Bigfoot: The New Evidence Comments

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on November 17th, 2013


Well, the long anticipated show finally aired in the US.

What did the Cryptomundians think after finally getting to see it.

Weigh in with your opinions here on Cryptomundo.

New DNA research collected by Professor Bryan Sykes, a leading British geneticist, reveals a unique genetic link the may answer the centuries-old mystery what is Bigfoot? The results are featured in a new two-hour special. Sykes sets off on a global quest to unlock the real story of Bigfoot. Sykes, professor of human genetics at the University of Oxford, collected and tested Yeti hair samples in the western Himalayas to find out what species they came from.

About Craig Woolheater
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005. I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films: OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.

17 Responses to “Bigfoot: The New Evidence Comments”

  1. William Dranginis via Facebook responds:

    Don’t do television anymore. Did the show present definitive proof of existance?

  2. Evso Rivers via Facebook responds:

    Sorta what Tom slick found without the use of DNA but are you gonna tell me Patty is a bear? Or that footprints found since the fifties and studied by the likes of Dr.Jeff Meldrum are that of a bear? This mystery and the mystery of the man sized primates of the Himalaya witnessed in the 3o ‘s by English generals are still left unsolved but as an enthusiest I’m happy for the show and the effort of all involved the answer may not be what we want to hear when we finally find out but if we truly are seeking the truth we must maintain an open mind on the findings

  3. dconstrukt responds:

    i thought it was a great show.

    we saw science PROVE most of the “witnesses” were full of crap.

    that dude didn’t shoot a bigfoot.

    he shot a bear.

    we saw he was full of crap, right on tv.

    his samples were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    the indian dude saw a dog or wolf… not a bigfoot.. according to his sample.

    The russian wild woman… was african, but not modern african… perhaps a group still lives wild in that region? who knows…. very interesting to find out.

    the yeti is nothing more than a hybrid bear…. that was mind blowing… because all these years we think abominable snowman.

    this was a show I was waiting for since I was a kid… reading about these things… seeing photos… and whatnot.

    very fascinating.

    bring your samples.

    let him prove what it is.

    lets see what we can find out there.

    this is exciting… the stories we hear are nice, but bring your proof, put it to the test… see if you’re legit or full of crap.

  4. Hapa responds:

    Well, this would be a great thing to respond to, if you had cable to watch it, or if you had access to the episode online (it is not on youtube, at least yet), or if it came out on DVD real soon and one could buy or rent it, but until then, I can only speculate that the show will reveal much of what was revealed on Bigfoot Files, along with a few other things (one picture I saw online shows Kwit’s skull being measured and examined by Dr. Sykes, suggesting that more maybe revealed about it soon).

    Perhaps someone on here could track the episode down (a re airing of the show?) and post it on youtube and here, so we can see for ourselves…?

  5. Lesley Cox responds:

    @ dconstrukt

    I’m sorry but I’m going to have to disagree with some of your comments. I haven’t seen this particular version of the series, but I have seen the Bigfoot Files and I’m basing my comments on that programme since I’m sure they’re essentially the same information. I’m also commenting on the American section of the show.

    First I don’t believe that anything was proven here, other than that the samples chosen were all from known animals. He didn’t prove that the witnesses were full of ‘crap’ – he just proved that the samples weren’t from a ‘Sasquatch’. Channel Five only purchased a small number of the samples that were sent in and, in my opinion, they were chosen for their entertainment value rather than their veracity. Perhaps someone can help me out here, but weren’t Justin Smeja’s samples already proven to be bear? That being the case, I find it difficult to understand why they were included in the samples chosen.

    I don’t mean to sound contentious here but I do disagree with your overall impression of the programme.

  6. DWA responds:

    Lesley Cox:

    As you say.

    Yeti, specifically, hasn’t been “proven” to be anything. Samples that were submitted as possible yeti (none of the submitters, mind, having taken the sample directly from the body of an upright bipedal primate or any other primate for that matter) were found not to be of primate origin.

    This does nothing to prove or disprove the proposition. What lies behind reports of yeti remains to be determined.

    All Sykes can do is test what comes to him. He can suggest areas for further inquiry (Himalayan polar bear, for example). He cannot prove, or disprove, the proposition that unknown primates exist.

    Science is far enough behind the curve on this not to bother granting scientists powers they don’t have.

  7. Lesley Cox responds:

    Absolutely DWA. I guess that what it really comes down to is that it’s not possible to prove a negative. Professor Sykes hasn’t, nor could he ever, claim to have proved that Sasquatch doesn’t exist. Although I’m very sure he’d never make that claim himself. That seems be be down to those who are arguing on the sceptical side.

  8. eyeofstrm responds:

    Gotta agree with Lesley Cox on this dconstrukt, all Sykes did was determine where the hair samples came from. However the show did prove that Justin Smudge Mark was full of shit. If you noticed, quite often when answering questions his eyes looked up and to the left which indicates he was accessing his Bullshit files to find an answer. The real kicker was when he commented that the animal he shot had white backgrounds in his eyes ( like humans ). He said he didn’t know if that was normal. Really ? Didn’t know if that was normal ? He’s been hunting his whole life and didn’t know if it was normal ? Plus, their was no blood found on his boots that this creature bleed all over. Thats because nothing bleed on them.

  9. Cryptidcrazy responds:

    I am glad that the Smeja case is finally closed. As many of us suspected, I was all a hoax.

  10. dconstrukt responds:

    the dude who “shot” a bigfoot swore his boot was covered in bigfoot blood when he held it up.

    they tested his shoe.

    not an ounce of blood.

    His own sample, he swore on tv was from the bigfoot, he “shot” was proven to be a bear.

    he also proved that zana… was a sub saharan… from a different group or something than normal…. the skull of the son of zana… he proved was different with his skull.

    same from DNA taken from living relatives.

    a new type of ancient polar bear hybrid was also proven with the data. is it the yeti? perhaps…

    american bigfoot didn’t get anything conclusive…

    You don’t have to agree with me, all good he took the samples given to him.

    ALL The people swore it was from bigfoots.

    keep sending the samples.

    let science prove what it is.

    the eyes/mind plays tricks on people with the intent of finding something… everything unexplained seems to become a bigfoot out in the woods. 🙂

  11. corrick responds:


    Thanks for some candlelight in the darkness.

    All of the Satsquatch universe had their opportunity to submit their very best physical evidence for DNA testing. It’s not like Dr. Sykes’ project wasn’t widely known to virtually everyone in the bigfoot world, Booboo & Matt included.

    Results so far: zero.

    And yes, Lesley Cox, science can never disprove that any cryptid doesn’t exist. Only what’s most likely.

  12. John Kirk responds:

    Before the two resident skeptics corrick and dkonstrukt start patting each other on the back here in a mutual lovefest. Let’s get the facts straight.

    First how is dkonstrukt the only candle in the darkness here as some of us have shone floodlights on some of the matters discussed here? First, the claims of the hunter who says he shot a sasquatch: Some of us in the sasquatch community have had issues with this story since we first heard it and have said so. The guy has said he has shot it in the front and in the back in different stories. How can that be? The so-called steak has underhair. What kind of human relative has underhair? None. Chalk one up for the sasquatch community members who realized many of us did not accept this claim.

    Since when does the Sykes analysis prove all types of yeti are bears? Many of us in the cryptozoological community have said for years the Dzu-teh is a bear and the Himalayan brown bear to boot. Others disagreed, but those of us who argued that it was have now been proved right. However, nothing the esteemed Professor Sykes has to offer disproves in any way that the man sized Meh-teh or the smaller than human-sized yetis don’t exist. Conclusive proof for them hasn’t been adduced either so we still have a mystery.

    Corrick you make a a grandiose sweeping statement that the sasquatch community has submitted its “very best physical evidence for testing.”

    Says who? Some people – who are not representative of the sasquatch community as a whole – found hairs and wanted to know what they were. Sykes identified them and now these people know. Very few of those who made submissions argued with a huge investment in the outcome that what they supplied was definitively bigfoot hair. You merely assume they did. Myself and a ton of Canadian investigators had intimated that we did not think anything was going to come back as definitive evidence. Why? Because it is very difficult to find any physical evidence from a cryptid that is so elusive. Perhaps one day we will find evidence that is definitive, but that has not happened yet.

    I for one am really happy with all the results. It simply means that the submitted samples were not from a cryptid and so the hunt continues. This is by no means the end of the story. The hunt for evidence continues. My hat is doffed to Prof. Sykes for a job well done. I look forward to his further analysis of future finds.

  13. Lesley Cox responds:

    Hello Corrick,

    “And yes, Lesley Cox, science can never disprove that any cryptid doesn’t exist. Only what’s most likely.”

    Precisely. Which is why Prof Sykes is showing an interest in this area of study. There is no definitive proof that Sasquatch exists, that’s true. What there is though, is a wealth of circumstantial and trace evidence with thousands of eye witnesses. More than enough, IMO, to say that that Sasquatch is a likely proposition.

  14. William responds:

    I too am glad he proved once and for all that Smeja was a lying hoaxer. I loved when the interviewer asked him why he shot in the first place and he just stoot there speechless with a stupid dull look. This guy just looks, acts and talks like a total dufus. Even the video of him shooting a rifle showed a terrible flinch. So much so, as someone who knows how to shoot a high powered rifle accurately, I doubt he has ever killed anything cleanly jerking like he does.

    He reminds me of the George Constanza character on Seinfeld. After proven a total and complete liar, his only retort was “why would I go through all of this for nothing?” I can tell you why, so the loser could get his 10 minutes of fame that otherwise he would never have received.

    Someone ought to round up Smeja, Biscardi, and Dyer and pay for them a one way trip to the Himalayas and let them get lost. Hopefully, they would be dealt with by a real Yeti. That would be poetic justice to the nth degree (LOL).

  15. dconstrukt responds:

    ya this isnt the end for anything other than the cronies, phonies and jabronies.

    if you have physical evidence you “think” is real.

    send it to him

    let him tell you what it REALLY is.

    this is exciting. 🙂

  16. DWA responds:

    John Kirk:

    Shooting out the lights, then lighting a candle right next to something that resembles what you want to be universally true, isn’t casting real light on anything.

    Bravo. But I do need to take small issue with this.

    Many of us in the cryptozoological community have said for years the Dzu-teh is a bear and the Himalayan brown bear to boot. Others disagreed, but those of us who argued that it was have now been proved right.

    Well, not so much. My understanding is indeed that both natives and Westerners understand Dzu-teh to be a bear. Sykes’s findings indicate the possibility that it isn’t Ursus arctos isabellinus at all but perhaps a peculiar ecotype of Ursus maritimus – a finding that sets bear biology on its ear. (For me, “primate, unknown” would have been a far less exciting finding. I mean, people are seeing that, right?)

    Again, Sykes can prove nothing except what THIS sample is. Sweeping conclusions are, as usual in science, unwarranted in the extreme.

  17. William responds:

    While I enjoyed this program immensely, one fairly substantial bone I must pick is how little the camera spent on the very mysterious so-called Yeti. that supposedly was killed by the Nazi Yeti hunter, and mounted as a trophy (taxidermy) specimen. I for one, would have loved to have seen what the foot of this creature looked like, as in what kind of track it may have laid. Would it have resembled the Shipton trackway in any fashion? If so that would be significant wouldn’t it?

    Also, how big/tall estimated weight and size was it? The camera zoomed in on how bizarre the teeth appeared to be (possibly mounted backwards) but little else. The top of the head of this thing looked amazingly flat, unlike the head of any primate, or other type of mammal I have ever seen, yet little was shown of this highly unusual specimen so one must question why????

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|Top | FarBar|

Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.