Leaderboard

Heard it last night live. Good interview - put her in a positive light with talk of her prior expert witness roles and stringent forensic methods. Best to get it straight from the horse vet's mouth, I say. Everything else is just noise and poison.

I have to say I just finished listening to her interview on coast to coast, and was pleased how she put to rest, (|t least in my opinion) some of the wilder accusations which have been thrown at her. So many now its hard to keep track. Also glad to hear her say that not all of the samples worked on all came out legit. Some were submitted by people, {Not named of course} who have been exposed for hoaxing evidence in the past. I think I know some of them. I must say I am still confused as to how one can claim Sasquatch DNA when there is no Sasquatch to compare with, Also I am surprised on her stance on the human vs ape argument being a scientist and knowing that in the zoological seance, as well as the anthropological seance Humans are apes? Now folks I will just say again perhaps we should wait to see if her report passes per review, and read the report ourselves before strongly coming out on one side or the other. That is what I am waiting for. The fact which has caught my interest in this report is not so much what she says the Sasquatch is, but that she says they are in fact there. I want to read the final report before I draw a firm conclusion. Thomas Steenburg

Which makes it a perfect post for a thread discussing ambiguous sounds...