Guest Posted February 24, 2012 Posted February 24, 2012 Ray i understand i presented several points of view but i feel like all these points of view bring me to the same conclusion, there's something out there and we just don't know what. I guess the point i'm most curious on whether you agree with me about, is why there have been no bones or bodies found. You've read the points i've made about scavenging and decomposition in forest habitats, and heard my theory about using there dead as a food source, just wondering if you agreed. I was hoping you could briefly explain what the ketchum report is, i am very naive to the subject. Saskeptic that's a great comparison. Ray until more serious efforts are made, not this Moneymaker joke, there will be no concrete evidence.
georgerm Posted February 24, 2012 Author Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) Beats me. Folks like Moneymaker at the BFRO treat bigfoots like something that can't be encountered during the day, and this makes no sense. I do a lot of owl survey work. I get some more interesting vocalizations at night (some), but my clearest observations occur during the day. All but one of my owl photos have been taken in daylight too. My observations lead me to believe that nocturnal animals enjoy grazing during the light of the moon which is half of the month during the Summer, then bed down at sunrise. On overcast days they can't see at night so they graze during the day. Deer are constantly trying to stay hard to see to avoid cougars, and that's why we see them at dawn and dusk on days when the moon is small or covered by clouds. If BF is smart, it knows loggers and others are in the forest during the day, so they come out at night. One theory is BFs that are seen during the day were scared out of their beds or the night had no moon so they fed during morning and evening. Who really knows since the BFs seems to out smart us on a daily basis. You've read the points i've made about scavenging and decomposition in forest habitats, and heard my theory about using there dead as a food source, just wondering if you agreed. INHO BFs are rare, they live in really remote areas so we never find their bones. BFs may bury their dead too. Edited February 24, 2012 by georgerm
Guest Posted February 24, 2012 Posted February 24, 2012 Ya i've herd that before, i find it hard to believe, but it's possible.
georgerm Posted February 25, 2012 Author Posted February 25, 2012 Well soon we may have some really good evidence..........DNA from the Ketchum project. This should convince a few more people or will it be torn to pieces and not accepted by the general population? Will some people throw it aside and wait for a dead BF to be brought in?
Guest Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 The Ketchum Project is really fascinating stuff, but i don't no if a few hair samples will be enough to convince the world. Only time will tell.
Guest Biggie Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 Geo I removed your quote of the previous user from your post #95. Anyone who hasn't done so yet read my sig and view the Admin link in it, and remember not to quote the previous user immediately above you in the future.
Guest Cervelo Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 Well soon we may have some really good evidence..........DNA from the Ketchum project. This should convince a few more people or will it be torn to pieces and not accepted by the general population? Will some people throw it aside and wait for a dead BF to be brought in? Yes and most
Guest MikeG Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) The Ketchum Project is really fascinating stuff, but i don't no if a few hair samples will be enough to convince the world. Only time will tell. In a world of science-literate critical thinkers, DNA from even just a few hair samples SHOULD be enough. Unfortunately, that isn't the world we live in. However, a couple of big lumps of flesh should persuade a few.... Mike Edited February 25, 2012 by MikeG
Guest Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 How about hair, flesh chunks, toenails, scat, saliva, blood and semen? Oh wait, everything except the last one. Yikes.
Guest Kerchak Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) What Evidence Convinces You If that's a man in a suit then I am a Trappist monk. I've seen men in suits...............and they aren't like THAT! Edited February 25, 2012 by Kerchak
georgerm Posted February 25, 2012 Author Posted February 25, 2012 I'll second that. The muscles are enormous and show through well.
Guest Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 (edited) Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence in the scientific sense. We have to find a body. Edited to add: On the other hand, killing an animal to prove it exists isn't helpful either. Edited February 25, 2012 by fishnut
georgerm Posted February 26, 2012 Author Posted February 26, 2012 (edited) What about hair evidence? Edited February 26, 2012 by Biggie -Removed needless quote from post.
Guest Biggie Posted February 26, 2012 Posted February 26, 2012 (edited) Geogerm, this is the third no the fourth time I've had to tell you to stop quoting the previous user immediately above you. Read my sig and the Admin link in it. Enough is enough. If you need to see the quote written in front of you to be clear in your responses then remember to delete the quote just before posting. Edited February 26, 2012 by Biggie -Text edit
Guest RayG Posted February 26, 2012 Posted February 26, 2012 I guess the point i'm most curious on whether you agree with me about, is why there have been no bones or bodies found. You've read the points i've made about scavenging and decomposition in forest habitats, and heard my theory about using there dead as a food source, just wondering if you agreed. Caesar, I'm not sure I agree with your view on the lack of bones or bodies. Animals die in the forest every day, whether it's in British Columbia and Washington State, or Ohio and Ontario. People sometimes find some of those bones and bodies of animals, and sometimes even human bones and bodies. I spent a great deal of time in the woods in my younger years, and have personally stumbled upon bones, so if anyone tells you that people don't find the bones of any animal in the woods, it's simply untrue. I still have trouble thinking logically about no bigfoot road-kill too. We know that the size of an animal has no bearing on whether or not it ends up as road kill. Moose, for example. Being shy and reclusive is no protection either. Even a shy and elusive wolverine has ended up as road-kill. I was hoping you could briefly explain what the ketchum report is, i am very naive to the subject. Briefly? People have sent her samples to examine for DNA identification. Many samples. We are presently waiting to hear what her conclusions are about the DNA testing she conducted. Ray until more serious efforts are made, not this Moneymaker joke, there will be no concrete evidence. On that I agree. I've been following this mystery long enough to think that even if serious efforts are made, there might not be any concrete evidence too. What about hair evidence? What about it? If you mean the results of the testing by Dr. Ketchum, we don't know what the conclusions are as they haven't been published. If you mean previous hair testing, which ones in particular do you think show evidence for bigfoot? RayG
Recommended Posts