There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
--- Peter Broekhuijsen ---

  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Cryptozoology, Ghosts, Aliens and other mysteries

chaos Offline
wildlife enthusiast
***
#61
( This post was last modified: 11-05-2014, 04:58 AM by chaos )

(11-05-2014, 03:46 AM)'Pckts' Wrote:
(11-04-2014, 04:16 AM)'chaos' Wrote:
(11-04-2014, 03:54 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.

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?



 
Check this out.
http://youtu.be/1WV-covak94

 


 

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.

 

 

Disservice? Read 2nd part of post # 45. For future reference, that will apply to all my posts on the Bigfoot issue going forward.
Comprende Amigo?

 
1 user Likes chaos's post
Reply

chaos Offline
wildlife enthusiast
***
#62
( This post was last modified: 11-05-2014, 07:34 PM by chaos )

The info and links I provide only reflect the possibility Bigfoot exists. Nothing definitive.
To those who are open minded, its intriguing.
Reply

United States Pckts Offline
Bigcat Enthusiast
******
#63

You said that DNA evidence has been found that they were unable to id.
Ok, so present the place where these findings allegedly exist.

Because the link presented offers nothing on that subject, "Comprende"?
Reply

chaos Offline
wildlife enthusiast
***
#64
( This post was last modified: 11-06-2014, 06:35 AM by chaos )

(11-06-2014, 05:20 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: You said that DNA evidence has been found that they were unable to id.
Ok, so present the place where these findings allegedly exist.

Because the link presented offers nothing on that subject, "Comprende"?

 
Due to the fact you attempt to discredit anything and everything I post, I'm not surprised.

Perhaps you should watch it again. It usually takes several tries before you can comprehend.

There are several claims of Bigfoot DNA being found. Here's another.

http://youtu.be/dkNyY0mYIWw and another http://youtu.be/82ynC31VXLo.

You can critique all you like, my day will still be sunny; comprende amigo?
Reply

United States Pckts Offline
Bigcat Enthusiast
******
#65

Youtube is not a source.
[img]images/smilies/sleepy.gif[/img]


If DNA is found, it will be in a medical article with Dr.s names attached to it so it can be peer reviewed.

Comprende?
Reply

chaos Offline
wildlife enthusiast
***
#66

(11-08-2014, 12:04 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: Youtube is not a source.
[img]images/smilies/sleepy.gif[/img]


If DNA is found, it will be in a medical article with Dr.s names attached to it so it can be peer reviewed.

Comprende?

 

Youtube isn't a source, but it is a vehicle for sources. You fail to comprehend - what a shocker heh? - the dna data makes no official
claim(s) as to belonging to a bigfoot(s). It simply has no match in any known databases.
Reply

United States Pckts Offline
Bigcat Enthusiast
******
#67
( This post was last modified: 11-13-2014, 02:51 AM by Pckts )

(11-12-2014, 10:14 PM)'chaos' Wrote:
(11-08-2014, 12:04 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: Youtube is not a source.
[img]images/smilies/sleepy.gif[/img]


If DNA is found, it will be in a medical article with Dr.s names attached to it so it can be peer reviewed.

Comprende?


 

Youtube isn't a source, but it is a vehicle for sources. You fail to comprehend - what a shocker heh? - the dna data makes no official
claim(s) as to belonging to a bigfoot(s). It simply has no match in any known databases.

 


" Hair samples have been tested and revealed DNA that matches no known species.
This DNA is very humanlike. You can't hoax DNA."

So, your claim that DNA and hair samples have been found that matched no known Database was based off a youtube video???

Ya, I got it.


If only the scientific community could follow your lead and post total lies without evidence, they are totally missing out.

 
Reply

chaos Offline
wildlife enthusiast
***
#68
( This post was last modified: 11-13-2014, 06:49 PM by chaos )

(11-13-2014, 02:37 AM)'Pckts' Wrote:
(11-12-2014, 10:14 PM)'chaos' Wrote:
(11-08-2014, 12:04 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: Youtube is not a source.
[img]images/smilies/sleepy.gif[/img]


If DNA is found, it will be in a medical article with Dr.s names attached to it so it can be peer reviewed.

Comprende?



 

Youtube isn't a source, but it is a vehicle for sources. You fail to comprehend - what a shocker heh? - the dna data makes no official
claim(s) as to belonging to a bigfoot(s). It simply has no match in any known databases.


 


" Hair samples have been tested and revealed DNA that matches no known species.
This DNA is very humanlike. You can't hoax DNA."

So, your claim that DNA and hair samples have been found that matched no known Database was based off a youtube video???

Ya, I got it.


If only the scientific community could follow your lead and post total lies without evidence, they are totally missing out.

 

 

Uhhh....... the scientific community avoids topics like this along with ufo's and ghosts. You should avoid using such
judgemental retorts. If you've understood my previous posts leading up til now................oh well. Do you know
what the youtube channel fully encompasses? The whole spectrum.  
 
Reply

peter Offline
Co-owner of Wildfact
*****
Moderators
#69
( This post was last modified: 11-13-2014, 11:56 AM by peter )

Alan Rabinowitz wrote an informative and interesting book on jaguars in Belize when he started as a biologist a long time ago. He now is an undisputed and very experienced authority on big cats in general and tigers in particular.

Rabinowitz knows the forest. In Belize, he not only saw animals. He wrote about the things he saw and couldn't explain. I also read books about Sumatra and New-Guinea written by hunters, government officials, travellers and scientists. Well-trained and experienced men in most cases. The conclusion is there are unexplained phenomena and they are worth debating.

The intention of a debate is to get to a result. It starts with facts, logic and arguments. If respect is missing, every debate will fail. Good luck, gentlemen.
Reply

Guatemala GuateGojira Offline
Expert & Researcher
*****
#70
( This post was last modified: 11-13-2014, 11:55 AM by GuateGojira )

Besides, don't forget Dr George Schaller. He have expressed his belief that we need to make some serious investigations in order to see IF the Sasquatch is a real animal or not.

Although most of the scientists do avoid this type of debates, a few of them dare to give they opinion. I think this is the point of this topic too.

If some one is going to say that "x" thing is real, prove it, but also if someone is going to say that "y" thing is fake, well, prove it too.
 
Reply

chaos Offline
wildlife enthusiast
***
#71

The bigfoot phenomena is worldwide. This lends more creedence to the possibility they exist.
Also, the fact many notable people are counted in the ranks of believers or have claimed to
see one, certainly don't hurt either. You could make a compelling circumstantial case for its
existence, but there's always the flipside. And that's a biggie!
Reply

United States tigerluver Offline
Prehistoric Feline Expert
*****
Moderators
#72
( This post was last modified: 11-14-2014, 01:03 AM by tigerluver )

For Bigfoot and the kind, I really lean toward it being a story of the past reality of Gigantopithecus that humans did encounter and the story of such existence was passed down from generation to generation. The yeti and orang pendek overlap with Gigantopithecus' range in prehistoric times. There's no record of Gigantopithecus getting to the Beringian land bridge, so the Bigfoot explanation is more complex. Maybe the people who crossed the land bridge had experience with Gigantopithecus and took the story with them to the new world.

In modern times, I find it hard to believe such a large ape could go undetected in North America. In my experience, often people come up with supernatural theories as to why Bigfoot is so elusive and also as to why everything other thing in the forest is a Bigfoot, from fireflies to coyote howls, scientifically, I cannot accept that. The Yeti is more intriguing, the habitat is matched with Gigantopithecus and supposed sighting come from very remote areas, between peoples are not very technologically advance so that everyone has a camera or iPhone on hand to snap an image.
1 user Likes tigerluver's post
Reply

chaos Offline
wildlife enthusiast
***
#73

All input and opinions on this topic are openly welcomed. Thanks to all for your participation. 
Reply

chaos Offline
wildlife enthusiast
***
#74

Some interesting UFO footage. I make no claims to authenticity.
http://youtu.be/zLw_MbPzi1w
Reply

peter Offline
Co-owner of Wildfact
*****
Moderators
#75
( This post was last modified: 11-22-2014, 09:28 AM by peter )

This is recent and interesting.

A team of scientists out for bigfoot discovered a distant relative of the polar bear once roamed the Himalayas. The hair they found was a perfect match with a hair taken from a polar bear. Not the polar bear of today, but a relative who lived about 40.000 years ago.

According to the hunter who shot the animal in the Himalayas, a man 'in the know' regarding bears, the bear showed very different behaviour. He kept the skin for himself for a long time, but a scientist got hold of it in the end.

A book on bigfoot and his relatives written by a scientist will be published soon. He admitted he wouldn't have written it without the reputation he now has. He also said that absence of evidence isn't similar to evidence of absence. We're not done, that is:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/ju...scientists

I was amazed to read that one of the hairs the team found belonged to a Sumatran tapir (...).
1 user Likes peter's post
Reply






Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

About Us
Go Social     Subscribe  

Welcome to WILDFACT forum, a website that focuses on sharing the joy that wildlife has on offer. We welcome all wildlife lovers to join us in sharing that joy. As a member you can share your research, knowledge and experience on animals with the community.
wildfact.com is intended to serve as an online resource for wildlife lovers of all skill levels from beginners to professionals and from all fields that belong to wildlife anyhow. Our focus area is wild animals from all over world. Content generated here will help showcase the work of wildlife experts and lovers to the world. We believe by the help of your informative article and content we will succeed to educate the world, how these beautiful animals are important to survival of all man kind.
Many thanks for visiting wildfact.com. We hope you will keep visiting wildfact regularly and will refer other members who have passion for wildlife.

Forum software by © MyBB