Guest Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Anyway you slice it, the interview was very impressive. I don't think I have heard anyone who has listened to it say that they thought Musky was clearly lying at any point. It sounded genuine, far more than I'd expected; accordingly the legions of comments that Musky is a straight-up shill for RD have been silenced for the most part. Miller..my sentiments as well. He simply doesn't appear to be lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 It's not. It's just not. It is. It just is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I think what njj is saying and please forgive me if im wrong, is that in the scientific community, when taking hair samples for testing etc, you would generally use a paper envelope for storage as to not take anything away from the samples.... If this was not done then one could assume the hair had not been removed by someone with a scientific background.... I think you can work the rest out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 plastic degrades the hair because moisture builds up inside. If you want the hair to look natural when you sew or glue it back onto the shaved areas, you wouldn't use hair that looks different than the rest of the hair on the body. That's why you use paper storage, not plastic. Just a thought...it's been there allegedly for 5 months, right? Surely they have already extracted DNA through other means such as blood, flesh etc. Perhaps the hair was set aside for morphology analysis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 It is. It just is. Sadly, a HOAX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 (edited) I think what njj is saying and please forgive me if im wrong, is that in the scientific community, when taking hair samples for testing etc, you would generally use a paper envelope for storage as to not take anything away from the samples.... If this was not done then one could assume the hair had not been removed by someone with a scientific background.... I think you can work the rest out But maybe they have already done the testing and now the hair only needs applying back to the shaven areas for aesthetics? Sadly, a not a HOAX. Edited February 7, 2013 by JackiLB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I was almost 100% certain that there was no hoax until I heard the interview, but not quite as much now. There's nothing I can point to & say that it's the reason for my little niggling doubts, but there's "something" about it. Maybe it's the fact that Musky isn't known, or that nobody else that was there has spoken up. Maybe it's just a "feeling". Still firmly on the bleevers side, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 (edited) anyone who has made incisions on the BF, we would naturally assume they did have scientific background? Didn't dyer said people from the university came to see the body. If you have a scientific background, it's safe to say you are going to know how to properly handle samples of any type of evidence...such as hair. Edited February 7, 2013 by simplyskyla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Anyone that works in body preservation or storage would know that, that's the point. Musky probably doesn't. Dyer probably doesn't. Any professional would. The only reason you'd use a plastic bag is if freezing....but we've already ruled that out. Remember, for this to fit together, you have to assume someone did the rest of the work. And I'm just pointing out the inaccuracies lol, i'm not trying to tell them how to run their show. Just when you look at the inaccuracies, it doesn't fit together. If you're willing to ruin the hair with plastic bags, ruin the corpse by using formaldehyde (proposed idea by SASfooty), then why not freeze the corpse to preserve it since the other methods suggested would do just as much damage to any followup research? It doesn't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 My opinion of this hasnt changed yet. When something other than some un vetted anynomous guy, who may or may not be truthful as I have no way of vouching one way or the other about him, comes forward with something to convince me, I will change my mind. I dont have a problem believing this possible, I just have a massive problem believing the person who says it is. If Im wrong, Im wrong, I will toast each of whoever was right and continue to dislike our erswhile hero for his other massive character flaws. If I somehow can tell he has repented of his wife beating and crooked ways, I will be grateful for him as a human being and I will be his biggest advocate. But as of now, his actions to me are rephrehensible and per his comment a few posts above from his blog, about as hateful as you can be to this community. I think Mr. Musky is still a shill also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 The believers can speculate, but I don't see how you can justly wonder why, people such as myself, are not convinced. There is no evidence to support RD shot a bigfoot or that he has it's body still in custody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 @Jacki - regardless if they did initial DNA testing, the plan set forth by Dyer himself was the next step was to give it to a university for testing. They would want to run their own DNA tests to verify. The scientific community is always about verification. You don't trust the word of the tester before you unless you can verify their results. That's why the peer-review process is so time consuming. You don't contaminate the subject before it's about to be tested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 But maybe they have already done the testing and now the hair only needs applying back to the shaven areas for aesthetics? Yep agreed, but as a prop builder/costumer I can see the reason why you would use paper storage options, I have used real hair before when punching hair into a bust I made. Thinking back I did notice after leaving the hair in a sealed bag for a while, it actually made the hair a little greasy, and flat compared to how it came to me... However this thing is covered in hair, if they want more for future samples they can take it from somewhere else lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 Okay, I'll bow out. The believers are dominating.... I will GLADLY eat crow on video and post if this is in fact, "not a HOAX" as my words were manipulated to say..... Not that anyone would care and...for whatever it's worth, good luck. Hope you don't lose all the fervor after it's said and done! But remember this...a film company was/is involved. A good one...one that has special effects people. People who could make something look REALLY real. Think about it!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2013 Share Posted February 7, 2013 I was almost 100% certain that there was no hoax until I heard the interview, but not quite as much now. There's nothing I can point to & say that it's the reason for my little niggling doubts, but there's "something" about it. Maybe it's the fact that Musky isn't known, or that nobody else that was there has spoken up. Maybe it's just a "feeling". Still firmly on the bleevers side, though. I think until a proper bona fide scientist type person has been and given it the thumbs up then there will be some doubt. But then again, it could have a peer reviewed paper written and extensive coverage on the world media and still there would be people wondering if it was a hoax. I stay firmly on the non-hoax for Muskys convincing statement but also due all the many futile reasons for staging a highly complex and expensive hoax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts