Leaderboard

"There isn't a single thing backing up anything you say" Really? How many Bigfoot hoaxes? How many actual Bigfoots? I say I think the source of the evidence is hoaxes and mistakes. You say there is nothing to back that up. But that is wrong. There are numerous cases of hoaxes and mistaken identity. So your accusation is flat out incorrect. You say the source of the evidence is Bigfoot most likely. OK. How many Bigfoots do you have? None so far.... I'd say I actually have more backing up my opinion than you do.

Thanks. My guess as well but I'm not "in the know" so I asked. So basically its about as solidly human as all the "contaminated" north american samples that were tested and discarded on the assumption of contamination. "Hmmm." If Sykes comes back with modern human mtDNA in a sample with some other nuDNA, all of these old "results" have to be discarded along with whatever assumptions we made based on them because it means the old science was bad. Since the samples were (reportedly) destroyed in most/all cases, we can't retest, so we just have ... nothing. Sykes finding something novel doesn't prove those old things novel, only that the science used on them was incomplete. MIB

I don't see any reason to get paranoid about the possibility of them being in the woods. They were always there & if you weren't paranoid before, why get all worried now? I'm more afraid of running into a rabid skunk, fox, or raccoon around here. Even that is less of a worry now that they hang around, because they keep them run off. I think it depends on a person's attitude toward them. If you're hostile or afraid, you might have something to worry about, but if you don't think of them as being dangerous, they probably won't be. Mostly they believe in live & let live & generally they're not bad neighbors if they like you. If you meet one face to face, he'll probably just look you over & walk away. So, what's there to be paranoid about?