Comments on: 08-08-15

By: Steve Byrne

Steve Byrne — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 16:30:40 +0000

There’s a hell of a lot more going on than a “skeptic” is going to find. As we read, a significant DNA study is under way, with at least 20 individual sasquai identified, 3 distinct haplotypes identified by mitochondrial DNA testing. The study is pending peer review prior to publication in “Nature” magazine. The samples have come from various sources and include a hand, a femur, a slab of a thigh collected from a fresh kill, saliva from partly eaten bait, hair samples, a toenail, a tooth etc. Until this study became public knowledge, no one knew where to send anything. Now they are being flooded and are no longer accepting new samples.

As far as the bones and bodies, check out this link and a few of the links embedded in it.

http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/why-no-bigfoot-bones-and-bodies/

For pure bullshit, this sure is a huge industry.

The point of skepticism in science is too make sure that the right questions are asked. How likely is it that all this got hoaxed, versus how likely is it that something like this is real and we only have this much evidence on public tables after all these years of only a few people believing it. I am simply skeptical of the abilities of hoaxers to have gotten all this done (dating back to leif erickson). But that leaves only one other possible explanation…

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 19 Jun 2011 04:47:19 +0000

Until a physical specimen of a bigfoot comes out into the open then it is very hard to believe they exist. Most of the times that people claim to see bigfoots they are extremely mistaken. I have heard multiple claims that a bigfoot is in the area and I have watched the videos and it is easy to tell that none of the “sightings” are legitimate.

By: mcmurrin

mcmurrin — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 23:25:39 +0000

Doesn’t everyone now carry with them AT ALL TIMES at least one high-resolution digital video camera in the form of a cell-phone? It seems like there is no excuse for NOT getting a picture/video of bigfoot if you actually run into one.

By: Jessica

Jessica — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 02:46:01 +0000

i totally agree with Steve on this one! i mean i can understand where the believers are coming form on this bigfoot thing..but i jus dont think there is actually bigfoots around the world. People and the videos they make are not helping the situation either. The videos are beyond fake. If you look closely at some of them, you can tell there is nothing really there or they just have a man in a suit

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 20:43:34 +0000

I’m not sure all the assertions in this article are true. I agree, there is, of course, a very heavy burden of proof on bigfoot believers, but this article takes some oversimplified scientific positions.

One example: this article claims that most sightings are in grizzly country, but that’s simply not true. Thousands of sightings happen all over the west and central parts of the country, but grizzly bears within the lower 48 states are confined to northwest Wyoming, western Montana, and extreme north Idaho. Even in those places, they are exceedingly uncommon.

Another example: the article questions why no bones have ever been found, but again only notes that bear skeletons have been found in North America. It doesn’t mention how exceedingly rare it is to find primate skeletons, however. For instance, hardly any remains of primates are discovered in parts of Africa with known primate populations.

In summary, this article is just rehashing the same banal “arguments” on both sides. Where’s the fresh commentary on the controversy as it is evolving right now?

By: Vince L

Vince L — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 00:21:21 +0000

The subject Sasquatch in my mind is like that of meteorites. How can you prove to me that a meteorite fell from the sky? Burnt outer skin? Maybe it was burnt in a primitive fire. We have to believe witnesses that the stone fell from the sky. How can science dispute the evidence of Sasquatch (hair, footprints, sightings) and yet get excited about unknown antelope tracks in Vietnam, when that forest antelope was proven to exist. Why the double standard?

By: Tim

Tim — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:16:58 +0000

I believe the point of this article, scott, is that the burden of proof rests upon the Bigfoot enthusiasts. If they are to be taken seriously, verifiable and reliable physical evidence must be introduced for observation. This is simply a matter of applying the necessary principles of science to this investigation. Until cryptozoology can apply the same rules of science to its study, then mainstream scientists will remain skeptical. And rightfully so…

By: scott

scott — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:38:48 +0000

clearly the only thing a sceptic can find on the patterson gimlim film to debunk it is an attack on the character of patterson or clearly evident lies

By: scott

scott — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:36:02 +0000

i bet i can find 500 people in your home town to say bad things about you

but such obvious attempts to make people believe what you say should have proof many people claim that they ,see and hear something, that are from there and know the difference between a bear and something else

how many times have you went walking through the woods and ran into a skeleton of an animal or another person there just not many people in the woods at any given time

even here where i live there are hundreds of hunters in the woods during deer season but i have never went walking through an area in the woods and ran into another person or even the skeleton of a small animal or large animal