|
Cryptozoology, Ghosts, Aliens and other mysteries
|
   (11-01-2014, 09:53 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote:(10-31-2014, 03:00 PM)'Siegfried' Wrote: Watch the whole playlist.Hauting video, but in fact, is a rip-off from any documentary of mammuts. Probably from "Walking with prehistoric beasts" or something like that. [img]images/smilies/dodgy.gif[/img] Here is a photo purported to show a dead bigfoot. I make no claims as to authenticity http://youtu.be/AMnWDCVnit4 (11-01-2014, 07:16 PM)'chaos' Wrote:(11-01-2014, 09:53 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote:(10-31-2014, 03:00 PM)'Siegfried' Wrote: Watch the whole playlist.Hauting video, but in fact, is a rip-off from any documentary of mammuts. Probably from "Walking with prehistoric beasts" or something like that. [img]images/smilies/dodgy.gif[/img] Here we have some notable skeptics weighing in on a motion camera photo of an alleged juvenile sasquatchhttp://youtu.be/27igmYfpH4g 
Every person in the world has a camera on them now, if a species like bigfoot exists, it would of been documented. Its to large and its life requirements would be the same as any other primate, it would of been viewed by now. We all no that for a species to live, its needs males and females and a decent size population. If a animal with that size and the same life requirements existed, we would know it.
(11-01-2014, 11:51 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: Every person in the world has a camera on them now, if a species like bigfoot exists, it would of been documented. Its to large and its life requirements would be the same as any other primate, it would of been viewed by now. We all no that for a species to live, its needs males and females and a decent size population. If a animal with that size and the same life requirements existed, we would know it. As stated earlier in this thread, I'm in agreement. The lack of any documented physical evidence - aside from footprints - makes it difficult to support the theory bigfoot exists. But, with so many sightings from diverse locales over several centuries, it makes for an interesting argument. (11-02-2014, 07:46 PM)'chaos' Wrote:(11-01-2014, 11:51 PM)'Pckts' Wrote: Every person in the world has a camera on them now, if a species like bigfoot exists, it would of been documented. Its to large and its life requirements would be the same as any other primate, it would of been viewed by now. We all no that for a species to live, its needs males and females and a decent size population. If a animal with that size and the same life requirements existed, we would know it. Not really, if it has never been documented by actual experts or photographed by now, its not really a question to me. There is a reason that the Lochness monster was never seen, a yeti, a whale eating squid, a fire breathing dragon etc. Humans have a tendency to exagerate when they see something astonishing and especially during a time when they may go through their entire lives without ever having seen such a creature. Imagine seeing a massive grizzly but never knowing that they existed before. You would describe it as a giant monster with huge teeth and a deafening roar. Imagine that image is told down through the generations, it would only get more exagerated. There was no internet, no books, no wild life biologists, just your word. Thats why they call them "fish tales", we love to make things bigger or crazier than what they really are.
There are many photo's and vids along with tens of thousands of sightings worldwide. Not all can be so easily dismissed.
That alone supports the argument. Hair samples have been tested and revealed DNA that matches no known species. This DNA is very humanlike. You can't hoax DNA. I'm not at all convinced Bigfoot exists, but I'm open to the possibility and entertain any type of evidence. 
I've a feeling that many cryptic creature were likely based off fossil species. People will talk yeti after seeing a Gigantopithecus skeleton, cyclops when seeing an elephant skull, a dragon from plenty of skulls. Just look at the skeleton of an orca that was alleged to be a sea monther, who'd expect that streamline, sharp frame, and long skull was that of a relatively stubby face and body.
I haven't heard of alleged yeti/bigfoot hairs actually turning up an unknown primate. I'd like to see those data, I've been interested in such cryptics. Remember the Pleistocene polar bear conclusion recently? (11-04-2014, 03:24 AM)'tigerluver' Wrote: I've a feeling that many cryptic creature were likely based off fossil species. People will talk yeti after seeing a Gigantopithecus skeleton, cyclops when seeing an elephant skull, a dragon from plenty of skulls. Just look at the skeleton of an orca that was alleged to be a sea monther, who'd expect that streamline, sharp frame, and long skull was that of a relatively stubby face and body.Check this out. http://youtu.be/1WV-covak94 (11-04-2014, 03:21 AM)'chaos' Wrote: There are many photo's and vids along with tens of thousands of sightings worldwide. Not all can be so easily dismissed. There is nothing that isn't blurry or the image is shaking or its purely speculation. Why is it so easy to get real quality images of actual animals that are in existence, proven with actual proof. I would like to see one DNA sample that you speak of? I have never ever seen a single sample collected nor a single unexplained dna sample. Proof is easy to provide when the animal actually exists and once viewed, its even easier to find since its preffered habitat is found. I can easily dissmiss the idea of bigfoot or any other mythological creature until I see a shred of real evidence and not some hoax nonsense. (11-04-2014, 03:46 AM)'chaos' Wrote:(11-04-2014, 03:24 AM)'tigerluver' Wrote: I've a feeling that many cryptic creature were likely based off fossil species. People will talk yeti after seeing a Gigantopithecus skeleton, cyclops when seeing an elephant skull, a dragon from plenty of skulls. Just look at the skeleton of an orca that was alleged to be a sea monther, who'd expect that streamline, sharp frame, and long skull was that of a relatively stubby face and body.Check this out. You're kidding me? No offense but this is a joke. None of this has any scientific value at all. Its purely random "experts" with no real qualifications like all the other "experts" who have been abducted or seen aliens etc. If DNA was actually found, it would be a world wide find. There would be huge news regarding the findings all over reliable news sources with articles from the scientists who discovered it. You do yourself a disservice with the conspiracy theory non sense. Its about actual evidence, not speculatory ramblings. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |