Fake or Not : Documentary Discovering Bigfoot

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: strongfp

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Groot

There is no forensic evidence of bigfoot anywhere.

Aren't footprints forensic evidence?

Typically yes, but typically they also contain dna evidence. Bigfoot footprints tend to be clay molds of something like this

So all we got is a bunch of hoaxers running through virtually all the contiguous states of the United States and throughout all the Canadian provinces with fake clay feet that wouldn't fool a third grader. Tracks are found in remote as h e l l areas, THOUSANDS OF THEM some on mountain ridges that go for 2-3 miles. Only takes one set to be true... the track evidence is what I find most compelling because they have been studied. Throw in eye witness accounts again are all of them mistaken,liars or hoaxers. To what end?

a reply to: Groot

I watched...
Until someone comes forward with verifiable to this time period dna tested bones or excrement I can not believe in the opinions of what these people think they saw.

a reply to: dreamingawake

Discovering Bigfoot is the first feature film documentary with real, live interaction between a Bigfoot creature, wilderness experts, PhDs, and other world-renowned experts and researchers of the Bigfoot enigma

That is false.
Watch the film . All you will see are grown men getting scared of some sounds in the woods that they can't identify and calling it bigfoot.

a reply to: putnam6

Tracks are found in remote as h e l l areas, THOUSANDS OF THEM

This film does not prove that statement. Do you have proof of this statement?

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: strongfp

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Groot

There is no forensic evidence of bigfoot anywhere.

Aren't footprints forensic evidence?

Typically yes, but typically they also contain dna evidence. Bigfoot footprints tend to be clay molds of something like this

Footprints typically contain DNA evidence?? Really?

Yes, mammals are constantly shedding dead skin cells and hairs, how do you think dogs are able to track? Every footstep should contain traceable amounts of dna.

a reply to: putnam6

Only takes one set to be true

Correct, and there are none so far, and people are looking.

Why can't these guys get some satellite time or invest in a fleet of drones to fly over the forests and take pics?

Is bigfoot intelligent enough to know to hide from satellites it can't see?
Does it know enough to hide from hidden cameras it can't see?

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: strongfp

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Groot

There is no forensic evidence of bigfoot anywhere.

Aren't footprints forensic evidence?

Typically yes, but typically they also contain dna evidence. Bigfoot footprints tend to be clay molds of something like this

Footprints typically contain DNA evidence?? Really?

Yes, mammals are constantly shedding dead skin cells and hairs, how do you think dogs are able to track? Every footstep should contain traceable amounts of dna.

With the lengths those guys go through in that film you would think they would find some feces or urine on a tree. Bones or the remains of half eaten meals with bigfoot saliva all over it. Pieces of hair and fur that can be tested. DNA remains in the places were we are told they sleep.
I guess bigfoot is to smart for a bear trap or other modern large animal traps that are Routinely set up in many of the places bigfoot lives.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

Bigfoot is magic, it sheds no skin, loses no hair, never defecates, and like a jedi, disappears upon death only to leave footprints.

a reply to: Vector99

Skip to 2:45

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: strongfp

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Groot

There is no forensic evidence of bigfoot anywhere.

Aren't footprints forensic evidence?

Typically yes, but typically they also contain dna evidence. Bigfoot footprints tend to be clay molds of something like this

Footprints typically contain DNA evidence?? Really?

Yes, mammals are constantly shedding dead skin cells and hairs, how do you think dogs are able to track? Every footstep should contain traceable amounts of dna.

Ah. For some reason I was thinking of shoes. I was only picturing shoe prints. Brain freeze.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: strongfp

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Groot

There is no forensic evidence of bigfoot anywhere.

Aren't footprints forensic evidence?

Typically yes, but typically they also contain dna evidence. Bigfoot footprints tend to be clay molds of something like this

Footprints typically contain DNA evidence?? Really?

Yes, mammals are constantly shedding dead skin cells and hairs, how do you think dogs are able to track? Every footstep should contain traceable amounts of dna.

With the lengths those guys go through in that film you would think they would find some feces or urine on a tree. .

Maybe Bigfoots (sounds better than making the plural "Bigfeet") are poop-eaters. You know how some dogs will get into that habit...maybe the Bigfoots do that.

I don't know how to explain away the urine though.

I've never seen one myself.
But a hell of a lot of people have.
Can they all be wrong?

Gunna need a body.

originally posted by: Groot

originally posted by: Kapusta
a reply to: Groot

Hoax.

And reason why?

it's not plastered all over the media, and nobody is talkibg about it. If bigfoot is ever truly discovered, then there will be no question, and you'll hear about it before the next day.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Can they all be wrong?

Wrong? Maybe. Or they could be mistaken and/or pulling many legs.

It's an animal, supposedly, like us. No physical evidence?

a reply to: Phage

Right there with ufos?

a reply to: Bluntone22

Pretty much. Except that with UFOs there may be less leg pulling and more mistaking what is being seeing.

Sasquatch, I think, leans toward the other direction.

a reply to: Phage

I've never seen either.

Honestly I think sasquach is more plausible than aliens.
Although i don't put much stock in either, it's hard to believe that so many people are mistaken about what they see. Especially when you look at the backgrounds of some witnesses.

Park rangers and hunters see bigfoot.
Veteran pilots see ufos.

Hard to just dismiss then all.

a reply to: Bluntone22

I've seen things in the sky that I didn't know what it was.

I wandered around and flew over forests in Oregon and saw deer, a few bear, and a cougar, and snakes.

Sasquatch could be. I doubt it, but the body of D.B. Cooper has never been found either.

a reply to: Phage

Maybe an alien bigfoot baby has a nice den papered with db' s Benjamin's.