Forums
-
Bigfoot Discussion
-
- 203.5k
- posts
-
- Best Circumstantial Evidence
- By MIB,
-
- 20.6k
- posts
-
- Black Recon
- By norseman,
-
- 17.9k
- posts
-
- 129.1k
- posts
-
- By VAfooter,
-
- 20.6k
- posts
-
- By Trogluddite,
-
- 384
- posts
-
- By bipedalist,
-
- 327
- posts
-
- Idaho 1902 - Idaho's Wild Man
- By Trogluddite,
-
- 10.4k
- posts
-
- 1k
- posts
-
- 17
- posts
-
-
Welcome to The Bigfoot Forums
-
- 3.2k
- posts
-
- New Member Introductions
- By Margie Kay,
-
- 3
- posts
-
- Community Rules and Guidelines
- By gigantor,
-
- 11
- posts
-
- Welcome Our New Director!
- By joebeelart,
-
-
BFF Library
-
- 56
- posts
-
- 29
- posts
-
- Not a Yeti? John Napier, Lawrence Swan, And The Footprint That Made Shipton Famous
- By Patterson-Gimlin,
-
- 70
- posts
-
- 25
- posts
-
- By Catmandoo,
-
- 761
- posts
-
- Texas 1969/07/11 - The Lake Worth Monster (aka The Goatman)
- By Trogluddite,
-
- 69
- posts
-
- 2008 - Newspaper Article - Morris and Heironimus Get on TV
- By Trogluddite,
-
-
The Tar Pit
-
- 86.8k
- posts
-
- By VAfooter,
-
- 25.4k
- posts
-
- By Trogluddite,
-
- 903
- posts
-
- By VAfooter,
-
-
Who was online
- Nellie
- VAfooter
- Snoho
- Trogluddite
- bf2023HBMay
- JKH
- OldMort
- MIB
- Northern Lights
- Texafornian
- Backdoc
- BC witness
- Incorrigible1
- BlackRockBigfoot
- Huntster
-
Latest Posts
-
By MIB · Posted
I think so depending on how consistent the results are when retested independently. If the sample has degraded in the environment or if the results on retesting are inconsistent, then no. Mutation .. not an issue. If the difference is big enough we're talking about a different species, if not, we're talking about some kind of human. -
By Backdoc · Posted
The most reasonable skeptic argument out there is the life support needed for Bigfoot to exist. That is, there must be enough food or Bigfoot would starve. If I assume the PNW is bigfoot country, what are the options for food in the PNW? To my thinking Bigfoot eats what's available. I doubt its only plants. I am betting this includes meat or fish. It is 100% guess on my part. I just have a hard time thinking Bigfoot could survive on eating enough plants only. Sure, he might eat grubs, bugs, mushrooms or whatever. I just wonder how many plants Bigfoot could eat and still meet his calorie needs. Other than shyness I still wonder why Bigfoot isn't found around trash heads eating our discarded food: At minimum I don't understand why we don't see Bigfoot eating salmon at the streams the same way we see Bears doing it all the time: -
By Huntster · Posted
That was one of the first challenges that arose upon the discovery of homo floresiensis fossils in Liang Bua cave, so yes, it will. -
By xspider1 · Posted
^ Will DNA from a single specimen really suffice? Admittedly, I know almost nothing about DNA, or RNA, I just wonder if a single specimen could be disregarded as a mutation?? 'Circumstantial Evidence' is a good Topic! As usual of late, I am often at a loss without asking AI, so I did. ChatGPT considers: 'sightings, footprints, nests, vocalizations, blurry films and photographs' all to be circumstantial. I disagreed with that at first but; after reviewing the definition of 'Circumstantial' (which is: pointing indirectly toward, but not conclusively proving), strictly speaking, I guess I can't argue with the AI 'opinion'. Of those mentioned, it has always been the sighting reports that have convinced me. Whether reading those posts here, other places online, or watching video interviews, etc., many of the people speaking are extremely convincing, in my opinion. And with the similarities they describe about Bigfoot and even the subtle to extreme differences, I see no way in the world for all of the reports, if even a majority, to be false. 8^) -
By MIB · Posted
I agree with you .. but that's not relevant so far as moving the bar. What's in your mind, what's in my mind .. also not relevant to moving the bar. The only evidence that matters, so far as moving us closer to scientific acceptance, is evidence that skeptics and outright scoftics can't find an alternate explanation for. A body or a large enough piece to test and retest DNA from so many times that contamination or degradation is simply not a feasible explanation. There may be lesser evidence that draws scientists in .. then THEY will have to find the body instead of US, but ultimately it is going to come down to a body or major piece of a body. I wish I were wrong.
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
norseman
11 -
2
VAfooter
9 -
3
Backdoc
8 -
4
Patterson-Gimlin
6 -
5
Trogluddite
5
-
-
Member Statistics
-
Forum Statistics
-
Total Topics90.3k
-
Total Posts994.3k
-
