Leaderboard

Cliff does say twice on Facebook: not canceled. Yet, they had a show upstaged by River Monsters this past Thursday night. Obviously they are pacing themselves and inserting shows for best ratings. If they could cut the commercial breaks to the gobsmacking, salivating CGBigfoot they could easily make the show better IMHO. Cosmetically better for sure, but better.

Well, it lasted a lot longer than I thought it would. If you are fair, you must admit that measuring popularity (thus length of production), it was the most successful BF show ever. My understanding is that most viewers were young people who've never heard about BF before. They planted the seed in many thousands of young people. Good Job! I congratulate all of the people responsible for making Finding Bigfoot happen!

Bye Felicia

Well I was wondering what happen, I always thought that it was a great show. Just that they did have witnesses and that they were able to recreate the scene. That really helps put some perspective to this creature. I really liked the last show when I think Reney was with that witness on the thermo and the witness really got excited, but she calmed her down. I thought that was cool. There are a lot of stuff like that on this show and very informative, so I hope that it is not for good.

That show was terrible, it was all about ratings and Matt Moneymaker wanting cameras pointing at him the whole time. How about we get more shows on TV where people actually investigate with science. Has anyone seen the couple of episodes MonsterQuest dedicated to bigfoot? I'd watch a whole series done like that!

Shut the front door! Alluding to young earth? Really? SMH What next, great flood? Cmon. Incorrigible, ou may want to polish up on your reading comprehension. Maybe get a dictionary too. Your jump from "A" to "L" is quite a leap, establishing your unfamiliarity with OOPARTS, or Out Of Place Artifacts. Real artifacts - out of place geologically. Not one or two, but many, many artifacts that are geologically impossible. At least according to geological dating. Nowhere in there did I say anything about a young earth. Nowhere. Only you. Again. Nowhere did I say anything about a flood, great or not. Nowhere. Only you. Again. You're real good at putting words in other peoples posts, and then deriding words YOU put in. Classy. Your ability to reach around and pull something out of seemingly nowhere can only be fully appreciated by a proctologist, but I find such fabrications to be purposed to just start an argument. You want it? Scientifically? In 1987, a world wide survey of human mitochondrial DNA was published by Cann, Stoneking, and Wilson in Nature magazine. It's main point was that "all mitochondrial DNA's stem from one woman." (you'll have to read up on how that works - it's not my job to educate you.) Essentially, our mitochondrial DNA comes only from our mother, and gets passed from generation to generation without recombination. This world-wide survey pointed that we all came from one "mitochondrial Eve." Not my term - others. And that this mitochondrial Eve existed about 200,000 years ago, but the evolutionary time frame was completely at odds with that timeline. Only 40 specimens of H. Erectus have been found, and they've been geologically dated 220,000 to 500,000 years. One science is off, apparently. Or, somehow, this mitochondrial Eve's descendents were the only humans to survive, as all other females were sterile. Or that a catastrophe occurred worldwide, and she was the last fertile female left. Or her offspring were so superior, they wiped out all other species without any interbreeding. Or, Eve must have lived in Africa 200,000 years ago, and her offspring 100,000 years ago left Africa to conquer all other forms of man, causing them to vanish without a trace in our genetic record. Rebecca Cann, one of the original authors of the study said paleoanthropologist could never be certain that any specific fossil left descendants, however, there was "100% certainty that genes in modern populations have a history that can be examined and will trace back in absolute time to real ancestors." The fight was on, and every opportunity was taken to discredit these determinations. Then in 1993, Maryellen Ruvolo from Harvard, presented new DNA sequencing rather than restriction analysis, to study a part of the cytochrome oxidase gene found in mitochondrial DNA. Ruvolo's work was based on studying a slowly evolving portion of the mitochondrial genome, and guess what? Got the same results as the original mitochondrial DNA study. Before one gets offended and takes exception that any suggestion that fossils may not be dated accurately - you really have to study the tests used to get these dates they use. The scientific principles they're based on is sound, scientific calculations. Problem is, they never, EVER verify one another, and the real world is not a pristine scientific lab. They can run the same tests, and dates are all over the map - and I mean not even close. So how to they pick a date? They pick the date within that wide, wide range that fits with their narrative. I spent nine months once, just studying in detail different test methods and the problems with them. It's a joke. A scientific joke on all of us. Potassium-Argon dating? One little characteristic of a gas. It migrates - upward. You'd think common sense would bring that to their attention, but it doesn't. So. DNA? Or piles of bones and guesses? I don't really care. I just wanted to point out that the science is not as precise as some would suggest.

We can't have any Neanderthal genes in us without successful reproduction. We are all hybrids with different immunities. There is no fork in the above statements.

Did you miss the part about only male offspring or Y chromosome being aborted in Homo Sapien mothers?The 1-4% Neanderthal DNA in humans is a result of female viable offspring being produced and absorbed back into humanity Without a male hybrid option that leaves female hybrids to either mate with Neanderthals or Humans. Either way this cross breeding was never going to give rise to a third hybrid species like its been suggested Sasquatch represents. And at 800 lbs and 8 feet tall I would argue that Sasquatch represents something much less related to Humans than Neanderthals are. And if they were a hybrid? The paternal mystery hominid? Would even be further removed from humans..... It didnt happen the way Ketchum says it did, I knew that but now its in black and white because the Neanderthal Y chromosome is extinct. "The researchers say it is possible that Neanderthal Y chromosomes were initially circulating in the modern human gene pool, but were then lost by chance over the millennia." "So far this is just a hypothesis, but the immune system of modern women are known to sometimes react to male offspring when there's genetic incompatibility." That's not exactly death to a hybrid hypothesis. Is it? Thing is, a few hundred years ago per the narratives of North, Central, and South America - there were gobs of giants - possibly giant humans - and we just don't see those any more, either. The Spanish Conquistadors, including their accompanying priests documented these giants in several engagements and meetings. One can find lots of Spanish reports as they were introduced to different portions of the New World running into giants after giants. Not just taller guys - giants. They were describing themselves as only coming up to the waists of some of those they met. Now, these giants are apparently gone. We have the red-headed giants that the Paiute's apparently wiped out the last of only 150 years ago - tracked and burned out in a large cave. "Others" who WERE here, but are apparently gone now. Who or exactly what they were - we'd probably have a lot better idea if the Smithsonian, etc., hadn't disposed of or hidden the multiple skeletons and skulls of large humanoids that were sent to them. And if the Smithsonian went to that extreme, there must have been some really shocking determinations made about some of these giants - human and/or otherwise. The report is a hypothesis, it's based on good data, but it also allows for other reasons to account for the lack of Y chromosomes in the current DNA tested, and they even state that this may occur often, but not always. And since this pertains specifically to Neanderthal and humans, one must assume the BF - or at least some of them - are Neanderthals. I have no problem with that as I have no idea, but it may be that there are other possible candidates - some not yet recognized in the fossil record. I could put every hominid and pithicine fossil in existence in the back seat of my truck. I think these anthropologists extrapolate way too many assumptions on too little physical evidence. And they seem uncommonly in a hurry to report findings that later they can't seem to follow up on, or they slowly back away from their early findings. Too many assumptions. But that's just me.