Leaderboard

Why killing a wondeful creature?

It would seem to me if you didn't guess correctly on the proximal species, you'd not get much of a sequence. Also, the work on the DNA wouldn't likely change if you had a body, this same thing must be done with any new species, but with perhaps a little better guess work starting off. With a complete sequence, the statistics take over to determine which species is most proximal. This is just how I understand it at this point.

BUFO's? well, i know a couple of people( that i have no reason not to believe) that claim ufo sightings & others BF as well,but not related. not sure about a connection. not always the case, but usually i notice the BF guys tend to say the ufo guys are crazy & vice versa.i guess many pick their creature of choice & stick w/ it. but i guess if the mothership shows up Dec 2012 & starts dropping off extra squatches for the take over, we'll know for sure then....

Interesting post Grayjay There are also reports of Bigfoot. The hairy creature is most often associated with the Pacific Northwest. However, both the Apache and Navajo tribes say they've got Sasquatch too. One case Dover investigated had 30 witnesses. "We came out with physical evidence," he said. "Hair samples, footprints, stride distances, logs that had been pulled out of the bog area and removed - normal people wouldn't have been able to do that." why does the quote button not work?

Jodie and I have eloped and have adopted two precocious little sasquatch infants.

I think the article is good reference material in understanding thresholds for speciation. Consider it a primer. I have only a smidge more info than most on this board, and it is key to my optimism.

It's pretty simple Cervelo, unless a bigfoot chooses to fall dead in our laps, my hypothesis on bigfoot prohibits my taking one. So, with the precedents we have for discovering new species today, and with our ability to use DNA in phylogeny, it is best to find out what it is, before taking it. You do believe that can be done, otherwise you wouldn't be so interested in the results.

It's just that for most of the human (in the genus sense) and subhuman specimens all we have is bones, not even complete skeletons, either...so if we want to compare a hypothetical new species of human with the others, we will have to look at a skeleton, sooner or later. Footprint morphology does give a pretty good wallop of info, though, I think, too. And we already have that. A DNA sample (nuclear AND mitochondrial) and a karyotype would also be very good to have but with the latter we can only compare with Denisovans and Neanderthals, as well as modern humans and non-human living ape species. We need bones, preferably a whole skeleton to figure out where in the homo family it fits.

What it's not, but yet closest to, tells you what it is, in phylogenetics. Thats not just a bigfoot method Cervelo., but yes recognizing another species and extant member of the genus homo, is unprecedented, and as such it would not be standard procedure to take a specimen as with other animal species. If you think differently show us legal and ethical precedent for it. You might ask, why I would think bigfoot is a member of the genus homo and I would put it this way, If patty isn't a man in a suit, every joint in her body moves in the same way as a man, the tracks follow suit in form, and the vocalizations are indiscernable from human in many cases. That for me has predicted findings both prior to this study and during.

More power to you, and I wish your examination well.For me, the real validation will be from Dr. Ketchum's peers and contemporaries.

Cervelo, I think it is good info for understanding results prior to this study, as in the human/ unknown primate/ no match stuff. Think specificly about false positives/ negatives etc.

SY, Are you suggesting the report concludes Bigfoot is human? I said if bigfoot were human, you couldn't have a body. You ask for bigfooters to show you ape results, humans are great apes......... There's only a few % that seperates humans and those other great apes, so you have the same challenge distingusihing BF from each of them, maybe a bigger challenge in human vs bigfoot, unless the BF curve ball got knocked out of the park. Here's an informative article that could account for less than conclusive results. http://sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/content/55/5/729.full

You may not see it yet, thats exactly how this is playing out. You just can't have the body if it is technically human. The thing is Cervelo, you don't prove a new species "without" DNA anymore. Even if you have a few bones to look at. Case in point http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-14921665 You simply can't get DNA that is a unique species without there being a body/ bodies to produce it, and in this day and age, some species will go unproven without it, no matter what is in the fossil record, or sitting in a museum. If you took this new species of dolphin for instance collected a type specimen, sequenced the DNA and it showed no divergence, would it be a new species? You've got to have the DNA anymore, and it will show that a new species is there, with or without the thing laying on the table.

That Barnes and Noble gift certificate awaits one of us yet, Slim, the stakes are getting high here, and I'm trying not to break a sweat over it. .

I don't know about that Jodie, it may well be published in a reputable journal. I'm just saying, the speculation in this thread has gone far beyond a reasonable assessment of the available information. We should all take a deep breath... expect nothing and hope for the best.

Oh I see, well I was wondering.....the paper will probably come out in June in a journal that no one has ever heard of with analysis and conclusions that won't appear to have anything to do with bigfoot on the surface. If it gains any interest, she and the other authors will ease into the bigfoot topic slowly by letting everyone reading it draw their own conclusions. That is where the debate will carry on, just as it always has in bigfoot world, with the big question thread title of, "What Does it Really Mean?" Then Parn and Saskeptic will jump in with the concise conclusion, " It was just regular people, we tried to tell you this. " Mulder will say , "The DNA is the DNA, can't you see how these letters match nothing in the database? You just don't want to see through your bias, it's a plot" Then Parn will say, " But Mulder all DNA is unique, everyone has SNP's. " etc,etc, etc........ If the main stream doesn't pick up on it, it just remains a research article in an obscure publication. That would be my prediction of how it could go either way.

ambivalence I just thought I would throw in my smart-aleck comment, nothing personal against the poster intended.

Fact, demonstrable. Opinion, self-evident and stated as such. Opinion, stated as fact. Redundancy.

As is every other posting on page 13.

parnassus Why do you make this sound like this is factual about this creature when it is not .The only credible thing that is going on is that there is an on going study. That this on going study of DNA which could prove the existance of a living being within our forest of our Nation. All this speculation,gossip and the thinking of the minds is meaningless until we actually see the results in a journal that will prove these creatures existance. I do not know about you but I really do not think that this is a project anyone wants to to take lightly.We are either dealing with human like us and i can see how that can confuse the crap out of people. After all wild people are not suppose to exist and if they do how did they do it for all these years with out being caught or seen but seen by only certain individuals.If they are animal with human mixed then what happen and when and where.There will be way more questions to ask even for those who have seen them.Primative man in his natural state well that alot to take in.

Yes, I distinctly remember that episode. I had a computer back then, and typed in zoo's and UFO's, didn't find anything. Since last year, I have checked out the MUFON database to see if there are any reports that match something I have seen in the past, I've never run across much of anything for either scenario.

George, Honest question: How would you go about checking the accuracy of such reports? Why not use that technique to check the accuracy of non-UFO related bigfoot reports and solve our problem once and for all?

No one ever believes you if you explain it to them.

Anyone ever hear of UFO abduction reports with gorillas or other primates present on board the ship? I haven't, so if the abduction thing is true, it would seem that bigfoot has something in common with us that the aliens seem to need, assuming they aren't biological moles sent here by the aliens to scout the planet for samples and resources. I've never read a bigfoot report where one was carrying sample baggies or containers. Perhaps they store their specimens in the marsupial pouch that the aliens have genetically designed for them.

BF is most likely a big, hairy biped like all the others with no UFO connection. BF is a big pill for many to swallow then add the UFO element, and we have a huge pill that only a whale could swallow.

UFOs and bigfoot seem totally unrelated and both are mysteries imho. Read about Dr. Mack and how courageous he is to put out this theory. BF may have nothing to do with this and is simply an evolved biped like all the others found in the fossil record....................we must keep connecting the dots and see what is going on. Dr. Mack might be onto something real, and I don't know. We basically have three large cans to put reports, theories, ideas, etc.................Can 3 is my largest container. . Can 1: Fact Can 2: Hoax, lies, misperception, false, bad science, stupid idea, swindle Can 3: possible and we don't know for sure..................we may never know An are 51 worker on the Art Bell radio show reported that aliens are infiltrating this complex along with other complexes. This goes into can 3 and possibly can 2 if we can check out the mental state of the witness. How could aliens get Area 51 clearance and provide proof of education?

Hmmmm never thought of Bill. Does he count as a 'bigfoot researcher'? I see Bill Munns more as specifically an analyser of the PGF in particular. I guess he would count then, thinking about it.

Bill Munns! Of course! And back in the day Ivan T. Sanderson had an incredible life. His Argosy article on the Crew tracks got Roger Patterson started. From Wikipedia: "Born in Scotland, Sanderson traveled widely in his youth. His father, who manufactured whisky professionally, was killed by a rhinoceros while assisting a documentary film crew in Kenya in 1925. As a teenager, Sanderson attended Eton College, and, at 17 years old, began a yearlong trip around the world, focusing mostly on Asia. Sanderson earned a B.A. in zoology, with honors, from Cambridge University, where he later earned M.A. degrees in botany and geology. On a New York area radio talk show on WFMU in 1965, he said he had "three PhD's", but did not elaborate. (recording available). He became famous as the most credible witness to see a Kongamato, after being attacked by a creature he described as "the Granddaddy of all bats". This encounter occurred when he had shot a fruit bat that toppled into the water. He went to retrieve his catch but was warned by his partner to duck. He described the following events: "Then I let out a shout also and instantly bobbed down under the water, because, coming straight at me only a few feet above the water was a black thing the size of an eagle. I had only a glimpse of its face, yet that was quite sufficient, for its lower jaw hung open and bore a semicircle of pointed white teeth set about their own width apart from each other. When I emerged, it was gone. ... And just before it became too dark to see, it came again, hurtling back down the river, its teeth chattering, the air "shss-shssing" as it was cleft by the great, black, dracula-like wings." Sanderson conducted a number of expeditions as a teenager and young man into tropical areas in the 1920s and 1930s, gaining fame for his animal collecting as well as his popular writings on nature and travel. During World War II, Sanderson worked for British Naval Intelligence, in charge of counter-espionage against the Germans in the Caribbean, then for British Security Coordination, finally finishing out the war as a press agent in New York City. Afterwards, Sanderson made New York his home and became a naturalized U.S. citizen. In the 1960s Sanderson made his home at 33 Ivan Road in Knowlton Township located in rural northwestern New Jersey, where he owned approximately 8 acres. He later lived in apartment #516 in the Whitby building on West 45th Street in Manhattan's Hell's Kitchen until his death in 1973. In 1948 Sanderson began appearing on American radio and television, speaking as a naturalist and displaying animals. In 1951 he appeared with Patty Painter (real name: Patricia Stinnette) on the world's first regularly scheduled color TV series, The World is Yours. This was broadcast in the CBS field-sequential color system developed by Dr. Peter C. Goldmark. Sanderson's television appearances with animals led to what he termed his “animal business.†Initially Sanderson borrowed or rented animals from zoos in the New York metropolitan area for his TV appearances. In 1950 at a meeting of the National Speleological Society, he met 20-year-old Edgar O. ("Eddie") Schoenenberger, who by 1952 was his assistant (and ultimately partner) in his animal business. Indeed, Schoenenberger ultimately became president of the company, called Animodels, in 1956. Schoenenberger suggested that, instead of "renting" animals, they should purchase and house them, and gain some additional income by displaying them in a zoo. To accomplish this, Sanderson purchased in November 1952 the "Frederick Trench place" a 250-year-old farmhouse, outbuildings and 25 acres (100,000 m2) of land a short ways from the ultimate location of the zoo between the communities of Columbia and Hainesburg. He immediately commenced refurbishing and expanding this, while also moving 200 of his rarest animals to a barn nearby so he could keep close watch on them. Then, in the Spring of 1954, he established the zoo itself, "Ivan Sanderson’s Jungle Zoo" (and Laboratory), a permanent, summer, roadside facility along the Delaware River on King Cole Curve on Route 46, in the town limits of Manunka Chunk, White Township, Warren County, New Jersey. It was on land leased from King Cole's, a barbecue restaurant owned by Oscar Smith (now defunct). Sanderson also developed and deployed winter traveling exhibits of rare and unusual animals for sports shows and department stores. A fire on the night of Tuesday or early morning hours of Wednesday, February 2, 1955 destroyed his collection of 45 rare animals kept in a barn at his New Jersey home. Ivan Sanderson's Jungle Zoo was flooded out by the Delaware River during the floods caused by Hurricane Diane on August 19, 1955. Sanderson would often travel from his New Jersey home to his New York apartment to visit friends and to appear on radio and television programs. During the 1950s and 1960s, Sanderson was widely published in such journals of popular adventure as True, Sports Afield, and Argosy, as well as in the 1940s in general-interest publications such as the Saturday Evening Post. In the 1950s, Sanderson was a frequent guest on John Nebel's paranormal-themed radio program. He was a frequent guest on The Garry Moore Show, being one of the first recognized animal researchers on television to bring live specimens on talk shows. As his friend and fellow cryptozoologist Loren Coleman has remembered in several of Coleman's books, Sanderson's appearances often involved his discussion of cryptozoological topics. Coleman notes that Sanderson could be skeptical. In "Mysterious America," for example, Coleman documents that Sanderson discovered the 1909 "Jersey Devil" incident was an elaborate real estate hoax. Sanderson was an early follower of Charles Fort. Later he became known for writings on topics such as cryptozoology, a word Sanderson coined in the early 1940s, with special attention to the evidence for lake monsters, sea serpents, Mokèlé-mbèmbé, giant penguins, Yeti, and Sasquatch. Sanderson founded the Ivan T. Sanderson Foundation in August 1965 on his New Jersey property, which became the Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained (SITU) in 1967. SITU was a non-profit organization that investigated strange phenomena ignored by mainstream science."

As to the OP, for me personally I'd have to say Green, Krantz, Dahinden, Byrne (the obvious Four Horsemen) first and foremost and then lately people like Bindernagel and Meldrum, although I don't actually own any Meldrum material and I don't swear by everything he says. I really like Tom Steenburg (have his books) and Rick Noll. I've probably missed some out but those are the ones who spring to mind first I'd say. Edit. Ooo I like Fahrenbach too. I like the way he talks. Always interesting to hear speak. PS) Why are there so many images in this thread that have nothing to do with the subject at hand? That must eat into a lot of bandwidth.

So we have Ray Wallace...... ....and we have this guy..... ....and the most famous straw man was Ray Wallace Bolger... It could only mean one thing. I'm really bored.

I haven't caught up yet on who's who of Bigfootery, but I will tell you that my favorite researcher is Tal Branco, hands down. His writing is superb and his reports are not only informative, but entertaining as well. His style of reporting is simply great! He appears to be very experienced, knowledgable and he exhibits a humility that lets you know you've got the real deal. A quality human being, no doubt.

Thank you, FG. It took me three or four seconds to think of them all. I'd honorably mention Paul Freeman as a great field researcher too but that always seems to start a fight.

Jeff Meldrum, Rick Noll, John Green, Alton Higgins, Peter Byrne, John Bindernagle, John Mionczynski and more.............in no particular order.

Well, John C, thanks for the shout out; I'm flattered/humbled, but my research is very confined and regional---not national in scope; nor do I personally desire (or can afford) to go that route..... (though I do enjoy a vacation to learn about new topography when I can). I'm happy with the results that I have been able to obtain though and hope I have been able to help other researchers/searchers by targeting what I can share with those that it can help to elucidate and elaborate in the field of audio capture anyways. There are many conundrums that I don't understand about the subject based on experience and research. I guess my paucity of tangible physical evidence collected beyond elaborate stick formations and audio is one of the most confounding. Is there a thread on the Utah Evidence Seminar yesterday btw I was not able to tune in or attend? Personally, (I agree with the above selections) and I think Thom Powell and Cliff Barackman along with Meldrum, Mionczynski, Bindernagel and some of the trackers such as Leigh Culver and a whole host of Georgia researchers (or former ones such as Matt Pruitt) too numerous to name, have had an impact. A fellow with a screen name of Monogahela (sp?) is a personal favorite and has his own blog with auditory evidence. Almost forgot the TexLa group and our own southernyahoo. Seems like Branco has done some exemplary work in long-term field studies as well. And, some Alabama folks (yeah, I'm a true southerner, not apologetic).

SquatchingOne, There are MANY unsung heroes that are good researchers. Some wish to fly under the radar, while others are relegated and belittled by others, so said researchers just do what they want to and stay out of the drama. Mike G, A "least respected" thread would turn into a full out flame war and ultimately would be shut down.