The Paranormal, UFO's, and Mysteries of the Unknown

MusicForFish said:

Bones degrade naturally.
Searching for potential remains in the deep wilderness within 100 miles of sighting areas just isn't in the cards. It would cost a fortune to do it justice.
We do have some small DNA workups but they are ignored or inconclusive. There's more to that but meh.

Bigfoots(or whatevers) are real. We have them on audio from multiple sources.
If I can find the video...a guy ran some howls through some audio software and the results were cool...I don't wanna misquote. Lemme find it.
The encounters with people that live near or in their territory are a little freaky. They mimic human language, sort of.
I know of 3 places in the PNW that you can go and hear the howls, knocking, etc.

I'll post some stuff for our armchair wilderness experts if requested.

Click to expand...

then go get some footage with a drone or trail cam.

Sound doesn't travel far in the woods. if you can hear em, you can see em.

the idea that theres a large species of animal in the US we dont know about is ridiculous. Bodies, tracks, etc. Even if they were magically super good at staying away from people. We would have seen tracks in snow, bodies from starvation, accidents, etc. theres about 0 pristine forests in the continental US.

This is especially true when you make absurd claims like, you can get close enough to hear them. tree stands, telescopic lens, helicopters, now drones, trail cams, etc..

Caliane said:

then go get some footage with a drone or trail cam.

Sound doesn't travel far in the woods. if you can hear em, you can see em.

the idea that theres a large species of animal in the US we dont know about is ridiculous. Bodies, tracks, etc. Even if they were magically super good at staying away from people. We would have seen tracks in snow, bodies from starvation, accidents, etc. theres about 0 pristine forests in the continental US.

This is especially true when you make absurd claims like, you can get close enough to hear them. tree stands, telescopic lens, helicopters, now drones, trail cams, etc..

Click to expand...

i used to follow this stuff and the lack of bigfoot remains doesnt really prove anything. a corpse would degrade very quickly out in the woods, even bones would get spread around so you wouldnt know a bigfoot corpse was around. also look at all the humans who go missing in the woods every year and never are found again. as for bigfoot tracks, plenty of tracks are found, nobody believes them, and many are hoaxes so there is good reason not to believe them. but there are many bigfoot type tracks reported. there is also the reason nobody finds bigfoot remains is that they are a dwindling race, so as time goes on less bigfoots will be round.


all that being said, yes if bigfoot was real we would have had HD quality photographs and video images by now from trailcams or campers. yes we would have heard about a hunter blowing one up. we never do because there is no bigfoot.

Chukzombi said:

i used to follow this stuff and the lack of bigfoot remains doesnt really prove anything. a corpse would degrade very quickly out in the woods, even bones would get spread around so you wouldnt know a bigfoot corpse was around. also look at all the humans who go missing in the woods every year and never are found again.

Click to expand...

even that, theres a huge difference between trying to find one specific human lost in the woods or their remains, vs finding ANY remains at all. even with degradation, carrion feeders, etc.. ok. sure. but we'd have found something. a hip bone, a shin...

Caliane said:

even that, theres a huge difference between trying to find one specific human lost in the woods or their remains, vs finding ANY remains at all. even with degradation, carrion feeders, etc.. ok. sure. but we'd have found something. a hip bone, a shin...

Click to expand...

NJ is bear territory, if a theoretical bigfoot dropped dead out in the woods a mile from my house and i came across its bones, i'm going to dismiss it as a bear carcass and go on my way. i think most others would do the same. i think if you did find the unicorn of hikers who can discern the bones of a bear from an an unknown giant primate and then have them drag these bones out to a anthropologist. what are the odds they would even bother properly testing them?

This is from that missing 411 show. its just a few minutes but very interesting.

Chukzombi said:

NJ is bear territory, if a theoretical bigfoot dropped dead out in the woods a mile from my house and i came across its bones, i'm going to dismiss it as a bear carcass and go on my way. i think most others would do the same. i think if you did find the unicorn of hikers who can discern the bones of a bear from an an unknown giant primate and then have them drag these bones out to a anthropologist. what are the odds they would even bother properly testing them?

Click to expand...

You would but someone trained to know the difference between a bear and primate bones wouldn't.

I think they could most likely tell the difference based solely on sight no test need.

MusicForFish said:

What if they bury their dead? This isn't something just us humans do. Chimpanzees, Elephants, Ants, even Neanderthals buried their dead.
Elephants, for example, will scatter dirt over the bodies of their (or sometimes even human) dead, and cover them with foliage. For obvious reasons it would be hard for them to dig an actual grave so I would say this counts. They are also said to remain with the body for days after the death, and sometimes revisit the bones years later.

Click to expand...

Do we find human bodies out in nature, given that we bury our dead?

I'm sure there was a Bigfoot even as recently as the past few hundred years.

But with how many people have both seriously and not seriously looked you've gotta say not anymore.

A North a American ape? Sure, why not. Injuns got here some way of another. Why not a gorilla too? Or a neaderthal.

iannis said:

I'm sure there was a Bigfoot even as recently as the past few hundred years.

But with how many people have both seriously and not seriously looked you've gotta say not anymore.

A North a American ape? Sure, why not. Injuns got here some way of another. Why not a gorilla too? Or a neaderthal.

Click to expand...

i dont think Neanderthals were what people call bigfoot. Neanderthals are likely our predecessors and they were maybe even more intelligent than modern humans, but they died out 12000 years ago. i think bigfoots are just bears, normal bears doing normal bear things, it freaks people out when they walk on two feet, but thats normal bear stuff.
from wiki
Formal studies

The first scientific study of available evidence was conducted by John Napier and published in his book, Bigfoot: The Yeti and Sasquatch in Myth and Reality, in 1973.[62] Napier wrote that if a conclusion is to be reached based on scant extant "'hard' evidence," science must declare "Bigfoot does not exist."[63] However, he found it difficult to entirely reject thousands of alleged tracks, "scattered over 125,000 square miles" (325,000 km²) or to dismiss all "the many hundreds" of eyewitness accounts. Napier concluded, "I am convinced that Sasquatch exists, but whether it is all it is cracked up to be is another matter altogether. There must be something in north-west America that needs explaining, and that something leaves man-like footprints."[64] However, anthropologists such as George Gaylord Simpson rejected Napier's conclusion noting that much of the data cited by Napier were hoaxes and since his book had been published, no evidence for Bigfoot was found.[65]

In 1974, the National Wildlife Federation funded a field study seeking Bigfoot evidence. No formal federation members were involved and the study made no notable discoveries.[66]

Few qualified anthropologists have written on the subject. The few that did have included Grover Krantz, Carleton S. Coon, George Allen Agogino and William Charles Osman Hill, although they came to no definite conclusions and later drifted from this research.[67] Beginning in the late 1970s, physical anthropologist Grover Krantz published several articles and four book-length treatments of Sasquatch. However, his work was found to contain multiple scientific failings including falling for hoaxes.[68]

A study published in the Journal of Biogeography in 2009 by J.D. Lozier et al. used ecological niche modeling on reported sightings of Bigfoot, using their locations to infer Bigfoot's preferred ecological parameters. They found a very close match with the ecological parameters of the American black bear, Ursus americanus. They also note that an upright bear looks much like Bigfoot's purported appearance and consider it highly improbable that two species should have very similar ecological preferences, concluding that Bigfoot sightings are likely sightings of black bears.[69]

In the first systematic genetic analysis of 30 hair samples that were suspected to be from Bigfoot, yeti, sasquatch, almasty or other anomalous primates, only one was found to be primate in origin, and that was identified as human. A joint study by the University of Oxford and Lausanne's Cantonal Museum of Zoology and published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B in 2014, the team used a previously published cleaning method to remove all surface contamination and the ribosomal mitochondrial DNA 12S fragment of the sample was sequenced and then compared to GenBank to identify the species origin. The samples submitted were from different parts of the world, including the United States, Russia, the Himalayas, and Sumatra. Other than one sample of human origin, all but two are from common animals. Black and brown bear accounted for most of the samples, other animals include cow, horse, dog/wolf/coyote, sheep, goat, raccoon, porcupine, deer and tapir. The last two samples were thought to match a fossilized genetic sample of a 40,000 year old polar bear of the Pleistocene epoch;[70] however, a later study disputes this finding. In the second paper, tests identified the hairs as being from a rare type of brown bear.[71][72]

nm, was a reposted video, fucking hell. i'll replace it with something new

here goes

Araysar said:

I think it would be pretty easy to tell a skeleton of a quadriped from a biped just based on the death posture alone, not to mention the skull shape. When quadripeds like dogs or bears die, their limbs are typically stretched out sidewise and together. Humans dont lay in those postures.


View attachment 270955View attachment 270956View attachment 270957

Click to expand...

Thing is....most likely the skeleton won’t stay that way. Scavengers will have that thing spread out all over. I am looking for it now but I could of swore I saw a thing on how coyotes alone can spread a body out over miles of rough terrain.

I own a cabin in the middle of nowhere Minnesota. See bear, deer, bobcat and the occasional wolf. I go for lots of hikes and do a ton of shore fishing. I have never come across a skeleton of an animal.