gigantor Posted April 20, 2011 Admin Posted April 20, 2011 Guys, The more that I read about this big reveal, to actually have enough evidence to obtain a genuine species recognition, IMVHO, would require a specimen. Susi, I know you are a true Lady, loving and caring person. You always give everyone the benefit of the doubt and take them at their word. You remind me of my Mom. However, you are building yourself up for the big fall. You're getting too excited and I fear you'll come crashing down like a meteor later on. Step back, take a break for a week and see how it looks to you after that.
Guest Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 OK, obviously time to chime in. We do not now, nor have we ever had a Sasquatch body. I'll repeat. We do not have a Sasquatch body. I don't know of anyone who has a Sasquatch body. One of the biggest problems in this field is trying to wade through the rumors and find your way to the facts. One small piece of information repeated again and again can become extremely diluted, misconstrued and evolve into something completely different. That's exactly whats happening here. I've had three people get a hold of me today and ask about a body. It's funny and sad all at the same time. The Olympic Project works with many people. We have provided samples to the DNA study. Multiple people we work with have provided samples to the DNA study, but none of those samples are a body. We don't have a body. Researchers here on this forum who know, or have worked with me, know I'm a man of integrity, and I promise to any that care, I am telling the truth. I hope this clears a few things up. To admin, I'm sorry, I know this is probably the wrong thread for this, but the "body talk" keeps popping up and I felt I needed to say something. Derek
Guest grandcherokee Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 OK, here's my 2 cents. I always figured that at some point, some day we would have definitive proof of bigfoot in some form or another. Baring a body on a slab, I believe a clear photo or video would do the trick. I also believe that photo and video will not appear on YouTube or any other media such as that. That venue is for hoaxers and inconclusive blobsquatches. I also believe that a pay for view video or DVD will not be that definitive proof, either. That venue is for smarter hoaxers and inconclusive blobsquatches to get some of your money. If someone gets conclusive photo or video of one of these creatures, I think we will see more media coverage of it and hopefully scientific coverage, in the form of real scientists associated with primates, anthropology, biology, animal studies, etc. with even papers submitted for peer review. Dr. Bindernagel leaked the info that he claims to have seen a bigfoot at this location, what.... three years ago.? So far, nothing from him. No photos or video, no papers. Dr. Meldrum's input so far means squat. He has never seen a bigfoot, so he has no reference. (As a side note, folks that have actually seen a bigfoot will be the first to tell us the veracity of the images of any creatures that are supposed to be in this video.) Evidently there are a couple of other "scientists" working at the location for sometime now. No photos or videos, no papers. No, we are going to get a documentary style DVD that we will have to pay for. I am not the least bit bothered that someone would want to make money off of a bigfoot discovery. If you get proof of bigfoot, then by all means, take any money you can get. Pay yourself back for all of the time and money you have spent in trying to get proof. But lets get real here. If this is real proof of bigfoot, then we are going to see some documentation for the scientific community. And I am not talking about some scientist that is getting paid just to do some sort of bigfoot study in Kentucky that has a biased interest in justifying their purpose and paycheck. This "documentary" may have some interesting statements and footage, but in the end, it is just another inconclusive video to make money. IMHO, of course. And also in the humble opinion of anyone who has ever met Adrain Erikson! A lot of promotion with no evidence! Biscardi would be proud!
Guest believer Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 Anthropological point taken Xion. This is living, breathing science. Wonder which university will offer a ph.d first In squatchology.
BobbyO Posted April 20, 2011 SSR Team Posted April 20, 2011 And also in the humble opinion of anyone who has ever met Adrain Erikson! A lot of promotion with no evidence! Biscardi would be proud! Whoooaahh touche G, touche..
Guest Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 Susie, about all I could say right now is that the DNA will show many of us what we've expected for some time. If you simply add up the evidence to date with the details in the tracks, the morphology of the hair samples described by Fharenbach plus some that don't fit his criteria , the way Patty looks and walks, the vocalizations both the howls and the speech like the Sierra Sounds. The answer is right there. BTW I have a sample in the study as well. Hmm... interesting!
Guest Cervelo Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 Is there any scientific precedent for proving the existence of an unknow species in this way? It seems to me it normally goes like this witness reports, go find it, get good photo or body, then it's recognized. This might be part of the delay. I could see peer review perhaps being an issue. I also believe (and could be wrong) that peer review has more to do with the process used more so than the conclusion?
southernyahoo Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 There doesn't seem to be any problem publishing on a probable new species of the genus homo with not much more than a pinky bone, but this one is supposed to be extinct, so we need not worry about the conservation of it's kind. http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100324/full/464472a.html
Guest Posted April 21, 2011 Posted April 21, 2011 Susi, I know you are a true Lady, loving and caring person. You always give everyone the benefit of the doubt and take them at their word. You remind me of my Mom. However, you are building yourself up for the big fall. You're getting too excited and I fear you'll come crashing down like a meteor later on. Step back, take a break for a week and see how it looks to you after that. You are really that worried about the evidence? Dear one, You are so sweet to think about my feelings if this is a bust, or a hoax because I've believed them to be truthful with the claims I've heard here. Yikes, We are being mislead? Seriously?
Guest Posted April 21, 2011 Posted April 21, 2011 if they are a species of human, how long do you think it will take for someone to atempt inter breeding with them?
Guest Posted April 21, 2011 Posted April 21, 2011 (edited) Thank you Susi! Insiders say there will be a press conference. That's about all I know so far. Everyone's at the mercy of the peer review being passed. According to Dr. Ketchum, there should be no problems. Derek and Rich from the Olympic Project have sent Dr. Ketchum very unique samples in large enough quantities to repeat the results for years to come. The science is there, and everyone involved has signed an NDA, so they can't make any statements yet. It's the calm before the storm... Bring on The Year of the Sasquatch! Efrum, How could they have so much evidence collected for years of studying and testing and not have body parts? There is only so much you can do with scat. What else could they have besides hair and scat? Good pictures and film? Thank you Susi! Insiders say there will be a press conference. That's about all I know so far. Everyone's at the mercy of the peer review being passed. According to Dr. Ketchum, there should be no problems. Derek and Rich from the Olympic Project have sent Dr. Ketchum very unique samples in large enough quantities to repeat the results for years to come. The science is there, and everyone involved has signed an NDA, so they can't make any statements yet. It's the calm before the storm... Bring on The Year of the Sasquatch! I truly hope that this is "The Year of the Sasquatch! Edited April 21, 2011 by masterbarber
Guest Thepattywagon Posted April 21, 2011 Posted April 21, 2011 if they are a species of human, how long do you think it will take for someone to atempt inter breeding with them? Now there's a visual . Yikes.
Guest Posted April 21, 2011 Posted April 21, 2011 Now there's a visual . Yikes. could you imagine lol? i was thinking more along the lines of .gov trying to create a force of what ever they pleased.
Guest Posted April 21, 2011 Posted April 21, 2011 The only thing I'm worried about is the peer review process. The mountain of skepticism is extremely difficult to climb. I doubt it is going to be easy to get it through and may be sent back to Ketchum for revision. So it might take awhile. Yikes, Honey, I've dealt with these issues, and I'm aware that resolving these issues with DNA and pictures can and will take time. The researchers who accept the *proof* will wish to do their own testing, correct? This could take years IMVHO. I was ready yesterday, well, many years ago like most of the members here who were also fascinated with the PGF, and believed it to be true, which I still do BTW, even tho I've had a few hard times resolving my beliefs when seeing and reading the skeptics points of view.. If BF is human, we will have a lot of football recruiters roaming the woods looking to hand out scholarships. You think the school systems will ask where are the BF children being educated? They may request more funding to handle the increase of students. Humans didn't need fire either, but once they discovered it, utilized it to their advantage. Turned out to be a major turning point in evolution. Before fire, human's could eat raw beef without worries. Now, odds are we'd be sick in bed for a week if we ate beef right off the back of a cow. As far as temperature control goes, the thick fur of a Bigfoot may not be enough to survive cold winters at higher altitudes. Fire would still serve as an effective survival tool. I wouldn't be surprised if Bigfoot had already discovered fire, but utilized it to a much lesser degree. How do you suppose they would create the fire? Woods have lots of natural dried up kindling and fire wood, but starting the fire could be a problem. It certainly would be for me. I, all alone, would not be able to start a fire w/o matches. Xion Comrade said:(post 564) Yes! And we will be one step closer to the question that is really on our mind, and to what we really want! When can we have a pet Sasquatch? Susi says: I suspect when they can be house broken and taught *not* to *kill* the pets. Plus your significant other may have something to say about a pet BF that eats anything and everything, plus would need to be housebroken, and may nibble on the pets, or the children.... I certainly would speak up. No would be my answer..... Another hint: the "animal". Can you provide the source? If that is an exact quote, then we may have a clue as to their genetic makeup. Is BF truly an animal, or something between human and animal? That is what I think will be revealed, they are something between human and animal, but mostly animal. The only thing I'm worried about is the peer review process. The mountain of skepticism is extremely difficult to climb. I doubt it is going to be easy to get it through and may be sent back to Ketchum for revision. So it might take awhile. I would be very surprised if it was not sent back numerous times. These experts are putting their whole future and peer recognition on the line with this revelation of an existing BF species.
Recommended Posts