The BIGFOOT Thread

Tools    





I was curious as to the percentage of Americans that believe Bigfoot is real. I found this page with stats that break belief down by various means. This one was the most interesting:
Newsmax must be nearly 100% percent.

I'm just sad they didn't have a category for "undecided until there is conclusive proof, but open to possibilities"... like me.



I swear there has to be some plot to keep this thread going. As long as we bite the made-up bait it could work too. Alls someone has to do is post a shadowy figure, and its a Bigfoot sighting. Or say they saw Bigfoot and concoct a spectacularly spooky story. Its like a campfire tale in broad daylight, and we dont tell the listeners its fiction lest we ruin it.


Its almost 2025. Grow up Buttercup! Stop listening to that rock-n-roll.music, wearing shirts with no sleeves......WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO WITH YOUR LIFE ?!
An example like this can be quite useful and illuminating. Sometimes a paradigm case of the preposterous offers us a stress test for our "good reasons."



Every time I see a new post in this thread, I get my hopes up



That someone might have official confirmation



We actually have confirmation of a sort, but it's still considered controversial.

Dr. Melba Ketchum has conducted studies that “confirm the existence of a novel hominin hybrid species, commonly called “Bigfoot” or “Sasquatch,” living in North America.” The researchers claimed that their DNA sequencing results “suggests that the legendary Sasquatch is a human relative that arose approximately 15,000 years ago as a hybrid cross of modern Homo sapiens with an unknown primate species.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...A_'Science'



Trouble with a capitial 'T'
The University of Oxford in the U.K. would seem to confirm there's no DNA evidence of a Bigfoot.
https://www.science.org/content/arti...s-analyzed-lab

In 2012, researchers at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom and the Museum of Zoology in Lausanne, Switzerland, put out a call for hair samples thought to be from anomalous primates. They received 57 hairs from Bigfoot enthusiasts and museums around the world, including samples from Washington, Texas, Oregon, Russia, and India—a few as old as 50 years. Some "hairs" immediately turned out not to be hairs at all, but rather plant or glass fibers; others were too worn to study.
The researchers, led by Oxford geneticist Bryan Sykes, focused on the remaining 37 samples, isolating and cleaning a 2- to 4-centimeter segment of each hair, many of which have been extensively handled by people, contaminating them with foreign DNA. To identify the evolutionary source of each sample, the team determined the sequence of a gene—found inside the mitochondria of cells—that encodes the 12S RNA, which is often used for species identification. Unlike standard DNA, mitochondrial genes are passed only from mother to offspring.
Seven of the samples didn't yield enough DNA for identification. Of the 30 that were sequenced, all matched the exact 12S RNA sequences for known species, the team reports online today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B. Ten hairs belonged to various bear species; four were from horses; four were from wolves or dogs; one was a perfect match to a human hair; and the others came from cows, raccoons, deer, and even a porcupine. Two samples, from India and Bhutan, matched polar bear 12S RNA—a surprising finding that Sykes is following up on to determine whether some Himalayan bears are hybrid species with polar bears.



The University of Oxford in the U.K. would seem to confirm there's no DNA evidence of a Bigfoot.
https://www.science.org/content/arti...s-analyzed-lab
So, obviously Dr. Ketchum had access to some different samples.

Since this is the movie forum, anyone familiar with the story of Jimmy Stewart and the Yeti?
It's pretty bizarre.

https://lflank.wordpress.com/2015/05...nable-snowman/

So, does this mean that "George Baily / Mr. Smith / Charles Lindberg" (some of Stewart's most famous roles) was a "believer"?



The University of Oxford in the U.K. would seem to confirm there's no DNA evidence of a Bigfoot.
https://www.science.org/content/arti...s-analyzed-lab
My local shoe store not only has evidence of a big foot, but creatures with two big feet. Checkmate, skeptics.



Trouble with a capitial 'T'
So, obviously Dr. Ketchum had access to some different samples.

Since this is the movie forum, anyone familiar with the story of Jimmy Stewart and the Yeti?
It's pretty bizarre.

https://lflank.wordpress.com/2015/05...nable-snowman/

So, does this mean that "George Baily / Mr. Smith / Charles Lindberg" (some of Stewart's most famous roles) was a "believer"?
It would be interesting to do deep research on the credibility of Dr Ketchum and read what his piers have to say about his conclusions. I don't have the time or inclination for that...but I'd venture a guess that if Ketchum had proof positive of Bigfoot it would be big news, just shy of Jesus returning from the dead.



Trouble with a capitial 'T'
My local shoe store not only has evidence of a big foot, but creatures with two big feet. Checkmate, skeptics.
In that case I'm living proof of Bigfoot, I wear size 12 shoes.



It would be interesting to do deep research on the credibility of Dr Ketchum and read what his piers have to say about his conclusions. I don't have the time or inclination for that...but I'd venture a guess that if Ketchum had proof positive of Bigfoot it would be big news, just shy of Jesus returning from the dead.
True. (I recall it was big news several years back in the Bigfoot-enthusiast world, but perhaps the criticisms put a damper on the "discovery"?)

It's "her" btw... "Dr. Melba Ketchum".

I didn't read the whole article that I linked, but I believe it's in defense of her work, but in order to defend it I think they had to address the criticisms of it. (But I also don't feel like going back to read the whole thing right now.)

If Bigfoots exist, I wonder if they are as lazy as I am?



I am surprised they haven't done a horror franchise based on this.
No franchise that I know of, but there've been several horror movies (and comedies also).

Check out Primal Rage (2018) - a truly disgusting Bigfoot horror movie with some of the most grotesque "body-horror" scenes of violence in all of Bigfoot lore.

For some much lighter fare, check out The Sasquatch Gang (2006) - from the guys who brought you Napoleon Dynamite!



The Cave (2005) and The Descent (2005) feature cave-dwelling threats. Perhaps it's hard for us to believe that there are monsters running around modern forests, but a sealed-off cave somewhere... ...who knows? Where are the monsters? These two films quite literally drove them beneath the surface of the Earth. Is part of the reason for this the fact that no longer find it plausible that they're sharing the surface with us (e.g., we laugh at the idea of Bigfoot)? Did our sub-conscious fears go subterranean so that we might squint at the premise and believe? Might this explain the popularity of "deep below the sea" movies (maybe the demons are in the deep blue, because they're not on the surface)? Might this explain the reach to find monsters on the moon or Mars or in low Earth orbit (e.g., Apollo 18, Life)? How far will we push our dear playmates away from us as our rational minds bully them deeper into the recesses of the shadows?



The Cave (2005) and The Descent (2005) feature cave-dwelling threats. Perhaps it's hard for us to believe that there are monsters running around modern forests, but a sealed-off cave somewhere... ...who knows? Where are the monsters? These two films quite literally drove them beneath the surface of the Earth. Is part of the reason for this the fact that no longer find it plausible that they're sharing the surface with us (e.g., we laugh at the idea of Bigfoot)? Did our sub-conscious fears go subterranean so that we might squint at the premise and believe? Might this explain the popularity of "deep below the sea" movies (maybe the demons are in the deep blue, because they're not on the surface)? Might this explain the reach to find monsters on the moon or Mars or in low Earth orbit (e.g., Apollo 18, Life)? How far will we push our dear playmates away from us as our rational minds bully them deeper into the recesses of the shadows?
I have no problem accepting that there is a myriad of undiscovered life forms below the sea. If I may border on a pun... we've barely skimmed the surface of the most vast, unexplored area on Earth. Scientists say we know more about what's in our solar system then we do about what's 100 ft. below our waves.



Things I hate about YouTube Bigfoot compilation videos:

1. Filling them up with artwork, CGI, Photoshop alterations, movie clips, or obvious people in costumes in between "authentic" clips. These compilations are usually supposed to be of authentic videos that were shot spontaneously or which captured something accidentally, but it gets annoying to have any spaces between them filled with the things I listed. This makes it difficult to differentiate if what we're seeing is supposed to be something that was authentically "caught" on camera, or something produced "for" the camera.

2. The Dark Blob. Including dark shapes between trees as a "Bigfoot sighting" when all that can be seen is a shadow is pretty lame. The woods are filled with shadows and a myriad of illusions created by the play of light. By including anything that could be a tree stump in the distance, a big rock or just naturally occurring dark areas between trees (when there are hundreds of these in any given camera shot) just seems to detract from videos where a moving, individual figure can be observed.

3. Using footage already debunked. The worst is the inclusion of "Oliver the Chimp" and presenting a video of him as film taken by a trail camera - when most of us know it wasn't. (Yet, these clips keep showing up in various compilation videos.)
https://www.tiktok.com/@the_twilight...24644928408878
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_(chimpanzee)
This category would also include movie clips, scenes from Beef Jerky commercials, or obvious costumes, but in this case, presenting them as authentically occurring photos or videos taken in the wild.