• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

DNA evidence of Bigfoot?

Hilander

Free Spirit
Staff member
V.I.P.
Bigfoot has long been considered a combination of folklore, misidentification, and hoax, but on Tuesday a team of researchers screened what they claim is conclusive evidence that the creature, also known as Sasquatch, exists.

Have these scientists PROVED Big Foot is real? Team unveils results of FIVE YEARS of research.... and say they have his DNA | Mail Online
I think it would be great if they did have real DNA of a Bigfoot. As of yet no one has been able to come up with any conclusive proof of this creatures existence. Grainy out of focus clips or pictures that could be anything aren't going to do it for me. If they want to convince the masses this DNA evidence is real they should submit it for independent study.

With all the sightings, some dating back to 1721 you would think if it did exist there would be more evidence than a grainy picture. Why hasn't one been captured or killed by now. The only thing that keeps me thinking Bigfoot might be real is stories like this that was found in this mans journal although not real evidence but shows people have been seeing something for a long time.

Earliest recorded account

I've heard some pretty strange things in my area, animal sounds coming from the forest that would make the hair stand up on the back of your neck, but never saw anything. If I did I would probably have a heart attack from fright considering how big they are suppose to be. Others from here claim they have seen them and even had them throw branches at them. I have yet to have anyone to offer me any hard evidence.

Here's an article where someone claims to have pictures of it. As usual I'm not sure what that is in those pictures.

Does this image show TWO Bigfoot creatures? Woodsman photographed 'moving beast' in Pennsylvania¿ but there is no sign of it now | Mail Online
 

Millz

Better Call Saul
Staff member
V.I.P.
I dunno I am highly skeptical. Just like whenever you hear about those people who saw the Loch Ness Monster or shot and killed the Chupacabra.

I just don't buy any of it. If Bigfoot(s) were real (Bigfeets?), we woulda seen one by now, right?
 

dDave

Well-Known Member
V.I.P.
There are many unexplored areas of our planet, I think that if something as big as bigfoot ever existed that we would have more conclusive evidence at this point. We're still discovering new species daily in places like Madagascar and the oceans, I think we would nave noticed yeti's by now though.

Doesn't anybody find it strange that every single picture we have is an out of touch photo that is ambiguous at best? You'd actually have to try to take pictures and videos of such poor quality. Some people just really enjoy stirring the pot on things like this, that's why I'm skeptical.

One thing is for certain, IF sasquatch does exist then there have to be very few of them left.
 

Zenheizer

needs practice
I don't know I want to believe but.... Climate and diet for a huge primate doesn't seem plausible in the American Northwest. Likewise it seems damn near impossible for the Yeti of the Himalayans to exist. The amount of food they would need and energy to live. I don't know if it makes sense.

Although, animals on this planet are very elusive if they want to be and I mean we barely know anything about this alleged creature so applying scientific standards might not work.

In conclusion I have no idea but it would be world news if one trace of evidence was ever discovered and verified!
 

Major

4 legs good 2 legs bad
V.I.P.
Seems pretty ridiculous to me. If sasquatch was real, we would have more definitive proof. There would be corpses, hair samples, etc. There really aren't that many places left on Earth that haven't been explored except for maybe Antarctica. A creature that big would find it impossible to hide from us.
 

idisrsly

I'm serious
V.I.P.
If sasquatch was real, we would have more definitive proof. There would be corpses, hair samples, etc.
This was my first thought. A large animal like that would leave a large corpse that after decades you would think someone have discovered already. It just doesn't seem plausible that a large animal like that, that has been rumored to exist for centuries, haven't been caught yet as proof, or even caught on a remotely believable photo/video.

People discover all kinds of new creatures across the world, yet no one can prove the existence of the ever elusive, yet massive bigfoot?
 

Taliesin

Registered Member
Never say never, I suppose, but I have to say that I too am quite skeptical about Bigfoot existing. Surely somebody somewhere would have somehow come across this creature at SOME point. It beggars belief that this hasn't happened yet if it's supposed to be real.
 

Doc

Trust me, I'm The Doctor.
V.I.P.
This went as far as Fox News yesterday. A spokesperson for the company had a video that she claimed was one of thousands of sasquatches. She also claimed that they took DNA samples from the creatures and proved them to be human/ape hybrids by sending samples to three independent labs.

I don't believe it. I also find it silly that this made it on national news yesterday.
 

JesseCuster

Registered Member
Here's a beautifully simple explanation why none of this is believable: xkcd: Settled

If there are so many people walking around with a video recording device in their back pockets, why is the best that people can come up with are distant, blurry figures and things in near total shadow?
 

Smelnick

Creeping On You
V.I.P.
I would love it if bigfoot, and sasquatches were real. Maybe they're just canada's version of a primate, like the monkeys and chimps etc in other places in the world. I was always fascinated with them as a kid, and I read all the books my library had about them.
 
Top