Leaderboard

I don't think that is a correct analysis. Not for the person who has observed one. A person who has truly studied the evidence .. in detail .. will, without exception, conclude there is something going on worthy of further inquiry. It is circular logic, absolutely: a person who does not conclude that IS NOT, despite their possible claims to the contrary, sufficiently familiar with the evidence. The process of scientific discovery necessarily includes looking for things before we have proof they exist. Anything less requires all discoveries to be made by accident. MIB

I was really avoiding this, not being too willing to dive into the content of the photos, but I had some tools so I took a look. Pretty sure we all realize the the perspective difference is vast between the two images, and my animation shows that. It may be so vast that this comparison is useless, but I tried anyway. Look at the red circle vs white showing the end of some log. That log is what I used to scale one image vs the other. I used the curved tree to align the two. There is literally nothing I could do to clarify what's in the original image, but I can show that it's not very big. IF (a big if) that thing is a sasquatch, it's head appears to be as large as the guy in the cell phone image, despite being much shorter.

Thanks I just got on and checked posts. The one thing I have is character. I am not an attention seeker. I have nothing to gain from this. I could actually lose from this cuz I do hold a position in my community. The original picture is not tampered with it is what it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVkNGEzR2AA

Because it really isn't a problem. It's an excuse. A diversion. A detour. "Oh, it wasn't monster dna. It was human." Yeah, but what species of human?

Well, according to what I've read, that's how Homo Denisovan was "discovered". A 40,000 year old sliver of fingerbone was uncovered in Denisova Cave in Siberia. A dna analysis produced markers different than homo sapien, but the rest of the markers were "human". A jawbone discovered in China in the 1980's had those same markers. Voila! A new human cousin! So why can't the unique African dna that Sykes discovered in Zana's progeny be compared to what Ketchum discovered in her tests of various samples taken throughout North America and which she described as a "hybrid"? The answer to that has already been answered loudly, repeatedly, and undeniably: Ketchum broke unwritten rules. That's right, those rules were unwritten. There's no freaking rule book. One must be clairvoyant, strategic, and clever. You must be a scientist, lawyer, fundraiser, politician, and military strategist all molded into one. It's really bullspit.

I have been looking at this for a few days now as its best to not stare at it for too long at one sitting. I agree with Redbone on most points. What I keep coming back to is seeing that its a person walking a dog. There's certainly nothing to indicate a cryptid or anything of a paranormal nature. I agree that we can't see the legs because the walker and the dog are slightly downhill and are also obscured behind a log and a jagged stump. Where I differ is that I don't think we are seeing the back of the figure. Once you figure out whats what, you can plainly see the figures face in profile looking down at the dog. Both arms as well as the thighs can be seen. Only the dog's head is visible as the rest of it is behind the figure and below the log. Do we know what time of day/night this image was taken? Cropped, Sepia filter, brightness and contrast boosted, slightly sharpened.

Would that be in the wintertime?.........Say, late November through mid March? Well, with that statement as a guide, Homo Denisovan, Homo floresiensis, and other hominid species never existed.

I think that 150 sasquatches might be low, too, but not by much. Below is a map of black bear density in Oregon. There are areas of high density, areas of moderate density, and areas of low density. I've also attached an SSR map of sasquatch reports in Oregon. Note that it matches the highest black bear density areas perfectly. So with those 150 or so sasquatches moving about, or becoming less active, or people going into the woods less often in winter, or all of the above, all contributing to a variance in the timelines of encounters, 125 to 200 sasquatches with a lifespan of 35-55 years seems to fit those maps quite comfortably.

and this is why I was choosing not to get into the pictures. Truth is... I don't know, but I've been staring at the image most of the morning. Here is what I see now.... (ALL SPECULATION) First - it takes a leap. We need to stop looking at what appears to be a human like face as a face. Think of it instead of reflecting IR off the back of a head. This re-orients the creature. We are looking at the back of it and it carries the other 'thing' in it's right arm, walking away. It is slightly downhill of the man in the comparison photo, which is why we can't see lower legs. If you stare long enough, thinking of this position it will start to register. Having the face forward (as I think we all believed) puts it in an awkward position, and makes the back thing stranger than strange. Now... The back 'thing' reminds me of a teddy bear being carried by a child, as if on or near the child's right hip. Problem is, the shape doesn't make any sense. It could be an animal, like a dog, or a baby bigfoot. The odd shape may be something carried, by the thing being carried. (if a dog, maybe a dog toy in it's mouth... and if a baby bigfoot, maybe something it's chewing on, or some toy that it likes, thinking in 'human' terms) I tried to consider that it could be a bird carrying some prey, but it appears that the arched stick is in front of it, meaning it can't be a small bird in the foreground. I doubt it's a 5 foot tall bird carrying a poodle. I am fairly certain it not a photo-shopped bigfoot statue or figurine. So there you go. I'm not convinced one way or the other, but I failed to see bear.

This is something I don't understand about "no known DNA". Maybe someone can enlighten me. A sample is submitted but its genetic markers are not quite human and do not match anything else known. It's given the generic title, "no known DNA". If you could assemble every "no known DNA" and compare them to each other, what would it tell us if 50% of them matched to each other? It would be instructive. Why aren't labs in this country collaborating and sending "no known DNA" profiles to each other, or to one organization, to match them against each other?

I'm very ignorant on DNA and how it works. I would like to think that you could start compiling these "unknowns" and if they match a pattern you start putting that in one pile and see what you can find? IDK, I'm confident its more complicated than that.

Ulterior motives but a shared means. It could work.

We only had the black ones , it was in Norway

I've only seen the first episode, the good: I like the Tech the have, and how they studied the terrain before making a plan. The so so: The inevitable drama stuff that they need for ratings I guess, likely unavoidable, but so far better than Finding bigfoot and a few other shows, we'll see in the end, I guess.

Starchunk has earned a one week vacation from the BFF for trolling. Please ignore his posts and continue...