The Government Just Shutdown a Bigfoot Researcher.

C'mon. We all know that bigfoot is an alien robot from the future.

originally posted by: AlexDJ
I can tell you the scientific community would have already find bones and death ones with todays technology, but because they are more related to ETs that why there isnt much of real evidence like Et evidence.

I think they bury their dead, so it would be quite difficult to locate a dead body, let alone a dead body underground miles and miles into the forest off trail. I did read a report of a park ranger coming across a group of squatches lowering another into a grave, and throwing some type of plant inside. If that's the case, I don't find it likely that a body would ever be found.

originally posted by: AlexDJ
Thats why there are many reports of Bigfoots and UFOs or strange lights at the same time in the same area because they are related.

I have read many reports of UFO type occurrences involving bigfoot, perhaps sasquatch was created by them, but it's all speculation.

Personally I think it only a matter of time before we get some really good HD footage, given that higher resolution cameras are available and only getting better and cheaper, but again, an individual would have to keep quiet about it, until they upload it across multiple boards or sites at once. That individual would also have to be willing to share it freely, and not want some monetary compensation, in which could be used to suppress it.

ATTENTION!!

The bickering, name calling and snarky posts end NOW.

Remain on topic.

Discuss the topic and not each other.

Remain civil in your discussions.

Any further off topic behavior will result in Post Bans.

Do not reply to this post.

a reply to: jaffo

Well Jaffo i am serious =) , Thats what Bigfoots are, what else I can say?

If Bigfoots were related to some earth animal (aka gorilla or simian or long lost missing link) the scientific community would have already found them at least in the USA, yes the woods can hide lots of animals to be discovered but, Bigfoots are 9 ft tall, this is not a small "animal" and living with more of their kind is not so easy to just hide. Today we have cell phones with hd cameras, infrared cameras, drones and satellital imagery that can make resolutions from just a few feets from the ground, if this was a "normal animal" like a gorilla or ape like i said before They Would have been discovered a few years ago in the USA.

Bigfoots evidence is like ET evidence, there some few videos that they could be real thing but people love to put hoax on everything or image tampering or photoshop or a guy un a custom or mis identification, anecdatory or story wise doesnt count and at the end who do you think it benefits from this?? LOL can i say GOV ..... heck they even read this forum from time to time and have great laughts when someone post some true stuff and people bash it to death and ridicule it, they do not need to move a finger, the same community would eat him alive.

But heck we live in a democracy and you can believe whatever you want so Bigfoot is a fiction of our imagination, nothing to see here

a reply to: Freezer

a report of a park ranger coming across a group of squatches lowering another into a grave, and throwing some type of plant inside. If that's the case, I don't find it likely that a body would ever be found.

IF that annecdote were true - then bigfoot " researchers " SHOULD be able to exhume a bigfoot corpse

thats the trouble with anecdotes - an utter inability to act upon them

originally posted by: FreezerI did read a report of a park ranger coming across a group of squatches lowering another into a grave, and throwing some type of plant inside. If that's the case, I don't find it likely that a body would ever be found.

Of course they would. We find buried bones all the time.

Not to mention a park ranger knows EXACTLY where a body is since he saw it being buried .. which makes it near 100% likely to find one.

One my of buddy's in college learned about bigfoot from a professor. Supposedly the prof. said that we have proof but they keep it quite. It'd shatter to many bunk theories we take seriously. But what caught my interest was that the prof. said the only reason we evolved better than them is because we have finger prints and can grip things much better. Or our hands don't have fur so we can grip things better....something like that. It made sense at the time and still does. If evolution is even true, anyway. Everyone forgets all these theories are just that....theories.

originally posted by: Flesh699
It'd shatter to many bunk theories we take seriously.

Which theories would it shatter?

Or our hands don't have fur so we can grip things better....

Name any animal that has fur on its palms....

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: FreezerI did read a report of a park ranger coming across a group of squatches lowering another into a grave, and throwing some type of plant inside. If that's the case, I don't find it likely that a body would ever be found.

Of course they would. We find buried bones all the time.

Not to mention a park ranger knows EXACTLY where a body is since he saw it being buried .. which makes it near 100% likely to find one.

I love how in the BF world the eye witnesses keep getting more and more "authoritative" on an effort to show me that I "have to" believe the eyewitness testimony, no matter how ridiculous it is or how easy it would be to disprove by simply going to the supposed site and digging where he claims the burial occurred. Sorry, it's just another completely unverified story that makes no sense and provides no proof.

originally posted by: Flesh699
One my of buddy's in college learned about bigfoot from a professor. Supposedly the prof. said that we have proof but they keep it quite. It'd shatter to many bunk theories we take seriously. But what caught my interest was that the prof. said the only reason we evolved better than them is because we have finger prints and can grip things much better. Or our hands don't have fur so we can grip things better....something like that. It made sense at the time and still does. If evolution is even true, anyway. Everyone forgets all these theories are just that....theories.

Except Bigfoot is not a theory, look up the scientific definition for theory. Here I will even help.

a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:

There is almost nothing tested, and everything that IS tested conclusively shows no evidence for Bigfoot. Nothing is explained, nothing is predicted, there is no theory, no evidence, no data, nothing.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

There's this thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

There's this thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...

We have actual evidence of creatures that died millions of years ago. Other humanoids that died out tens, to hundreds of thousands of years ago. Yet there is ZERO evidence, ZERO testable material that has ever been found to be from bigfoot.

We have all these ridiculous videos and no one can follow the tracks and find the slightest evidence, hair, anything. It's not even close to believable.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Why not gigantopithecus? There's evidence of that. And they're not ridiculous videos. Do you think the latest sighting I linked to is a ridiculous video? There's lots of great footage. But yes, you can't "prove" a video. As for hairs, scientists would never embrace a squatch hair.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

As for hairs, scientists would never embrace a squatch hair.

False. Hairs have been tested. Every time it turns out to be a known animal, not Bigfoot. Scientists embrace testable evidence, not videos that can be, and are, hoaxed on a regular basis.

As I said, we have testable evidence for creatures dead thousands and millions of years, literally zero evidence for Bigfoot even though there seems to be a new sighting every other day.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

False. Hairs have been tested. Every time it turns out to be a known animal, not Bigfoot.

That's not exactly true. Many times the hairs come back as unknown or has properties "like" a specific animal but not quite. Sure, many times they come back as something known but you only hear about the sensational stories. When we don't have a sasquatch to compare dna with, then it will always come back as unknown. In fact, your answer is too simple for the complexities involved when extracting DNA. Especially from an animal we have yet to have a record of.

As for scientists embracing squatch? Never. Even if you had a whole body, do you really think mainstream scientists would hold a press conference? I wouldn't hold my breath.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

False. Hairs have been tested. Every time it turns out to be a known animal, not Bigfoot.

That's not exactly true. Many times the hairs come back as unknown or has properties "like" a specific animal but not quite. Sure, many times they come back as something known but you only hear about the sensational stories. When we don't have a sasquatch to compare dna with, then it will always come back as unknown. In fact, your answer is too simple for the complexities involved when extracting DNA. Especially from an animal we have yet to have a record of.

As for scientists embracing squatch? Never. Even if you had a whole body, do you really think mainstream scientists would hold a press conference? I wouldn't hold my breath.

Sorry, have to disagree. There is not one single sample of viable DNA taken with KNOWN PROVENANCE which has not been easily and readily identified. The only samples that do not get identified are the ones that are so degraded or contaminated as to be useless. And samples of who knows what from who knows where are not at all suitable for science, plain and simple. Look, if even ONE sample came back as truly unknown and that sample's provenance were truly verified, every single hominid researcher in America would be combing the forests looking to be the one to catch a BF on film or in life. That's how you get ahead in science...you discover or prove something new, or you tear down something old with convincing and verifiable proof.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

False. Hairs have been tested. Every time it turns out to be a known animal, not Bigfoot.

That's not exactly true. Many times the hairs come back as unknown or has properties "like" a specific animal but not quite. Sure, many times they come back as something known but you only hear about the sensational stories. When we don't have a sasquatch to compare dna with, then it will always come back as unknown. In fact, your answer is too simple for the complexities involved when extracting DNA. Especially from an animal we have yet to have a record of.

As for scientists embracing squatch? Never. Even if you had a whole body, do you really think mainstream scientists would hold a press conference? I wouldn't hold my breath.

And yes, if you had a real and verified body, they would LOVE to see ti and would line up to do so. Just like they did with the coelocanth (sp?) and just like they would do for any other new living creature of substantial size. Believe it or not, scientists are preoccupied with discovery and research, not working on some secret cabal to keep the Wookies under wraps because...well, because people might freak out or it might tick off the Pope or whatever other nebulous reason someone wants to give. Science THRIVES on discovery.