|Bigfoot: The New Evidence|
As for the actual DNA study itself, I thought it would be more cut and dry. When the Sykes study was first announced I held hope that this study would be handled in a professional manner, and it appears that it was but the results are somewhat disappointing to me. I know for a fact that bigfoot is a 100 percent real creature and no one or any DNA results can ever change that. I know the research I've done, the evidence I have found and the encounters I've had and I know it is real.
The first thing that happens when you encounter something that is unexplained, you try to come up with a reasonable estimation of what the unexplained really was. In some ways I think that is what has happened with this DNA study. Yes, I know or at least thought, DNA results were pretty cut and dry but these results kind of left me scratching my head. Lets take Randles sample, it was found next to bigfoot tracks and up in a tree branch, this would seem like it would have a great chance of being a bigfoot sample but the results come back as not a bigfoot? Most of the samples submitted came back as bear, these are experienced researchers who have seen many bears but yet can't identify the hair of a bear? Sorry I find that hard to swallow. Now don't get me wrong I would have been skeptical if all the sample came back as bigfoot as well but I'm left with really only a couple feasible options in my mind about this DNA study. One being it's a sham and part of a cover up and/or disinformation or Two bigfoot DNA is very closely related to bear (Which I doubt) or humans (which is very possible).
I also noticed that not much time was spent with Dr. Meldrum and the track cast. That is some very good evidence and they blew if off like they were talking to Joe blow on the street. So how can I take this show as the be all end all? in a word or two, I can't.
In the end this study does not prove bigfoot is real but attempts to disprove possible bigfoot samples and the story of Zana. At times Mark Evans, who does the researcher interviews, comes off as a non believing, make fun of the subject interviewer, which I personally did not like. Then you have the bear print they cast and said it looks like a bigfoot track, oh my, epic fail.
Overall the show was entertaining but the results questionable, at least in my eyes. If you are looking for Sykes to confirm bigfoot as real, you will be disappointed, as he points most encounters and samples as being bears.
So what will it take to actually prove bigfoot is real? Well for some I think it will take an actual personal sighting/encounter, For others I think some real good quality video footage from a respected researcher would convince them. In the end, to prove it to the general public, it will take a real bigfoot body, I sure don't want to kill one, but that will be the only way and then a person would have to proceed very carefully. I'm working under the assumption that the government knows about bigfoot and probably covers it up to some extent. So if you had a real dead bigfoot make sure to make lots of copies of the video and take tons of photos, pass them to people you can trust.
I know I'm just rambling but I know the creature is real and find it frustrating that it doesn't seem to get a fair shake from most people. I get frustrated at all the hoaxing and fake stories about bigfoot, it makes the subject matter the butt of jokes and ridicule. Hoaxing just breeds more skeptics and strengthens the argument of current skeptics.
Oh well, in the end watching the show was entertaining and it did not sway me away from knowing bigfoot is real. It does probably give skeptics some fuel for the fight.
Please feel free to write your opinion about the show below in the comments - I would like to see what other thought about it.
(Interested in sponsoring a story? then send us an Email!)
Now you can get our blog on your Kindle!