where they think they exist and at least try to get evidence.




Maybe, but what would that mean for the attempts at discrediting the PGF by claiming the footprints are fake?

First and only thing you need to know about Roger/PGF.
He was making a movie about hunting for Bigfoot, it's all fake for the movie.
End of story....worldview shattering can commence!!

 

[OntarioSquatch]

Oh my god my world view is so shattered

 

[sadhatter]

That's a really good question and I don't know the answer. I can say that the vast majority of true proponents wouldn't hoax though.

"the ********** called it the Nobel lie" bubbles, trailer park boys.

 

[William Parcher]

That sounds more like a full-blown hoaxer.

I don't understand why that person can't also believe in the existence of Bigfoot. You aren't explaining why.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Yes, but of course. Finding samples is one challenge. Another would be identifying them and getting their DNA analyzed. For instance, how do you know the piece of scat that you're looking at is from Bigfoot?

I wonder if you are aware that many people can identify scat down to the species, and season...which means that a good place to start would be to provide fewmets that cannot be identified as a known animal.

The other possible biological material that someone could find without shooting one is hair and it wasn't possible to analyze the DNA in hair without the root/follicle until just recently.

Again, all you'd have to do is start by providing hair that could not be positively identified as belonging to a known animal.

No, but if they were human, one would expect them to be a lot like us (tool use and everything). If they are Homo sapiens, I think that would change the current theory on human evolution and have strong implications for the theory of evolution in general. It's possible they're in the Homo genus like us and other species like the neanderthals, but that would be hard for anyone to say even if someone has a degree in a relevant field like anthropology. Traits like their head shape, short neck, eye shine and pheromone glands suggest they have some considerable genetic differences. With the exception of size, they seem to match the description of many species that split off from us around 3 million years ago. That would put them somewhere "between man and ape".

...First, catch moose.

 

[LTC8K6]

"For instance, how do you know the piece of scat that you're looking at is from Bigfoot? "

You just put the last piece of the puzzle together for me...the reason we never find Footie scat is because they disguise it to look like other animal's poop.

Their feces are sausage-shaped, up to 4" inches in diameter and up to three feet long, forming a folded heap.

How do they disguise those...?

 

[OntarioSquatch]

I don't understand why that person can't also believe in the existence of Bigfoot. You aren't explaining why.

Hoaxing Bigfoot while you're out looking for real evidence sounds so risky and unnatural. By doing so, you are no longer being true to yourself and what you believe in. What would be the point of looking for real evidence if you're faking the stuff you present? It doesn't match up in my mind.

...but then again it would be wrong of me to think that everyone shares the same mentality.

 

[LTC8K6]

Again, all you'd have to do is start by providing hair that could not be positively identified as belonging to a known animal.

Unknown = bigfoot

I think that is a common way they claim to have evidence.

An unidentified hair, matches another unidentified hair, therefore, sasquatch.

 

[Cervelo]

Oh my god my world view is so shattered

When you recover feel free to submit some other marlakey for clarification

 

[The Shrike]

I'd guess that many of them are from people who know their samples aren't really from Bigfoot.

You're missing the point. I provided reference to at least 5 recent research teams that conducted molecular analysis of putative bigfoot samples. Nothing in any of their studies indicated anything such as a bigfoot. If any of them had submitted an actual piece of bigfoot for analysis, then every one of those studies (even Ketchum's) could have confirmed so.

These multiple, negative studies confirm that not one scrap of the best putative evidence for bigfoot actually came from a bigfoot. As a scientist, the only way I can explain that result (again, replicated multiple times by different labs) is that there is no bigfoot.

How do you explain that result?

 

[William Parcher]

Hoaxing Bigfoot while you're out looking for real evidence sounds so risky and unnatural. By doing so, you are no longer being true to yourself and what you believe in. What would be the point of looking for real evidence if you're faking the stuff you present? It doesn't match up in my mind.

...but then again it would be wrong of me to think that everyone shares the same mentality.

So, it sounds like you are saying that if you see any Bigfoot hoaxes (in the wild or in any media) you are looking at the work of a non-believer (skeptic). Is that right?

 

[OntarioSquatch]

So, it sounds like you are saying that if you see any Bigfoot hoaxes (in the wild or in any media) you are looking at the work of a non-believer (skeptic). Is that right?

Yes, that's what I assume.

You're missing the point. I provided reference to at least 5 recent research teams that conducted molecular analysis of putative bigfoot samples. Nothing in any of their studies indicated anything such as a bigfoot. If any of them had submitted an actual piece of bigfoot for analysis, then every one of those studies (even Ketchum's) could have confirmed so.

These multiple, negative studies confirm that not one scrap of the best putative evidence for bigfoot actually came from a bigfoot. As a scientist, the only way I can explain that result (again, replicated multiple times by different labs) is that there is no bigfoot.

How do you explain that result?

Sykes made the mistake of offering to take samples for free. He could have avoided a lot of fakes by putting a relatively small fee for the testing. Believing that Bigfooters are all genuine people who are looking for a mythical animal that they think is real is a mistake. It's hard to make any definitive conclusions on the existence of this animal based on the results of the study. His mistake with the bear hybrid interpretation isn't very assuring either.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

Regarding Ketchum, one of the sample submitters who was close to her admitted that Ketchum bleached and contaminated the samples on purpose to get the awkward result that you see in her paper that no real geneticist can make sense of.

 

[Resume]

One of the sample submitters who was close to Ketchum admitted that Ketchum bleached and contaminated the samples on purpose to get the awkward result that you see in her paper that no real geneticist can make sense of.

Yeah, I read that too. It's an interesting claim, but that's about it.

 

[carlitos]

Hey OntarioSquatch,

I clicked on the FAQ in your signature, and you might want to update the apologetics information a bit:

Why isn’t there any clear footage of one?

The majority of Bigfoot videos on the internet are hoaxes, so it makes sense that those would be shaky and blurry. Actual sightings of Bigfoot tend to be fleeting in nature. The witness often only has a time frame of several seconds to get good footage of one and rarely do they ever have a camera on them. To get good video of one, you would need to have a camera ready beforehand and actually know what you’re looking for so you won’t be in shock the moment you see one. There’s also the issue of pulling the camera out in time and turning it on, which adds a whole new dimension of difficulty to what would already be a challenging task.

More than 90% of Americans have a mobile phone, and nearly all of them have camera and video capability.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

Hey OntarioSquatch,

I clicked on the FAQ in your signature, and you might want to update the apologetics information a bit:



More than 90% of Americans have a mobile phone, and nearly all of them have camera and video capability.

Thanks. I fixed it.

 

[comncents]

Originally Posted by comncents View Post
"For instance, how do you know the piece of scat that you're looking at is from Bigfoot? "

You just put the last piece of the puzzle together for me...the reason we never find Footie scat is because they disguise it to look like other animal's poop.
Quote:
Their feces are sausage-shaped, up to 4" inches in diameter and up to three feet long, forming a folded heap.

How do they disguise those...?

Well, umm, there are bears in the eastern mountains and the seasonal non-migratory travel, pine bark, when you understand that you can see my conclusions, polk. My report isn't complete so I can't tell you everything, but I've seen them poop while watching cougars.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

Yeah, I read that too. It's an interesting claim, but that's about it.

Amazing that no one has taken her to court. If I had a sample that I thought was from an actual Bigfoot and she bleached and contaminated it, I'd be absolutely pissed.