Leaderboard

If only DWA had read as many black hole reports, he'd know they must exist.

I suppose if you have an untainted sample with provenance that supplies a high degree of confidence, it could be used as a comparative baseline against other samples to establish that a widespread population of the same unidentified species exists, but you couldn't rightly call it a control sample. At least not with the current state of resistance.

^^^ Oh my. Aaron, as an admin I'm sorta' surprised to see you post this thinly veiled comment in the free section.

Actually parts of it can be validated. The procedure is always the same. Collect samples and observe morphology, extract DNA and compare results. The trick ofcoarse is knowing when you have enough divergence in both to claim a new species. It may not be there in the end.

I think this whole argument is a giant black hole. Some people believe, some don't, neither one will ever convince the other of their position. Think for yourself and believe the way you wish and let others do the same.

I'm, potentially, 12 feet tall. Where are the studies? There is no such thing as "unknown" animal dna, any report would list the animal(s) most closely related/associated with the dna. Unless the scat is properly collected and tested it's just....poop on your desk. I thought that was self evident but apparently I was wrong. I noticed that the link to the facebook page showed sasquatch scat purportedly gathered by cliff barackman back in 1999 - cliff is "pro" researcher; what happened to his sample? He should have had the contacts/resources to have the sample analyzed, no? By the way that last link was interesting but I can't see that Nelson's results were ever replicated or that Nelson ever published his results (using google scholar as the search engine). Once again, I never said that there are studies. I said that there were analyses of scat that did not conform to that of any known animal or humans. I have provided links documenting this. Until bigfoot DNA is available to compare to a sample from the scat that does not conform to any known animal, confirmation is not possible. The point is that you or a buddy claimed that there was no scat or other physical evidence associated with tracks and sightings. Fact is that there is scat collected from sites where bigfoot have been seen and where tracks have been found, and when analyzed, it does not match that of any known animal. I suggest that you also read the following article by an archeologist who has analyzed bigfoot nests to inform yourself of the fact that there is yet more physical evidence. http://www.bfro.net/ref/fieldres/sasquatchnest.asp I am gratified that instead of claiming that such evidence does not exist you are now asking for replicable results. In the military, as one force retreats from one position to another when under pressure, we refer to it as a delaying action. Clearly we are making some headway. It still seems to me, though, that you are more interested in subjectively refuting evidence than in objectively considering it. The point, actually, is that I stated that in all of the trackways claimed by researchers, none of those trackways lead to a den, feeding site, or leave any hair, blood or scat as real animals do. Finding poop in the woods and deciding, apropos of nothing, that the poop is from sasquatch without running tests is just playing make-believe. Tests would NOT show an "unknown animal", that's not how it works. If the dna tested turned out to have come from an animal not listed in genbank the scientist would still be able to determine which animal(s) are most closely related. If the monster is some human hybrid the test would show how long ago the monster split from humans (just as dna can show you or I our lineages). Using the excuse that, because there is no holotype, dna cannot be used to confirm a novel animal in north america is wrong/false. So, no tested scat, blood, hair, teeth, etc. has been associated with trackways/casts. Look, I've stated repeatedly that I'd love to be 100% wrong on this. An undiscovered megafauna being hidden on this continent for this amount of time with the ranges reported would be so amazing that words fail me. That said, the community does itself no favors by making/accepting all these falsehoods/fantastical claims. I know believers get frustrated and that the "desire" for the monster to be real can cloud otherwise rational minds but the community as a whole needs to be on guard for this and needs to police these things so that time/energy/resources are not wasted repeatedly. Ok, I'll get off my soapbox now. Mopar, The PGF isn't even agreed upon by sasquatch believers to be real, never mind the general public. Heck, even "The Bigfoot Show" guys didn't agree that the PGF was the real deal and even the ones who thought the PGF was real didn't buy the idea that there were/was/is more than one animal shown. This is, again, the problem with this field. The believers out there can't BEGIN to agree on much of anything. How frustrating that must be I cannot imagine. I think I understand why most of the scientific community will not touch this stuff though. You know, Bodhi, you've gone around the bend ridiculous. First you guys claim that there are no scat, nests, hair samples or other physical evidence associated with either sightings or tracks. Then we provide documentation of scat, nests, hair samples found in association with sightings and tracks that when analyzed do not match any known animal, but are consistently determined to be most closely identifiable to human or primate samples​, then you claim that the scat and hair tested and found to not be that of any known animal, but still most closely related to human or primate samples, is just random scat and hair with no link to the sightings or footprints. DWA and Norseman are right. You apparently do not read the material that is posted. I can only assume that your goal is to disrupt rather than to debate. I heartily encourage you try to add more value to this forum that you are currently offering. Well, black holes haven't been directly photographed yet but we can see the lensing affect they create as they bend light. That is science. It was an effect predicted by Einstein and further studies proved the theory to be correct. What predictive theories from the sasquatch community have proved to be correct? range/habitat? migration? diet? how many animals in shown in the PGF? What have all those casts that meldrum owns led to; how has whatever information he's gleaned been used to help in the search? You used black holes to make a flippant and disparaging commen,t and I know you aren't to be taken seriously, but still it's a silly comment. The lensing observed as the gravity of supermassive objects been light is far more empirical evidence than has ever been associated with the monster. So black holes are something that we haven't seen, but define based on the secondary evidence that they generate. Perhaps they are a silhouette of something defined by the available evidence too. Why is this logic valid for black holes, but not bigfoot.? Black holes, affect the light which passes in front of them. Black holes "interact" with other matter, sasquatches don't. No scat, no hair, no blood, no bone, no fossils. And - Claiming you have scat that you think is sasquatch may be sufficient evidence for you, it doesn't even approach evidence for me. IF someone ever produces a sample which legit science states is from a primate, even if they find some from a modern primate here in the u.s., that would be interesting. And lastly, thanks for your suggestions. I promise you I will give them all the attention they deserve. Dude, your last statements here have no validity whatsoever. You believe bigfoot doesn't exist, so you state these things as if they are fact. They are nothing more than your own opinion, and happen to once again disclose both your bias and lack of objectivity.

I think the hairy people don't always realize that we've misunderstood a signal they're trying to give. I told the story in another thread about the BF who was trying to connect with me telepathically and thought I was ignoring him when I didn't respond -- when in fact it was just that I didn't know how to "do" telepathy. There's always a bit of give and take, even with beings as intuitive as the hairy people. I think your friends are okay. I just wish they knew that, too; but I'm sure whatever they need will come to them.

Why even bring it up man?

Those left, anyway.

This would create no problems and scientists or the "evolutionists" as you call them would be chomping at the bit to figure out exactly where this prehistoric man fits into the general scheme of things. If cthulhu rose from the briny depths and declared, and was in fact, the master of the universe and mankind this would not be a problem. Scientists would realign their theories and world views and begin to study the new age of cthulhu and whatever that entails.

As far as black holes go not everyone believes they exist. I think there are even some physicists working to prove they don't exist. The idea for black holes was born from working within einsteins relativity theory. What is known or suspected is mostly theoretical. The difference between black holes and Bigfoot is there is no real reason to think black holes don't exist at the moment. Any one acquainted with the evidence for Bigfoot or the giant "black hole" of lack of evidence has lots of reasons to suspect Bigfoot does not exist. It's why most people reject the idea of bigfoots existence. Also Bigfoot is supposedly bumbling around our backyards digging in dumpsters, porposing in the ocean, throwing rocks at cabins while black holes are light years away in outer space. If people lived in outer space and there was supposed encounters and flimsy evidence but no actual black holes to be found then I'm sure most would reject black holes as well.

While I think certain areas are not conducive to long term use, I think Sasquatch do venture into Urbanish areas from time to time in pursuit of game, this was a possible explanation for the foot prints found in the snow on the western part of Chicago last winter along a railway with ample travel corridors, The point I have made throughout this thread is that as long as they can be concealed in the daytime and travel at night, the possibility exists for them to live in close proximity to humans, and even near Urban Metros like Chicago, or as in the above case Detroit, and I dare say Austin, but without having researched the area I would not know where they would hide and travel. This is no small revelation and it took me some time and some experience of the first hand type to come to such a conclusion.