Leaderboard

So does bear go on the pile as well? I mean prior to the samples being tested they were Grade A bona-fide Bigfoot samples. Now they are just bear, but where does that fit in your pile filing system? And let's jump ahead a little bit and speculate about the results for the NA samples. Let's suppose none of those come back as some sort of undiscovered primate? Inconsequential? These were the best samples the BF community had to provide. If the result in now way supports the myth of Bigfoot, then surely it must say something more than the incompetence of researches in gathering legitimate samples? At some point even you must begin to see the reality that stories are all you really have.

"It never goes: We find poop; we hope the poop is that animal; and if it comes back 'unknown' IT'S THAT ANIMAL! EUREKA! Gotta have the animal first, people!" -DWA You sure about that now, are you? You've gone on record numerous times citing results of "unknown primate" in reference to hair analysis as compelling evidence for Bigfoot. Seems you are conveniently changing your tune now. I'm not surprised of course. "If there is one thing I have been adamant about from the first discussion of it I joined here, it is this. With no animal, the best a DNA result can be is..."on the pile." We still need the animal. Sayin' it about Ketchum...sayin' it about Sykes...sayin' it 'til everybody gets it. Got it..." DWA Oh look, there you go again...

" Sykes is proving nothing. Either natives (and quite a few westerners) are describing an ape, or they are describing by leagues the weirdest bear in the world, or they are describing something even weirder than that" - DWA Or they are seeing nothing at all ( shadows, stumps, etc..take your pic) , or they are lying. Why do you constantly insist on omitting those possibilities? "This is the precise reason I don't think either Ketchum or Sykes will 'prove' the existence of anything. The provenance of these samples, if it's not "that big guy over there," is as fuzzy as - no, fuzzier than, by far - the provenance of Patty." DWA So you trust Joe Average when it comes to reporting what he/she saw, but not when they gather samples and place them in your hand? Suddenly then you become concerned about provenance and accuracy? That is convenient.