Guest bsruther Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Ok - Here's my question - So all this stupid waiting on DNA BS, but probably with no body. Still suppose to be "groundbreaking". It's been YEARS, right? Don't the major players in this run the risk of DYING before the release? Or have some other group beat them to the punch and prove existence first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Ok - Here's my question - So all this stupid waiting on DNA BS, but probably with no body. Still suppose to be "groundbreaking". It's been YEARS, right? Don't the major players in this run the risk of DYING before the release? Here, here. A paternity test takes only a week. I mean, we could be talking about the most famous body part out side Meagan Fox's butt, or even Keith Richards liver. OOOHHH Meagan! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 It's been YEARS, right? Don't the major players in this run the risk of DYING before the release? This is what I have always thought as well as a squatch could get hit by a truck at any moment and blow all of their projects out of the water. "Bigfoot is Real!" with the body all over CNN and Fox News as well as all the networks; then Erickson can chime in and say "Oh yeah look at this DNA I've been sitting on for 5 years and here's video of a live one peaking around a tree from 100 yards and oh yeah here is the first thermal of as bigfoot from 4 years ago that nobody has ever seen." Would the value of the projects in question be decreased if a sasquatch was hit by a car prior to the release? I would say yes although they would need to get them out fast after acceptance of existance to recover at least 80% of what the value would have been. JMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 (edited) According to Paulides at North America Bigfoot Search, one of the hair samples provided to Dr. Ketchum was collected by Raven Ullibarri after a Bigfoot sighting in Northern California. Paulides interviewed her for his book THE HOOPA PROJECT and also provided a forensic artist, Harvey Pratt, to sketch the animal as she described it to him. She says she saw a massive, hairy man, with a face sketched thus: It would be hard to see ape in this face. Is this the REAL sasquatch? Or do we have too large a blanket of phenomena under the name Bigfoot? If the DNA returns "human," does this prove Bigfoot, or does it mislead us? How do the alleged videos in Kentucky stack up with a human Bigfoot? Do the subjects look like Raven's sasquatch? Can there really be an eastern wookie and a western giant NA, but with virtually identical DNA? Does any of this make sense? Will this turn out to be a comedy of errors? Who will be vindicated? Paulides? Meldrum? Green? Anyone? John Napier said in his book that based on the evidence he had to accept the probability that sasquai were real. However, he also stated that sasquai will turn out not to be what they are cracked up to be. I never knew exactly what he meant because he did not explain himself. Now, I'm thinking this: he looked at those essentially (large) human tracks and was privately concluding----sasquatch is human. Is that what all this is about? Bigfoot is people! Edited July 1, 2011 by jerrywayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 According to Paulides at North America Bigfoot Search, one of the hair samples provided to Dr. Ketchum was collected by Raven Ullibarri after a Bigfoot sighting in Northern California. Paulides interviewed her for his book THE HOOPA PROJECT and also provided a forensic artist, Harvey Pratt, to sketch the animal as she described it to him. She says she saw a massive, hairy man, with a face sketched thus: It would be hard to see ape in this face. Is this the REAL sasquatch? Or do we have too large a blanket of phenomena under the name Bigfoot? If the DNA returns "human," does this prove Bigfoot, or does it mislead us? How do the alleged videos in Kentucky stack up with a human Bigfoot? Do the subjects look like Raven's sasquatch? Can there really be an eastern wookie and a western giant NA, but with virtually identical DNA? Does any of this make sense? Will this turn out to be a comedy of errors? Who will be vindicated? Paulides? Meldrum? Green? Anyone? John Napier said in his book that based on the evidence he had to accept the probability that sasquai were real. However, he also stated that sasquai will turn out not to be what they are cracked up to be. I never knew exactly what he meant because he did not explain himself. Now, I'm thinking this: he looked at those essentially (large) human tracks and was privately concluding----sasquatch is human. Is that what all this is about? Bigfoot is people! Well said! Considering the recent information that's been released; coupled with all the descriptions and strange stories from witnesses, it's starting to make sense that human is the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Ok - Here's my question - So all this stupid waiting on DNA BS, but probably with no body. Still suppose to be "groundbreaking". It's been YEARS, right? Don't the major players in this run the risk of DYING before the release? I'm worried about the same thing! I've been waiting for decades, and I'm *not* getting younger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 (edited) Considering the recent information that's been released; coupled with all the descriptions and strange stories from witnesses, it's starting to make sense that human is the answer. Oh those skeptics. They've been saying bigfoot was hoaxed, mistaken, hallucinated or simply mistaken animals that were actually humans for years, and have been relentlessly vilified for it. The irony of the skeptics being right and the die-hards wrong is just too juicy. Edited July 3, 2011 by grayjay Namecalling, violation 1A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Bass Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 (edited) Oh those skeptics. They've been saying bigfoot was hoaxed, mistaken, hallucinated or simply mistaken animals that were actually humans for years, and have been relentlessly vilified for it. The irony of the skeptics being right and the die-hards wrong is just too juicy. If you must know the only skeptics I see that get vilified are ones who make posts like this. If you don't respect what we believe in, that's your right to do so, but at least do not act like you are above the rancor when sadly you are no better. Sorry, but your post here just completely rubs me the wrong way and I have to question when I see a skeptic revel in believers being wrong why are they in here in the first place, in your case I suspect to taunt believers, or the "die-hards" as you put it. Edited July 3, 2011 by grayjay Quoted edited post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 (edited) Oh those skeptics. They've been saying bigfoot was hoaxed, mistaken, hallucinated or simply mistaken animals that were actually humans for years, and have been relentlessly vilified for it. The irony of the skeptics being right and the die-hards wrong is just too juicy. Yes, you guys were right all along and we were sorely mistaken. How embarrassing for us but, at least, it's over and we have been set straight. No sense spending time over here anymore. Perhaps you guys could mosey on over to the Nessie forum and get those guys straightened out!? Bye bye and thanks again for all your help. No need to look back.. Edited July 3, 2011 by grayjay Quoted edited post & violation 1A 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tracker Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 (edited) The skeptics will either reject the conclusions or bail to another topic to avoid eating crow. If the burden of proof was on their shoulders they wouldn't be interested in debating Bf in forums(no advantage). Also there would be no entertainment value left from challenging believers. JMO Edited July 2, 2011 by tracker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 According to Paulides at North America Bigfoot Search, one of the hair samples provided to Dr. Ketchum was collected by Raven Ullibarri after a Bigfoot sighting in Northern California. Paulides interviewed her for his book THE HOOPA PROJECT and also provided a forensic artist, Harvey Pratt, to sketch the animal as she described it to him. She says she saw a massive, hairy man, with a face sketched thus: It would be hard to see ape in this face. Is this the REAL sasquatch? Or do we have too large a blanket of phenomena under the name Bigfoot? If the DNA returns "human," does this prove Bigfoot, or does it mislead us? How do the alleged videos in Kentucky stack up with a human Bigfoot? Do the subjects look like Raven's sasquatch? Can there really be an eastern wookie and a western giant NA, but with virtually identical DNA? Does any of this make sense? Will this turn out to be a comedy of errors? Who will be vindicated? Paulides? Meldrum? Green? Anyone? John Napier said in his book that based on the evidence he had to accept the probability that sasquai were real. However, he also stated that sasquai will turn out not to be what they are cracked up to be. I never knew exactly what he meant because he did not explain himself. Now, I'm thinking this: he looked at those essentially (large) human tracks and was privately concluding----sasquatch is human. Is that what all this is about? Bigfoot is people! BF's are more assuredly not human, anymore than Homo erectus or Homo heidelbergens are human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tracker Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 BF's are more assuredly not human, anymore than Homo erectus or Homo heidelbergens are human. Nice sketch it reminds me of pic on the cover Autumns Enoch book. IMO they gone with a more human appearance than from what I've seen N/E and PNW. Maybe trying to influence a different general opinion of the creatures? JMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fanofsquatch Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 No matter what the results, video and DNA, the debate will continue. I for one am thinking that the Erickson project will raise more questions than answers. The only be all end all solution is to capture a live one. If anyone involved in the EP, Olympic, or any other "group" has a BF body or two they better put up soon because they have to be saying "Ok we know for sure it is real, and because it is real that increases the odds ten fold of a hunter, truck, or Biscardi coming up with one before us." Could you imagine if Biscardi was the first to bag one!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 BF's are more assuredly not human, anymore than Homo erectus or Homo heidelbergens are human. Well said Silver Fox! It is good to add a reality check sometimes...Yikes Twice, I feel that we are going far afield here in some ways of thinking and reasoning. IMOVHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 i wonder, susi, if you resent the human theory for essentially spiritual reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts