bigfoot disproved ?
 

On U.K. television at the moment, is a programme called "bigfoot files". basically this chap is flying around the world, looking for evidence of bigfoot , and the evidence, in the shape of various hair samples, so far , is not good news for believers in this hairy cryptid. He submitted the samples to a highly regarded professor, in the field of D.N.A. testing, the results showed the majority were from brown bears, others were from deer, another a racoon, and even a porcupine!. Considering the many first hand witness accounts, it,s amazing just how so many people could mistake brown bears for bigfoot.

people can go around trying to disprove or prove anything these days just to be on tv. no one will ever know, likely, if there is one hundred percent big foot evidence. even if they are presented with real big foot evidence they will question it. same with UFOs and such. It is not out of the realm of possibility that bigfoot is real. science is constantly discovering new species of animals and other living things. Why not big foot?

And yet a vast majority of species are uncatalogued. A fair number of species are rarely seen (by scientists).

Gathering up a handful of samples and declaring there are none of something does not 'prove' anything. After all, by that sampling, there are no humans either.

That's true I guess. Look at this guy that was just recently discovered!


parade. com/64597/jonathanhorowitz/the-daily-cute-new-species-bear-cat-discovered

Sorry for the broken up link it won't let me post links yet.

I just recently started following the " bigfoot " news, again, as this past October, a group that collected and studied samples for about a five year period, ( samples collected in USA ) come to the conclusion " bigfoot " comes from a hybrid of human female and something unknown primate, 13,000 to 15,000 years ago.

You can do a google search " bigfoot evidence dna " and come up with all sorts of sites.

Does it mean it proves bigfoot exists? Depending on whether the collection of the evidence was not contaminated, and such, still is not hardcore prove.

There sure are a lot of sightings of bigfoot, all over USA and Canada.

IF these creatures actually exist, they are very elusive. I'm not a hunter, but, many use those outdoor cameras that you can attach to trees in the woods. Maybe someone will capture a decent photo with one of these one day.

I kinda doubt someone will capture a live one. May be possible someone might accidently shoot and kill one, but, if you did that, would you turn it in? If it looks part human, you might get in trouble with the law.

Yeah I watched a few of the episodes, shame it was disproved. Never really looked into bigfoot anyway so was cool to watch something about it. I think those guys trying to prove bigfoot exists need to give up and spend their time on something more useful

Sometimes people just see what they want to see.

I highly recommend the book the Psychic Sasquatch by Jack Lapseritis. He makes more sense than anything I've heard or read before.

I don't believe in proving something does not exist. You can disprove what someone says by analyzing their theory/story and pieces of evidence, but to disprove the existence of something, you'd have to discover and catalog everything that actually does exist. Anything left out would then be disproved. Yet, we only know a very small percentage of everything that exists on Earth...

Sometimes I feel big foot could simply be a spiritual being from another dimension that is rare and appears once in a while. I personally do not believe that we will ever find a physical manifestation of him/her. Big foot, if exists, could be s nature spirit.