Evidence

[DAXXY]

Interesting how the human mind works. In situations where we have a need for plain explanations to big events but they aren't available we then fill any gaps with imaginative ideas.  It must be this...or it must be that. 

In the UK there are mysterious sightings of a big black panther type of cat in rural areas every year.   Funny how it's just before the tourist season.  Same with the Loch Ness Monster.  Why else would anyone want to go out of their way to a rural Scottish loch.  Empty places need to generate footfall and excite the media producers to make their 'documentaries'.  There is nothing better for this than some old legend of a 'creature' from folklore that is actually real and wanders about looking for groups of explorers with their cameras at the ready so they can perform as soon as the explorer shouts "OK and.....Action!"   

I'm struggling to connect the DPI with the Loch Ness monster, although i know a someone who might....


Give me a Yeti any day.

It's the same process.  There is a big event and people want an explanation.  Monsters and mythical creatures or Aliens coming to life to fill in the gaps in peoples knowledge.
There is nothing wrong with healthy imagination and folklore had a purpose, and if hunting a yeti gets people out in the forest having fun and fresh air then there's nothing wrong in that either.  But that's all it is.  Imagination and lack of factual knowledge. But that's just my own opinion...I respect anybody having a different opinion to mine who believe Yeti's are real.  I hope they are successful in finding one 

But you seem to be missing the point. Its not about  whether or not any of us believe this that or the other, its about EVIDENCE. If someone witnesses a crime being committed and reports it then that person will be giving EVIDENCE. A sighting is EVIDENCE.

A sighting is a report of their opinion as to what they think they saw.  It needs supporting fact based evidence.  People in all sorts of situations can believe they saw something.  Belief is just that, their own personal belief or opinion.   It's like a scientist doing an experiment.  One successful outcome isn't enough.  He must be able to do the experiment repeatedly to show that the theories in his research are correct.  First comes the hypothesis, then the theory..then if correct and repeatable it becomes an established law.  There is a desire in the human brain not to leave loose ends and it wants things explained so when odd sightings or fleeting glimpses of animals are seen in forests the brain tries to draw on many kinds of imaginative possible explanations.

[Ziljoe]

"and then there's the conditioning from your coercive belief in Santa and how crestfallen you were when you learned the truth."


What you trying to say Eurocentric? 

[DAXXY]

"and then there's the conditioning from your coercive belief in Santa and how crestfallen you were when you learned the truth."


What you trying to say Eurocentric? 

SANTA ?   The truth ?  You don't mean.... ...Nooooooo ! 

[Star man]

Absurd that the yeti or aliens were involved with DPI? I do think it is absurd. Human involvement on some level? Yes.

I think it may be possible that The Snowmanc could be behind the demise of the hikers, but if it was, it did not happen where the tent was found on Kholat Syakhl.  There are other options too.

Regards

Star man

Its possible that there are several things going on. The Dyatlov Group may have been scared of something on their journey up towards the Mountain and thats why they camped in the open on the exposed Mountainside. Then something else kicks in at The Tent.

I don't think that the hikers were camped where the tent was found on Kholat.  If you give credit to Solter's statement and consider the injuries, I would say that they were caught in some kind of explosion.  It's difficult to say exactly what type, but judging from the amount of smoke,  dirt and dust I think it was a fairly large explosion, with a pressure wave and wind blast and flame front.  They could have been on the outskirts of the explosion.  It may have been some kind of thermobaric device, that would deplete oxygen and have a toxic aftermath.

Regards

Star man

[DAXXY]

Boot rock could have been used for target practice.

[Star man]

Have found Jeff Meldrum - https://www.isu.edu/biology/people/faculty---professors/jeffrey-meldrum/
Sounds like he's a believer?

Yeah, Prof. Meldrum's foot print casts of Big Foot are very interesting.

Regards

Star man

[Star man]

Boot rock could have been used for target practice.

I don't think this area was a military test site., but it is fairly remote so its possible.  Judging by the burns to Yuri K's leg, and the hair of some of the hikers, its is possible the tent was damaged by the pressure wave, debris and the fire, but would depend on if they had set up camp before it happened.

Regards

Star man

[Nigel Evans]

A sighting is a report of their opinion as to what they think they saw.  It needs supporting fact based evidence.  People in all sorts of situations can believe they saw something.  Belief is just that, their own personal belief or opinion.   It's like a scientist doing an experiment.  One successful outcome isn't enough.  He must be able to do the experiment repeatedly to show that the theories in his research are correct.  First comes the hypothesis, then the theory..then if correct and repeatable it becomes an established law.  There is a desire in the human brain not to leave loose ends and it wants things explained so when odd sightings or fleeting glimpses of animals are seen in forests the brain tries to draw on many kinds of imaginative possible explanations.

You really need to watch that video!! It's about a group of scientists (including Prof Jeff Meldrum) who have examined all the evidence todate and they conclude :-

• The plaster casts of 300 footprints are genuine and of a creature unknown to science.
• The famous video - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson%E2%80%93Gimlin_film is of a female 7.5ft in height with a condition on her lower right thigh considered to be genuine and affecting her gait.
• The video of a bigfoot racing across a field fits an explanation of it carrying a child on it's back.
• There's a plaster cast of an imprint of a large primate lying on it's side taken in North America.

Other considerations are inconclusive but i struggle to see how anyone with an open mind could watch that movie and not agree that there is something here. The footprint evidence alone imo is conclusive. Hoaxers couldn't fool the scientists with so much data spread over 20 years and over thousands of miles..

[GKM]

Star man, did you get post one of the photographs that showed what you asserted was the outline of the tent in the bottom right corner?

[DAXXY]

A sighting is a report of their opinion as to what they think they saw.  It needs supporting fact based evidence.  People in all sorts of situations can believe they saw something.  Belief is just that, their own personal belief or opinion.   It's like a scientist doing an experiment.  One successful outcome isn't enough.  He must be able to do the experiment repeatedly to show that the theories in his research are correct.  First comes the hypothesis, then the theory..then if correct and repeatable it becomes an established law.  There is a desire in the human brain not to leave loose ends and it wants things explained so when odd sightings or fleeting glimpses of animals are seen in forests the brain tries to draw on many kinds of imaginative possible explanations.

You really need to watch that video!! It's about a group of scientists (including Prof Jeff Meldrum) who have examined all the evidence todate and they conclude :-

• The plaster casts of 300 footprints are genuine and of a creature unknown to science.
• The famous video - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson%E2%80%93Gimlin_film is of a female 7.5ft in height with a condition on her lower right thigh considered to be genuine and affecting her gait.
• The video of a bigfoot racing across a field fits an explanation of it carrying a child on it's back.
• There's a plaster cast of an imprint of a large primate lying on it's side taken in North America.

Other considerations are inconclusive but i struggle to see how anyone with an open mind could watch that movie and not agree that there is something here. The footprint evidence alone imo is conclusive. Hoaxers couldn't fool the scientists with so much data spread over 20 years and over thousands of miles..

Which video ?

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-so-many-people-still-believe-in-bigfoot-180970045/?page=5

[Star man]

Star man, did you get post one of the photographs that showed what you asserted was the outline of the tent in the bottom right corner?

Are you talking about frame 34?  I did but I dont think you can use it as evidence.  It's too damaged.

Regards

Star man

[Nigel Evans]

A sighting is a report of their opinion as to what they think they saw.  It needs supporting fact based evidence.  People in all sorts of situations can believe they saw something.  Belief is just that, their own personal belief or opinion.   It's like a scientist doing an experiment.  One successful outcome isn't enough.  He must be able to do the experiment repeatedly to show that the theories in his research are correct.  First comes the hypothesis, then the theory..then if correct and repeatable it becomes an established law.  There is a desire in the human brain not to leave loose ends and it wants things explained so when odd sightings or fleeting glimpses of animals are seen in forests the brain tries to draw on many kinds of imaginative possible explanations.

You really need to watch that video!! It's about a group of scientists (including Prof Jeff Meldrum) who have examined all the evidence todate and they conclude :-

• The plaster casts of 300 footprints are genuine and of a creature unknown to science.
• The famous video - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson%E2%80%93Gimlin_film is of a female 7.5ft in height with a condition on her lower right thigh considered to be genuine and affecting her gait.
• The video of a bigfoot racing across a field fits an explanation of it carrying a child on it's back.
• There's a plaster cast of an imprint of a large primate lying on it's side taken in North America.

Other considerations are inconclusive but i struggle to see how anyone with an open mind could watch that movie and not agree that there is something here. The footprint evidence alone imo is conclusive. Hoaxers couldn't fool the scientists with so much data spread over 20 years and over thousands of miles..

Which video ?

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-so-many-people-still-believe-in-bigfoot-180970045/?page=5

[DAXXY]

A sighting is a report of their opinion as to what they think they saw.  It needs supporting fact based evidence.  People in all sorts of situations can believe they saw something.  Belief is just that, their own personal belief or opinion.   It's like a scientist doing an experiment.  One successful outcome isn't enough.  He must be able to do the experiment repeatedly to show that the theories in his research are correct.  First comes the hypothesis, then the theory..then if correct and repeatable it becomes an established law.  There is a desire in the human brain not to leave loose ends and it wants things explained so when odd sightings or fleeting glimpses of animals are seen in forests the brain tries to draw on many kinds of imaginative possible explanations.

You really need to watch that video!! It's about a group of scientists (including Prof Jeff Meldrum) who have examined all the evidence todate and they conclude :-

• The plaster casts of 300 footprints are genuine and of a creature unknown to science.
• The famous video - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson%E2%80%93Gimlin_film is of a female 7.5ft in height with a condition on her lower right thigh considered to be genuine and affecting her gait.
• The video of a bigfoot racing across a field fits an explanation of it carrying a child on it's back.
• There's a plaster cast of an imprint of a large primate lying on it's side taken in North America.

Other considerations are inconclusive but i struggle to see how anyone with an open mind could watch that movie and not agree that there is something here. The footprint evidence alone imo is conclusive. Hoaxers couldn't fool the scientists with so much data spread over 20 years and over thousands of miles..

Which video ?

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-so-many-people-still-believe-in-bigfoot-180970045/?page=5

  Reminds me of a women's shampoo commercial. Lots of edited shots of slow motion hair and then the science bit 

it's just scientists and academics who've employed their 'methods' for funding and wages but said a load of non-committal type statements.  Loads of possibly's, could be's, Maybe's and things like 'unlike any animal we currently know' (It won't be like an animal you know because it was made by someone in their basement).  .  These people will never say that their creature is all fake because they get paid to keep checking if it is fake or not.  They will also never say anything that could damage their careers as working scientists.  These people have to go to seminars and conferences where they risk being ridiculed by their peers from other institutions.
I'd love to get paid to go on a 6 month Bigfoot hunt.  I'm absolutely 100% certain that I could find some circumstantial evidence to prove categorically once and for all that Bigfoot may possibly exist. 
Am I too cynical ? 

Bigfoot is sometimes confused with Sasquatch...
Yeti never complains..

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-so-many-people-still-believe-in-bigfoot-180970045/?page=5

[Nigel Evans]

A sighting is a report of their opinion as to what they think they saw.  It needs supporting fact based evidence.  People in all sorts of situations can believe they saw something.  Belief is just that, their own personal belief or opinion.   It's like a scientist doing an experiment.  One successful outcome isn't enough.  He must be able to do the experiment repeatedly to show that the theories in his research are correct.  First comes the hypothesis, then the theory..then if correct and repeatable it becomes an established law.  There is a desire in the human brain not to leave loose ends and it wants things explained so when odd sightings or fleeting glimpses of animals are seen in forests the brain tries to draw on many kinds of imaginative possible explanations.

You really need to watch that video!! It's about a group of scientists (including Prof Jeff Meldrum) who have examined all the evidence todate and they conclude :-

• The plaster casts of 300 footprints are genuine and of a creature unknown to science.
• The famous video - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson%E2%80%93Gimlin_film is of a female 7.5ft in height with a condition on her lower right thigh considered to be genuine and affecting her gait.
• The video of a bigfoot racing across a field fits an explanation of it carrying a child on it's back.
• There's a plaster cast of an imprint of a large primate lying on it's side taken in North America.

Other considerations are inconclusive but i struggle to see how anyone with an open mind could watch that movie and not agree that there is something here. The footprint evidence alone imo is conclusive. Hoaxers couldn't fool the scientists with so much data spread over 20 years and over thousands of miles..

Which video ?

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-so-many-people-still-believe-in-bigfoot-180970045/?page=5

  Reminds me of a women's shampoo commercial. Lots of edited shots of slow motion hair and then the science bit 

it's just scientists and academics who've employed their 'methods' for funding and wages but said a load of non-committal type statements.  Loads of possibly's, could be's, Maybe's and things like 'unlike any animal we currently know' (It won't be like an animal you know because it was made by someone in their basement).  .  These people will never say that their creature is all fake because they get paid to keep checking if it is fake or not.  They will also never say anything that could damage their careers as working scientists.  These people have to go to seminars and conferences where they risk being ridiculed by their peers from other institutions.
I'd love to get paid to go on a 6 month Bigfoot hunt.  I'm absolutely 100% certain that I could find some circumstantial evidence to prove categorically once and for all that Bigfoot may possibly exist. 
Am I too cynical ? 

Bigfoot is sometimes confused with Sasquatch...
Yeti never complains..

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-so-many-people-still-believe-in-bigfoot-180970045/?page=5

Well if i was in their shoes i'd demonstrate caution as well. It's an insane  proposition that there is compelling evidence for something that shouldn't exist. But it's not just scientists and academics btw, there's a fingerprint (and footprint?) expert as well. As he says his testimony puts people in jail so he has to get it right, and he's convinced that the footprints are genuine. Prof Jeff Meldrum makes an even stronger case for the footprints from a bio mechanical perspective, one is forced to accept that they are genuine or have been faked by experts such as himself and others across decades and thousands of miles. Then you have all the eye witnesses, an increasing amount of video footage and that the indigenous peoples of north america and north asia simply accept bigfoot as fact.


I'm currently reading the book that is paired with the film written by Meldrum and there's a lot more evidence in the book. In it he hits a lot harder, making a strong case imo. I've also just received The Hoopa Project and flicking through the eye witness drawings i'm struck at how human the faces are. Some eye witnesses state that they had an opportunity to shoot a bigfoot but felt that the animal was "too human". One of the interesting avenues wrt the dpi is the evidence that bigfoot uses infrasound to hunt with and has a scream that can make your chest and clothing vibrate at an estimated 100m. Ooerr.

[DAXXY]

I heard from a lion expert that the reason many African native people walk barefoot is because we have bones in our feet that will vibrate if a dangerous animal is nearby giving a low vibrating growl like lions or elephants do. If they wore shoes or sandals they wouldn't pick up the warning vibration in their feet.
All the circumstantial evidence is just exactly that, no matter how plentiful it is.  The main consistent thing is that these animals are never caught.  It's amazing that these prints are found of giant feet in the woods but these trails are never followed by a tracker or dogs ? how can all the tracks have disappeared ? Tracks like those would be visible in a forest to even a novice tracker.  Dogs could get on a trail like that the next day but they are never used.  I don't buy it.  All the movies are the same. Long distance shaky dark vague figure.  The people who had one in their sights get an attack of conscience at the last second but happily plug deer, bears, pumas, elk, coyote, bobcat, wolves, and any other critters that are in season.  Nope I do not buy it one bit, never have, but if it gets people out in the woods looking for them at least they are getting fresh air and exercise.

[Nigel Evans]

All the circumstantial evidence is just exactly that, no matter how plentiful it is.  The main consistent thing is that these animals are never caught.  Much more significant is that no corpses or skeletons have ever been found.


It's amazing that these prints are found of giant feet in the woods but these trails are never followed by a tracker or dogs ? how can all the tracks have disappeared ? Tracks like those would be visible in a forest to even a novice tracker.  Dogs could get on a trail like that the next day but they are never used.  I think that's unfair, only state agencies have the resources to quickly deploy dog teams and handlers etc and so far they don't do so. Jeff Meldrum makes the same point in reverse, believing the case is such that they should do so.


I don't buy it.  All the movies are the same. Long distance shaky dark vague figure.  The people who had one in their sights get an attack of conscience at the last second but happily plug deer, bears, pumas, elk, coyote, bobcat, wolves, and any other critters that are in season.  Nope I do not buy it one bit, never have, but if it gets people out in the woods looking for them at least they are getting fresh air and exercise.
I'd be cautious about shooting this guy, human men (and women) vary in the degree of hairyness (hirsute) and you wouldn't want to go down for murdering a hairy version of Arnold Schwarzenegger....
Also apparently it's illegal in one north western state to shoot a bigfoot.

[GKM]

 Odd how every conversation on this forum ends up with talk about the yeti and ufo's, unless, of course, Teddy is involved in it. 

[Nigel Evans]

Odd how every conversation on this forum ends up with talk about the yeti and ufo's, unless, of course, Teddy is involved in it. 

If Ivanov hadn't said fireorbs you would have a good point.
But he did, so you don't....

[GKM]

He mentioned yeti? whist

[GKM]

Well, I misspelled that completely. Nevermind.

[GKM]

TMTOYHN.

[DAXXY]

All the circumstantial evidence is just exactly that, no matter how plentiful it is.  The main consistent thing is that these animals are never caught.  Much more significant is that no corpses or skeletons have ever been found.


It's amazing that these prints are found of giant feet in the woods but these trails are never followed by a tracker or dogs ? how can all the tracks have disappeared ? Tracks like those would be visible in a forest to even a novice tracker.  Dogs could get on a trail like that the next day but they are never used.  I think that's unfair, only state agencies have the resources to quickly deploy dog teams and handlers etc and so far they don't do so. Jeff Meldrum makes the same point in reverse, believing the case is such that they should do so.


I don't buy it.  All the movies are the same. Long distance shaky dark vague figure.  The people who had one in their sights get an attack of conscience at the last second but happily plug deer, bears, pumas, elk, coyote, bobcat, wolves, and any other critters that are in season.  Nope I do not buy it one bit, never have, but if it gets people out in the woods looking for them at least they are getting fresh air and exercise.
I'd be cautious about shooting this guy, human men (and women) vary in the degree of hairyness (hirsute) and you wouldn't want to go down for murdering a hairy version of Arnold Schwarzenegger....
Also apparently it's illegal in one north western state to shoot a bigfoot.

Wait a minute !

[RidgeWatcher]

Washington State: It is illegal to kill a Bigfoot and the law is on the books, if it exists.

[DAXXY]

Washington State: It is illegal to kill a Bigfoot and the law is on the books, if it exists.

I think that law is not about protecting mythical creatures. More about stopping people from shooting someone dressed up in a gorilla suit if they happen to see one, but the guy in the gorilla suit hasn't seen them. 

[GKM]

In all seriousness, Nigel, will you be kind enough to give me the name of the book? I really would like to read it. It is important to keep an open mind. If I am wrong and the Yeti does exist I will owe many people an apology. And I do,very much, love to read. My apologies if I have offended you.   

[Nigel Evans]

In all seriousness, Nigel, will you be kind enough to give me the name of the book? I really would like to read it. It is important to keep an open mind. If I am wrong and the Yeti does exist I will owe many people an apology. And I do,very much, love to read. My apologies if I have offended you.   

Definitely not offended, quite the opposite i'm enjoying the banter amongst a pleasant group of people and i've no problem with people being skeptical. Plus i'm enjoying the journey here, my understanding of the bigfoot phenomena has made  a quantum leap with this book - "Sasquatch: Legend meets Science" same title as the video.

[RidgeWatcher]

Quote from: RidgeWatcher on Today at 12:10:16 PM
Washington State: It is illegal to kill a Bigfoot and the law is on the books, if it exists.

I think that law is not about protecting mythical creatures. More about stopping people from shooting someone dressed up in a gorilla suit if they happen to see one, but the guy in the gorilla suit hasn't seen them.

I believe I lived in Spokane, Washington for two years when this law took effect. Washington state is heavily Native American with many in the different Government agencies. There are not a lot of people that would run around in a bear suit, believe me, especially during hunting season. I believe it is more in the belief that these different creatures are spiritual in nature and not something you would want to harm.

[DAXXY]

Quote from: RidgeWatcher on Today at 12:10:16 PM
Washington State: It is illegal to kill a Bigfoot and the law is on the books, if it exists.

I think that law is not about protecting mythical creatures. More about stopping people from shooting someone dressed up in a gorilla suit if they happen to see one, but the guy in the gorilla suit hasn't seen them.

I believe I lived in Spokane, Washington for two years when this law took effect. Washington state is heavily Native American with many in the different Government agencies. There are not a lot of people that would run around in a bear suit, believe me, especially during hunting season. I believe it is more in the belief that these different creatures are spiritual in nature and not something you would want to harm.

Creatures that are spiritual in nature ?  It is illegal to shoot non-existent mythical creatures that are spiritual in nature in Washington State ? Have we slipped in to the twilight zone or something ?
If such a law really exists I would be more scared of the people that made it than of meeting any long haired 8ft ape in the forest on a moonlit night.

[RidgeWatcher]

DAXXY, You are being rude.

[Nigel Evans]

Quote from: RidgeWatcher on Today at 12:10:16 PM
Washington State: It is illegal to kill a Bigfoot and the law is on the books, if it exists.

I think that law is not about protecting mythical creatures. More about stopping people from shooting someone dressed up in a gorilla suit if they happen to see one, but the guy in the gorilla suit hasn't seen them.

I believe I lived in Spokane, Washington for two years when this law took effect. Washington state is heavily Native American with many in the different Government agencies. There are not a lot of people that would run around in a bear suit, believe me, especially during hunting season. I believe it is more in the belief that these different creatures are spiritual in nature and not something you would want to harm.

Creatures that are spiritual in nature ?  It is illegal to shoot non-existent mythical creatures that are spiritual in nature in Washington State ? Have we slipped in to the twilight zone or something ?
If such a law really exists I would be more scared of the people that made it than of meeting any long haired 8ft ape in the forest on a moonlit night.

Possibly not..... https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=246.0