Sunday, November 17, 2013

Bigfoot: The New Evidence - Opinions

News DNA findings
Bigfoot: The New Evidence
Well, I just watched National Geographic's Bigfoot: The New Evidence and thought I'd share some of my thoughts about the program. First let me say I found the Derek Randles and the Igor Burtsev parts of the program very entertaining, the Justin Smeja part was pretty good as well but I'm not sold on his story. 
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.

Thanks
~Tom~


This post sponsored in part by
(Interested in sponsoring a story? then send us an Email!


70+ videos & 650+ pictures  on our facebook site check it out by clicking the link below.
facebook.com/TheCryptoCrew

Have you had a close encounter or witnessed something unusual?
Send us an Email

We Accept Guest Posts - Send Them To Us!
(All Submissions Subject to Approval)
Send us an Email

Help us!
Help Support The Crypto Crew
Now you can get our blog on your Kindle!




6 comments:

  1. I'm surprised to see you falling into the same misinterpretations as other people. The producers of the show had an agenda, and as has been reported by Rhettman Mullis, the producers didn't even treat Dr. Sykes well. But in the end, finding Sas hair is like finding a needle in a haystack. He can only test what he is given, and he didn't receive nearly the samples Ketchum did. In fact, she might have scarfed up all of the good samples - and what a waste. Sykes didn't prove Sas exists simply because he didn't test any actual Sas samples. No conspiracy. We just have to keep trying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can agree that it seems Ketchum wasted some potentially good samples. Sykes himself seemed ok but there was a condescending tone with Mark Evans. In the end no DNA findings will be good enough without a body.
      Thanks for the comment.

      Delete
  2. Tom, if you thought what you said going into watching this video, it is no wonder you were sorely disappointed. Think back for a bit about the same things that Melba kept saying (which are 100% true) - Sykes can't reveal any of the results of the samples used in the actual DNA study that were submitted for peer review until the paper is published. With that in mind, and the fact that he said on numerous occasions that he received well over 100 samples, consider the few samples that results were disclosed for. He also passed along what "might" be a couple of hints. In an interview regarding the Yeti DNA, he said 2 of the samples came back as the ancient bear, but others did not (see Cryptomundo article), and it was taken that they were not human or known animals (I can't vouch for that, of course). In the segment on Zana, he hinted at a possible primitive origin for her, including an earlier migration out of Africa, with her kind hiding out in the rugged mountains there (supports the Russian hominologists' theories), instead of a recent leftover from the slave trade. Why would he speculate on something like that? Maybe it's nothing, or maybe he knows more and can't say yet.

    Also, in August or September, he said in an interview that he got results that would completely change the way we think about human evolution. Did you see anything in that NatGeo documentary that changed your thinking even a little about human evolution? I sure didn't, which leads me to believe that he must have something pretty good in his paper. Maybe I'm wrong, but I do know he cannot reveal any results or info from his paper prior to publication (or lifting of the embargo).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep ..maybe there is a bigger picture on down the road - we can hope.
      Thanks for the comments

      Delete
    2. i do not think that every one is seeing a polar bear. maybe a yeti. where in north america? i have seen panthers where everyone thinks that they do not live there, but they do. i was hunting 30 years ago and saw a creature, i was deep in a swamp hunting for deer, i looked at it with a 9 power scope. i was in a tree stand. what i saw was no bear, it had a face like a man but lots of hair, even the ducks did not care that it was there. to this day i think about it alot, i could have shot it, but i never felt like i was in danger and i felt it had a right to be there, plus their may not be many of them left.

      Delete
  3. We recently viewed Dan Shirley and Derek Randles on the Bigfoot Files, a documentary program that seemed to be on the side of "scientific" discreditors of Bigfoot Reality and their UFO connection(s).

    As someone who has been under $urveillance by the $CIA$KGB$ $FBI$FSB$ $NSA$NKVD$ in the past 40 years, and who has had contacts with the greatly concealed and covered up contact people such as

    UFO Prophet Ted Owens

    and

    Zoologist Ivan Sanderson

    I can assure any reading this that the large creatures are real IF OTHER DIMENSIONAL PHENOMENA are taken into account, that is, the ability of Beings to traverse time-space into that of Earth time-space.

    We were involved in the 1972 Mo Mo visitation and yes, this involved UFO lights at night.

    Certainly a Human Military is actively interested in avoiding the subject of UFO and Bigfoot abilities to come and go at will from ANY area of their choosing.

    Our sympathy goes out to Dan Shirley, Garland Fields, Derek Randles and any others who Human Science will do their utmost to totally and thoroughly discredit.

    BIGFOOT AND UFO's are Real.

    Never Trust News...
    Never Trust News...
    Never Trust News...

    News are the Guilty Ones.

    http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/dan-shirley-speaks-out-on-dr-bryan.html
    http://bigfootresearch.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/dan-shirley-out-researching-sasquatch.html
    http://misssquatcher.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/new-thermal-footage-of-bigfoot.html
    http://bigfootevidence101.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/researcher-derek-randles-to-view-rick.html
    http://www.northamericanbigfoot.com/2010/01/ridge-walkers.html
    http://www.thecryptocrew.com/2013/11/bigfoot-new-evidence-opinions.html

    ReplyDelete

The Crypto Crew - Submit Sighting - TCC Team
Interactive Sightings Map
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...