Leaderboard

So, no rebuttal to the comments made? THAT'S your response? There's even math and all that in there. There's even a path you can follow to look at the reports. And that's the comment you make? The first time in 3 months I view a response from you and this is what it is. I chose wisely putting you on the short list of folks I ignore. So now a book sold on the internet is instantly non-credible? Care to rebut the findings? Say, by reading the reports and conducting your own statistical analysis? The 'silliness' of the website should not take away from the 'facts' that were presented in this excerpt. There were 2 Smithsonian reports evaluated and statistical methods applied to determine the probabilities of a population like this existing. I don't care what speculations are produced by the author regarding this finding, other than the finding itself is there and intriguing. It shows that not only large bones being found in America is possible, it's beyond probable as it has been shown to happen. It directly answer's the OP's question and shows that this phenom has happened. So far, the rebuttals from Bonehead's links are "crackpot UFO sight", "everything on the internet is true", and "it's a book on the internet". Excellent skepticism there.

Sure. But for the NAWAC or Grendel, the evidence is a flesh and blood creature. Observations are just that...........observations. You read it, make mental notes, compare them with your own and trash can what doesn't work for you.........and move on. I'm not going to ask anyone here, to prove to me that something heavy brought down a large tree, because it only proves that something heavy brought down a large tree.........big deal. I don't find habber stories credible, with that said, it's not my life pursuit to somehow discredit them on a internet forum. It's folly. Skeptics find the whole myth of Bigfoot as not credible. Awesome, I understand entirely. But can we please discuss Bigfoot observations on a Bigfoot forum? I have no problem with their opinion so long as it doesn't shut down the dialogue. That's just my .02 cents.

Squatchy, why in the world would you waste your time on a bigfoot forum if your 100% sure they are not real ? What's the purpose ? I know if I was sure they didn't exist, i could find a lot better things to do with my time. I know I wouldn't be wasting it here.

Susi, Georgerm's post did not say it was his own findings. It caimed it was from a biochemist with a P.H.D from Harvard. However, thank you for posting your response as it made me reread it and realise that he never gave his name. I would value it more if someone risked putting their name to thier findings. As to your feeling that Ketchum is an expert in DNA, you might want to consider that she only works in the one field of DNA extraction and evaluation. I have no problem with her knowledge in those fields, it's the conclusions she's drawn outside of her fields that I think would be strengthened with the proper experts guiding her work.

Ty Chelefoot. The author seems to really know what he's talking about but sadly is very difficult to follow and absorb for us amateurs. I hate just having to draw conclusions when someone is just off the charts smarter than me but can't put it all into layman's terms. I'm trying to teach myself about DNA little by little but it's like learning Chinese on a See and Say. I still like the fact that these are fact checking papers and not personal attacks on Ketchum. They expose themselves to fraud just as much by doing so and I doubt their authors would want to embarress themselves in print over a subject like this unless they spot the real errors that they and their peers would agree upon.

I have 2 conditions: she's gotta take a bath and she can't eat crackers in my sleeping bag. From there on ... it's negotiable. Beauty is only skin deep and her personality would have to be preferable to that of some of the scoffers around here. MIB

Without a microscope , diligent use of it, and extensive knowledge about most animal hairs out there, you're still going to get some known animals in the mix. It's just simple odds. People will be hopeful, and think animals and saquatch hairs can be variable, So instead of missing the find of a century, they will test anything that might be BF. Human nature, like science is to test what is supposedly known.

You just have missed the sentence where the OP said " This short quote does not carry a lot of weight " too unsurprisingly.

This is a perfect example of Bipto coming back, admittedly not reading the comments that took place while he was gone, and then putting the blame for his leaving, squarely on the back of people who were simply questioning his recollection of an incident, that doesn't happen in the woods. Creatures don't break healthy 24" trees at the base. It doesn't happen. Chimps, Gorillas and Orangutans don't do it either. It is a simple matter of physics. We all love the Sasquatch, but the Sasquatch isn't capable of doing what was described. Can you imagine the danger involved in riding a giant tree down to the ground and leaping off at the last second? With 8" branches falling all around, and an unknown medium lying on the ground below? Surely even if there was a 10% chance of a severe injury Sasquatch would have been long extinct. Anyway, I at least would have thought that Bipto could have read the comments before bailing. It seems weak to lay the responsibility for that at the feet of people who are simply questioning claims. I even think that there is a Forum rule that says 'expect to have your claims questioned' or something like that. Maybe one of the Mods can clarify that.

"At least they are not sitting around behind their computers commenting on every single post that someone makes.." Did you post this from the field?

Hmmm ... the shoe fits on the other foot as well. Maybe YOU need to remember that Bipto is a person with feelings, not just an avatar, who has invested his own time and money and was voluntarily sharing because he thought someone would be interested and benefit. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, right? Suggesting that Bipto might be playing anyone for a fool IS an extraordinary claim. Show your proof. MIB

^^ plus one, agreed. while I applaud past efforts, his forum imploded and he pulled the plug. if it weren't for guys like Bipedalist, Masterbarber, HRP, See , Gigantor and some significant others there would be no BFF now.... so if its a forum you appreciate , imo, we owe them .

A couple of thoughts........ Foremost, I think this thread has taught me that keeping people in the community abreast with what Project Grendel is doing is a waste of time. The skeptics want proof of everything............well, that is why we are out there, and would love nothing more than to provide proof of the existence of Sasquatch. Which I think is a very KEY distinction between a pro kill group and the rest of them out there. But if I share my observations with the community about a tree break, or a track way, or a howl, it's a gosh dang slap in the face to have every observation shared turn into a existence debate. Nobody is saying that a tree break is PROOF of the existence of Sasquatch. Hunter's follow sign so that they can hopefully close with and dispatch their prey. We observe sign of the animals passing as well as calls, smells and all the rest. That's how you put yourself in the right place at the right time and in the right place. It took me ten years of elk hunting before I killed my first one, doing it by myself. I choose the wrong places to go, either too high or too low. I choose places that had low numbers because it was cheap to go. I tracked Moose instead of Elk, so on and so forth........... Nobody taught me, I did it myself, and I learned something each time I went out. So sharing observations is very important to a hunter, and this is why it's a shame that Bipto has been run out of here, I don't see it as grandstanding, I see it as a opportunity to share observations, nothing more. People who are skeptical or feel it's an ego trip should simply call BS and move on........instead what you see are a series of questions that play out like a game of gotcha. Secondly, to address the "groupee" follow ons......... I have said from day one, that I'm not there so I cannot say for sure what is being observed. And it's perfectly natural for someone to say the same thing about my observations. I have never been to the Ouachita NF. Again, this is the flip side of the coin from skeptics and the other side of the circular debate that goes round and round. As if the winner of the debate can either prove or deny the existence of Sasquatch JUST BY WINNING A DEBATE. No way........ It takes days, months and years of busting the brush with a ruck on looking. Some of us do this already, some don't, on both sides of the coin. Either way, unless a log truck saves all of us proponents the trouble? If it's out there? Then we are gonna have to go out and go get it and drag it out feet first............PERIOD. I highly HIGHLY suggest if that is your end goal that you find threads like this and READ..........don't post anything. Soak it in and try to use it to your advantage on your next outing. I recently just found a Bigfoot sighting on a fly fishing forum, completely unrelated to the community. So other outdoor activity forums like hunting, fishing, camping and hiking forums are a wealth of information as well. Happy hunting folks!

I think the results on mtDNA on 99% of the samples in Ketchums' study is likely very accurate. As for the nuDNA, I think there is more work to be done there. As for Sykes, it doesn't look like he wanted to get too deep into it........just enough to identify some of the samples.

well said See, so a couple of plusses for these , and here's why.... long ago in BFF 1, iirc, I started some of those threads about skeptics / why they get involved, why pro BF with no sightings want to "bleev" etc ....... seems I remember Bip chiming in somewhere about how a dose of skepticism was needed when considering the BF phenomena, and should be expected and good for the discussions....... why make that point and then not expect it to be applied to yourself ? also,considering Bips pot shots at BFF2........... fwiw, a big part of his BFF 1 was much more skeptically minded . saskeptic , Parnassus and crew were much more aggressive in going after the BF stories than what we see now. the back and forth there made it more the sideshow . it certainly wasn't a research sight. BFF 2 is a more accepting forum , imo , or you wouldn't have the "habituating BF" or paranormal BF threads we have now. agreed again, I've been on forums where almost every one agreed . while its great to see all get along for a while, the fact was the forums dry up eventually. without an opposing viewpoint sooner or later the discussions fizzle out when everyone runs out of high fives and "cool story bro's " . the discussion dies, its that simple.