Leaderboard

Incorrect. Some of the samples could simply be from humans, which would seem to be the simplest answer. Ketchum states the morphology does not match human but provides only one hair example to back this up. In the case of Family Tree they only provided mtDNA testing (you can read back in the thread to see my quotes from corresponding with them). According to Ketchum's paper none of the mtDNA produced novel sequences. All mtDNA tests came back 100% modern human with no "odd" results. I'm also not aware of Family Tree conducting any work related to criminal cases. If you have a reference I'd be interested to see it. I corresponded with USC but they had no idea what I was talking about or who's work I was referencing. Not a very ringing endorsement, especially considering they have the opportunity to attach their name to a "Nobel worthy" paper. The only people responsible for omissions of data are Ketchum and anyone else who helped to author the paper. If a claim is made in the paper and there is no data in the paper to back it up that responsibility rests solely on Ketchum. I speak for only myself but I am certainly not doing this. If anything I've stated publicly my opinion that those submitters who provided samples in good faith are the true victims here. So you are one of the sample providers? Have you considered uploading your videos or providing additional information regarding your sample and the circumstances under which it was collected? Family Tree directly refuted this claim by stating that none of the samples provided to them had any chain of custody. If you go back in the thread you can see this documented in some of my previous posts as well. If chain of custody was broken with the Family Tree samples where else might it have been broken? Wink wink. Nudge nudge. Say no more say no more. And also including at least one known hoaxer, Janice Carter Coy, who provided multiple samples that were included in the study. The moment chain of custody was broken, as in the case with Family Tree, this became untrue. Criminal and forensic standards begin and end with maintaining rigorous chain of custody. ETA - Rereading your post and the referenced blog the portion regarding the video sample is made by the blog author (which I'm assuming isn't you Tman), in which case my question regarding that sample is moot.

I did watch the video, but I had to skip forward at points as I don't have 1:33 hrs to spend watching it at lunch. But I did watch the interview portions. I did feel that I got the details of the situation, but I'll watch it again in its entirety and if I've been too hasty in my assessment then I apologize.

Your opinion dmaker is yours, of course, and thin-skin and relic hominid studies will never gee-haw. So, you've got your right to stand your ground. We have the right to challenge your thinking, as you well know! :-) My comment was probably too strong...and I don't mean that in the context of the story not being astounding. It is. What I mean is: This narration is really just a continuation in a long string of them, and it has risen to the point now of no longer being extraordinary to me and many others. I will just tell you (yes, again, and one more time on behalf of DWA) this narration of life in the OK boonies will not make much of a greater impression on anyone who is not familiar already with the greater body of narrative evidence over the decades. Really and truly, my reaction was more like, "Uh-huh, yep." Consistency, openess, stubborness and plain ol'fashioned walking-around-sense will eventually crack this nut wide open. These boys and girls have dished out a giant dollop of all of that. Now you are exactly where Bipto said you would be: He and his people are either liars, or they had genuine experiences with the animal. Otherwise, are we considering that somehow their site crossed through a meteorite shower every night around that same time? Group hallucinations of rocks raining down on them? These people are obviously going way out of their way to engender trust in their research. I see exactly zero motivation to fabricate anything. When they say they will release the DNA analysis of that hair for instance, I've no doubt they will, whatever it shows. Same as to the blood they collected. I for one don't plan to be surprised at the results. Lastly, If I were them perpetrating a hoax, I can tell you....I'd come up with some stuff A LOT more juicy than this evidence. Thanks Bipto for your efforts and contributions to the field.

That was a well written post Steve, I agree with all your points and that explains very eloquently the "whats" of this phenomenon Now the harder truths lie within the "whys" So what brings ya to the BFF Leftfoot? At first I thought ya might be new to the BF world asking some innocent questions,that aren't uncommon from folks who are new to this genre of study. However your tact seems to have switched to having some definitive opinions on the subject. I think I sensed some nuance in your posts that seem similar to someone who perhaps has their own predetermined agenda. I must be mistaken right. So let me ask you (not that its required) do you believe in BF? And also, is your general consensus that anyone who has a story to tell about this phenomenon needs to "step back and get some perspective" or as you said in another thread and I paraphrase ...sounds like a crazy person? I'm just asking because I'd rather not waste my time with a fixed mind bent on trying to convince me that everything I have seen and experienced in and around my BF encounters is just a bunch of woo woo or the chatterings of a loose fixture, thats all.

No. They are not rejected out of hand. They are rejected because their is no evidence supporting the claims. They are not claiming a small mouse, which inhabits swamps in a small corner of Michigan's central plateau exists. They are claiming that a Giant Hairy Beast, 6' to 11' tall, weighing 200-800 pounds, is cavorting throughout a range which exceeds almost every other mammal in North America. And while they claim it is elusive, it is allegedly seen by thousands of people a year. In fact, some claim it reclines in the middle of roadways. An animal that size, and with that range, does not remain unverified in The United States. They are not rejected out of hand, and I adopt this posture for other things: Dragons, T-rex, Nessie, Unicorns, Mothmen. And up until last year, I would never have accepted a story that a Wolverine was in California. Then they went and got poo, hair, and photos of the thing. And now, I agree there are Wolverines in California.