Sean • a month ago
"Yet many sightings have later turned out to be hoaxes..."
Err... no. The vast majority of sightings are either unreported, or are simply shared with family. Probably over 90% are random people who's accounts would be near impossible to disprove scientifically. Also, contra various people in the comments before me say it's simply to make profit, however there is no way these random citizens could ever make a profit off this. This doesn't improve the chances, but using an incorrect statement as support for the contrary isn't correct. A lot of the famous ones (Not including Patterson.) have indeed been proven to be misidentified or hoaxed.
---
Also, to comments below, there is perfectly clear photo/film (The latter being a modified version of the former.): The Patterson film. There is no evidence this a suit and plenty of evidence that it isn't. Even with out 1000s of aforementioned sightings this film would be compelling. The problem is why these creatures haven't been more well documented should this film indicate existence, hence skepticism.
---
As a side note, why does everyone think some polar bear genetics in these bears mean polar bears used to live in the Himalayas? On every site it's mentioned? Clearly the brown bears had been up north and the bloodline was passed down south and eliminated in the north (At a level.).
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
bgrnathan • a month ago
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a tendon, muscle, bone, or cartilage, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. All the fossils that have been used to support human evolution have been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not non-human and human (i.e. Neanderthal Man was discovered later to be fully human). Textbooks and museums still continue to display examples and illustrations supporting human evolution which most evolutionists have rejected and no longer support. Many diagrams of ape-man creatures over the years were reconstructed according to evolutionary interpretations from disputable bones that have now been discredited but still being taught in school textbooks.
ACQUIRED CHARACTERISTICS CAN'T BE PASSED ON: Many people have wrong ideas of how evolution is supposed to work. Physical traits and characteristics are determined and passed on by genes - not by what happens to our body parts. For example, if a woman were to lose her finger this wouldn't affect how many fingers her baby will have. Changing the color and texture of your hair will not affect the color and texture of your children's hair. So, even if an ape's muscles and bones changed so that it could walk upright it still would not be able to pass on this trait to its offspring. Only changes or mutations that occur in the genetic code of reproductive cells (i.e. sperm and egg) can be passed on to offspring.
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES: Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot happen by chance, so it is more logical to believe that genetic and biological similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related!
What about "Junk DNA?" It's not junk. It's we who were ignorant of their usefulness. These so-called "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been shown to be vital in regulating gene expression (i.e. when, where, and how genes are expressed, so they're not "junk"). Even more recent scientific evidence shows that they do code for proteins, after all, and that we need to readjust our thinking of how the cell reads the genetic code (Read "Human Proteome More Complex Than Previously Thought," Internet article by Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins). Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
HUMAN-CHIMP DNA MYTH: The actual similarity is between 70-87% not 99.8% as commonly believed. The original research stating 99.8% similarity was based on ignoring contradicting evidence. Read the article, "Evaluating the Human-Chimp DNA Myth--New Research Data" at the Institute for Creation Research Site. Whatever similarities exist are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes, rather than chance common ancestry. Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from sea sponge to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Survival of the fittest would actually have prevented evolution across kinds! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! (2nd Edition).
Natural selection doesn't produce biological traits or variations. It can only "select" from biological variations that are possible and which have survival value. The real issue is what biological variations are possible, not natural selection. Only limited evolution, variations of already existing genes and traits are possible. Nature is mindless and has no ability to design and program entirely new genes for entirely new traits.
Modern evolutionists believe and hope that over, supposedly, millions of years random genetic mutations in the genes of reproductive cells caused by environmental radiation will generate entirely new genes. This is total blind and irrational faith on the part of evolutionists. It's much like believing that randomly changing the sequence of letters in a romance novel, over millions of years, will turn it into a book on astronomy! That's the kind of blind faith macro-evolutionists have.
When evolutionary scientists teach that random genetic mutations in species over, supposedly, millions of years caused by random environmental agents such as radiation, produced entirely new genes (i.e. genetic code or genetic information) leading to entirely new forms of life, they are not teaching science but simply a faith, a belief!
Mutations are accidents in the genetic, are mostly harmful, and have no capability of producing greater complexity in the code. Even if a good accident occurred, for every good one there would be hundreds of harmful ones with the net result, over time, being harmful, even lethal, to the species. At best, mutations only produce further variations within a natural species. Even so, mutations are not the best explanation for variations within a natural species.
Since it is not rational to believe that genetic information, or any form of information, can arise by chance, it is totally rational to believe that God (the Supreme Genetic Engineer) placed within all natural species, in the beginning, with all of the recessive and dominant genes that produced all of the intra-species variations in nature.
Visit my newest Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION
I discuss: Punctuated Equilibria, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations,
natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Sincerely,
Babu G. Ranganathan*
(B.A. theology/biology)
Author of popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED
FROM GREEK ROOTS
*I have had the privilege of being recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis "Who's Who In The East" for my writings on religion and science. I have given successful lectures (with question and answer period afterward) before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges/universities.
see more
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Artem Korzhimanov • a month ago
"Russians call them Almasty" is wrong. I am Russian and this is the first time I see this word. In Russia bigfoots are usually called "snowmen" or more rare "yeti"
2
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Harry McNicholas Artem Korzhimanov • a month ago
You are right Artem. I studied Russian and our teacher came up with stories of the snowman and I never Heard the Word Almasty.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Bigfoot. • a month ago
I'm a Bigfoot
7
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
remi Bigfoot. • a month ago
You should send them in some hair.
6
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
John • a month ago
Finding genetic evidence of polar bear inbreeding with bears in some Himalayan bears is highly exciting. Can't wait for follow up research to determine the details of this and the evolutionary history that joined these species. That is the most exciting outcome of this study!
6
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Harry McNicholas John • a month ago
I wouldnt be so exited John. There are Brown bears that live in the Himalayas and in Mongolia and these hairs might be from them. Wait for the results.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
movierealist Harry McNicholas • a month ago
Ummm they already found polar bear evidence, so they were looking to see if there might be hybridization with polar bears and Himalayan bears, not Brown bears. Either way it's very interesting, and exciting for someone who likes animal history to think about Polar bear RNA still lingering with bears found in the Himalayas. That may mean animal range and territory didn't vanish right after the ice age (duh)... there may have been animals most wouldn't expect in some places, somewhat recently, like a couple hundred years ago. That's something I've never had a problem with since humans keep being "surprised" with discoveries... I've tended to be accepting to that sort of "discovery". We were only using stone tools within 7,000 years ago, and more recently in some places; now we think we know it all because we use methods? Even mammoths were still alive well into the last 10,000 years, and possibly the last 5,000 on islands of Russia, yet nobody "knew" until finding some frozen specimens. People were around back then! They could have seen them and passed on stories about them! But noooo.... we have to do it scientifically. Without it the mammoths didn't exist after 12,000 years ago?
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
WantToBelieve • a month ago
Great news actually, even if a bit disappointing to Bigfoot hunters. Great in that there is scientific lab credibility willing to get behind and back or debunk any claim; that it's a serious effort. I hope Bigfoot hunters out there get excited and redouble their efforts.
3
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Harry McNicholas WantToBelieve • a month ago
Well redoubling your efforts to be an idiot will only result in a bigger idiot.
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
truth_machine WantToBelieve • a month ago
More like "WantToBeStupid"
2
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
BG • a month ago
Cue all the gullible believers who will claim that there is a conspiracy to suppress the "evidence."
6
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
sorgfelt • a month ago
You've discarded almost half of the evidence of a relatively small sample to begin with of samples that were collected in an environment containing many different species. The lack of your finding bigfoot hairs in the remainder doesn't really prove anything.
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Jbar sorgfelt • a month ago
"Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence?" Well that "doesn't really prove anything" either, does it. No unicorn fossils, ergo they might still exist?
So what IS "evidence of absence"? How do you "prove" non-existence? Collect every hair in every square inch of forest in all the claimed sighting areas and analyze all of them???
"The lack of finding bigfoot hairs in the remainder" DOES prove something - that all those claims were FALSE, which strongly suggests that the other claims are also false!
4
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
movierealist Jbar • a month ago
Hey I'm with you if you're tired of all the corny, satisfied-with-the-fun-of-it "proving" bigfoot-exists types, but as far as a lack of evidence proving something doesn't exist... you're flat wrong.
Even seeing with our eyes is included as evidence, yet at one time we didn't believe germs existed until we had the means to find the evidence. Does that mean germs didn't exist until we had microscopes?
No matter how bad, or good we humans have thought our scientific methods have been over the years, we seem to arrogantly ignore how many times we have "rediscovered" something we previously didn't believe... because of lack of or opposing evidence.
I deal with this problem often with my job. The related workers that get to focus on research discover things I didn't know from time to time, but their predecessors have lead me wrong many, many times, with "evidence" that turned out wrong. They were wrong! Many times! Why don't they get questioned as much as cryptozoologists, ufologists, etc...? Because of the club they belong to. The scientific methods taught in school are necessary, however it's sometimes used by one-way thinkers and snobs. Those types think the tools from school are perfect, even when somebody's theory based on personal experience proves their scientific method-based assumption wrong.
I claimed that nurse sharks don't have to use their eyes when searching for food, yet several acquaintances scoffed at the idea, even twisting my words to mean "can't see". Well I never said they couldn't see, just that in the ocean you can't rely on sight even when you're a hungry shark, and other senses have to substitute for periodically poor water clarity conditions to find prey that are awesome camouflage artists. They said "you don't have any evidence that they don't use their eyes for hunting". I said "They CAN use their eyes, but they don't need to... just watch them".
Well Mote marine lab confirmed what I'd said, performing not only tests blocking a variety of senses on the several species that I was right about... with no prior evidence, only observation and thought. In fact I'm not bashful about saying I was batting a thousand on stuff I had thought about for years, but was doubted by others because of my blue-collar style.
The Coelacanth was found after many scientists found it laughable to even hint that something from over 60 million years ago could exist today. People in the local fish markets said "Yeah.. we sell that fish sometimes." It had been witnessed but not believed. Does that mean without the evidence, the fish didn't exist? Of course not. Horseshoe crabs should have given the snobs a big enough hint.
This all doesn't mean I believe in bigfoot existing today. We can still make guesses based on likelihood, based on observations and logic, like I did with the sharks, and sometimes be right. The point is, sometimes we don't know it all. With or WITHOUT evidence.
Want a guess? I think something similar to the thousands of intercontinental, multi-ethnic, millennia-spanning descriptions of a large humanoid forest creature other than the known previous human-related bipeds, existed while humans existed. I think that species is very likely extinct, and has been for a long time, most likely when a lot of the giant mammals of the Pleistocene died out, or thousands of years before that. I think we've missed countless evidence of others animals of all phylums. I think a few different species we thought were gone after the Pleistocene, or earlier, lingered well into last millenia, and many encounters were not understood as unusual; just an animal they didn't know anyway, and not recorded in a way we would recognize as truthful or useful.
see more
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
truth_machine sorgfelt • a month ago
So let's see your analysis, fool.
3
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
HangingJudge sorgfelt • a month ago
Except for the fact nobody else has ever found any evidence of bigfoot ever.
So this study is just another out of hundreds over the years that has turned up nothing.
I'm pretty sure that proves there are no bigfoots.
4
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Harry McNicholas HangingJudge • a month ago
I do not think it proves 100% no bigfoot but likely the probability of say 99.99% there is no such animal would be correct.
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
triptyx sorgfelt • a month ago
No, but the lack of a hitherto unknown primate based DNA sample in the remaining samples proves that those samples are not, after all, sasquatch hairs.
5
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
BBum triptyx • a month ago
All it really proves is that there is a possibility that bears evolved from Sasquatch:)
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Jbar BBum • a month ago
Pretty sure they know where bears evolved from, and it wasn't primates!
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Debiprasad Ghosh • a month ago
In software development, sometime it is better to start a
new project with better technology than the legacy running code.
Similarly, forget running gossips and whatever
you have listen about Yeti; let’s start to create Yeti in a modern bio lab. I
am sure it will be better in many ways.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
ThomBurr Debiprasad Ghosh • a month ago
We could hybrize humans with gorillas then breed for (or induce) albinism and gigantism.
3
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Researcher • a month ago
I have been following the recent DNA analysis of supposed "Yeti" hairs from India and Bhutan. It seems that Polar Bears and bears closely related to our Brown Bears come into contact with each other in and near Bhutan and have produced hybrid offspring which present characteristics of both species. Unfortunately, National Geographic writers make the illogical and unscientific jump to claiming that this hybrid bear IS a Yeti. Why not be content with the real discovery of a hybrid group of bears which certainly are strange- looking? Instead, the more dramatic announcement that they have "proven" that the Yeti is a bear, a bear which naturally is a quadruped and is not a biped as the Yeti is most frequently reported to be. Yes, bears will stand on their hind legs to see, hear and smell more efficiently but will not walk for miles anywhere in the World as Bigfoots, by whatever name, do. I have seen Bigfoots in several states in the last 43 years of research. They are fully bipedal and most definitely NOT bears. They are primates.
7
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Harry McNicholas Researcher • a month ago
Actually Polar bears and Brown bears came from the same animal and Split about 500,000 years ago. Brown bears and polar bears can mate and produce a fertile offspring. The hair samples could have simply been polar bear samples and mislabeled as being from Bhutan. Polar bears did not develop in Central or Southern Asia. They have always been an arctic animal.
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Dennis Ludwig Researcher • a month ago
If you were really confident enough to stand by your claims, you would use your real name. Let's see your hair samples.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Mike Researcher • a month ago
Ok Bobo
7
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
ThomBurr Researcher • a month ago
Downvoted for insanity.
4
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
XyzzyFrobozz Researcher • a month ago
Polar bears in Bhutan?
M'kaaaay.....
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
truth_machine XyzzyFrobozz • a month ago
Read the article.
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Harry McNicholas truth_machine • a month ago
I did and Polar bears have never lived anywhere close to Bhutan. More likely the origin of the sample was mislabeled.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
MichaelZWilliamson Researcher • a month ago
Lots of people have "seen" Nessie, too, but her existence is impossible. As is Bigfoot's.
2
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Harry McNicholas MichaelZWilliamson • a month ago
Yes, my grandfather used to see Green elephants when he got a snoot full.
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Dusty • a month ago
“...the first peer-reviewed, genetic survey of biological samples claimed to be from the shadowy beasts.”
No, not the first. ——>
http://www.lanevol.org/LANE/ye...
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
SometimesIcomment Dusty • a month ago
The conclusion that yeti(s)? are ungulates is hilarious.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Woof Dusty • a month ago
WTF?!
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
RonJohn • a month ago
It's a conspiracy! Mainstream Science knows that the twenty "untested" hairs are really from our chemtrail-spreading, FEMA-camp building, NESARA law passing, reptilian overlords!
Spray more vinegar and ignore that reptiles don't have hair!!
8
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
MichaelZWilliamson RonJohn • a month ago
Chemtrails reduce UV B levels and reduce skin cancer risk.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Pedro • a month ago
Os caras vêem estrelas a BILHÕES de ANOS-LUZ com telescópios de infravermelho inconcebivelmente potentes e não conseguem ver um camarada de 3 metros numa porcaria de uma floresta pobre e aberta. Poupem-me.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Bigfoot Gifts & Toys • a month ago
Bigfoot samples won't prosper since everything is a hoax!
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Colin • a month ago
First, there is absolutley ZERO...ZERO evidence that primates EVER lived in North America, much less Bigfoot.
Second, After allegedly spending 20 to 25 YEARS searching for...bigfoot
, the "expert" bigfoot team has not come up with a sing...le , unblurry, sharp, clear photograph of this...bigfoot.
Third, apparently the whole of North America is "good squatch country" and even with the advent of digital photography, camera phones and advancing technology, there is still ZERO recognized proof that...bigfoot is anything but a fun myth that brings in a buck. [Keep buying those baseball caps folks].
Fourth, These things must decompose really fast, I've been a backwoodsman , hiker and backpacker all of my adult life and have seen tracks, bones and living specimens of even the most elusive of creatures, from Bobcat to narwhal, never saw a bigfoot bone, never saw a bigfoot hide...NOBODY has.
Most people remember what it was like as a kid to visit the local graveyard on Halloween and work ourselves into a wonderful fright. Every sound was a ghost, goblin, or zombie. None ever arrived. And as wonderfully spooky as it might be, such is the case with the bigfoot myth. Lots of fun! They're everywhere! Making some dough! Unfortunately, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and here, there is none.
16
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Harry McNicholas Colin • a month ago
Well,Colin I think Bigfoot is a stupid joke but your comment is wrong. Monkeys occur in Mexico which is located in North America. They are primates. A strange situation is the occurence of Japanese snow monkeys along the Rio Grande River in Texas. Nobody is quite sure how they got there. Likely from one of the animal ranches in West Texas.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
truth_machine Colin • a month ago
"ZERO evidence that primates EVER lived in North America"
I can believe that you aren't alive.
2
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Colin truth_machine • a month ago
cute in a high school sort of a way.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
redd1 Colin • a month ago
you seen a narwhal in the woods did you... thats funny cause narwhal is a water dwelling mammal from the arctic ocean....just pointing out your mistake my friend, do not take offence..
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Colin redd1 • a month ago
I did not say that I saw a Narwhal in the woods. Let me quote that passage once again as you must have read it wrong.
" I've been a backwoodsman , hiker and backpacker all of my adult life and have seen tracks, bones and living specimens of even the most elusive of creatures, from Bobcat to narwhal, never saw a bigfoot bone, never saw a bigfoot hide...NOBODY has."
Narwhal can often be seen in Arctic coastal waters and rivers.They are often sighted swimming in groups of 15 to 20, but gatherings of hundreds—or even several thousand—narwhals have been reported.
I hope that helps clear it up for you.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
ebolaoutkast redd1 • a month ago
Actually smart stuff their bones can wash up on shore.
4
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
bigmoinaz Colin • a month ago
bagged on just last week!
http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2014/07/bigfoot-samples-analyzed-lab