1980squatch Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 Yes show 55 was fun, they are all great. But I am sick of the skeptic "memory is so unreliable" card, spouting off with the we can make people think they saw this character at an event where it is impossible, or saw something at an impossible time, etc. Who cares, so you can stick a spoon in someones streaming background memory material and stir it around a bit. Make someone think they had a class A bigfoot encounter and you have something, otherwise shut TF up... 1
Guest DWA Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 (edited) ^^^No kidding. Maybe Joe did morph Janusz in Aisle 5 into a bigfoot sighting but I doubt it. And thinking someone saw a bear and made it a bigfoot is a dead tipoff that one has either never seen a bear or never read the reports. Edited October 21, 2013 by DWA
Guest Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 We've not found any similar sounds. The next most likely source for a sound like this would, I suppose, be some kind of bird, but we have experienced birders and outdoorsman in the group and they've not heard the sound before. Birds (grouse, partridge, woodcock, turkey, ptarmigan etc) were the first things I looked into as well. Nothing even came close for me either. It really did sound like a person(s) clucking their tongue loudly against their hard palate whilst modulating the sound with their cheeks and lips, but at a volume about three times what a person seems able to do, on experimentation. Weird. I have no idea what made that sound, but it seems lots of other people have heard it in association with ape sightings. Thanks for the feedback.
WSA Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 ^^^No kidding. Maybe Joe did morph Janusz in Aisle 5 into a bigfoot sighting but I doubt it. And thinking someone saw a bear and made it a bigfoot is a dead tipoff that one has either never seen a bear or never read the reports. As the expression goes, everything looks like a nail to somebody hankering to hammer something. (This can cut on both sides too, of course) The illusion of complete objectivity: It would be nice if some would acknowledge that ANYTHING taken in by the human senses is subjective. (This includes reading the needle on that really cool hand-held info-rometer) Because there is no "Bigfoot Seen" setting on the read-out, the information gets downgraded to an, "I can comfortably ignore that" event. When, instead, it should be going onto the "I can't reasonably explain that" pile. So, as long as you can keep it off of that pile, it doesn't require your future attention. Neat outcome, and nobody gets embarrassed. As you and I and many others have predicted DWA, the real fistfight starts AFTER the specimen is tagged and bagged. It will make this current debate look quaint by comparison.
Guest DWA Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 ^^^^Practically none of us here will ever see the end of finding bigfoot no caps ...barring luck (good or ill) none can foresee.
WSA Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 With caps? For as long as the sponsors are happy, which could be a looooooong time, yeah. Those folks have "taken back" objectivity to the point of being re-****-a-loose. Bulldogging this back to something like on-topic: I do think the NAWAC is very ably keeping the idea of private vs. public proof in the forefront of what they are trying to do. They have gone over that line where most who have had a personal encounter stop short with a "I've got mine, who cares about you?" stance. In this regard, I think they are one-upping those scientific minds who really should be clamoring for their research data RIGHT NOW!! But as far as I know, they are not. I can't imagine anything more thankless than laboring for public proof without public support or acknowledgment that your efforts are meaningful...especially an indifference from those who should know better. When/if public proof comes from them, I only trust those same scientific minds will have the grace and good manners to acknowledge the favor they were doing now for all of us...whether some knew it or not. Unless I miss my guess too, these NAWAC researchers are not the types inclined to indulge in "I told you so's" unnecessarily. (This might be what we used to call "class.") For that, some might later be thankful. And if they fail spectacularly in trying to reach their goal? Classy just the same. So, as I see it, they are on the high road, no matter which way it turns. 1
Guest Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 ...it seems lots of other people have heard it in association with ape sightings. If you can give me some links of reports with this sound in them, I'd appreciate it.
southernyahoo Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 You might search for "tongue tock" here and elsewhere.
southernyahoo Posted October 23, 2013 Posted October 23, 2013 Here's a thread with the tongue sounds, among others. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/1911-what-sounds-have-you-heard-or-recorded-that-suggest-it-could-be-bf/page-6?hl=%2Btongue+%2Btock#entry23814
Guest Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 (edited) Regarding Sykes and his study, it's not entirely clear the hair sample sent by the NAWAC was tested (at least based on what was on the Bigfoot Files). We'll try to get some clarification. We know via delivery confirmation that the hair got to his lab, but that's it. I'll pass along whatever I can as facts are known. Edited October 28, 2013 by bipto
Cotter Posted October 28, 2013 Posted October 28, 2013 ^thx Bipto! Question - what is your confidence level that the sample you submitted came from an ape?
Guest Posted October 29, 2013 Posted October 29, 2013 We couldn't identify it. That's about all I can say. It was found circumstantially connected to an ape encounter and we couldn't identify it. We feel is could very well be, but at this point, can't say one way or another since it's gone to England. Hopefully, Sykes will announce something about it. Perhaps when the paper is published.
southernyahoo Posted October 29, 2013 Posted October 29, 2013 It is possible that Sample 6 is from a human, though as we detailed above, it does not fit the profile of human hair. It could also be from an exotic species, such as an orangutan (Pongo), though that possibility seems highly unlikely due to the incompatible climate of the area. Based on our analysis, we believe there are enough intriguing attributes to warrant its inclusion in the Sykes study. We look forward to learning its findings. I'm predicting human on sample 6. That root bulb is another giveaway. Since you haven't heard the results as negative for bigfoot, I think this means Sykes is going to have a deep look at the question of bigfoot being a hominin/ human.
the parkie Posted October 29, 2013 Posted October 29, 2013 If Sykes didn't test it, how keen is NAWAC to cough up the 1500 smackers to get it tested?!
Guest UPs Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 How about this scenario......if NAWAC does collect a specimen, send out hair samples to many separate labs/individuals that have shown what seems to be a bias with past samples. Keep the specimen information completely private and then once you do go public with the specimen, include the results from any labs/individuals that you believe showed a biased result. That may affect their reputation as far as DNA analysis goes. There would sure to be much back pedaling, but it may also lead to others questioning their own results if they used the same testing facilities. I really don't think this is a widespread problem at all, but if some scientists are, this would expose them publicly.
Recommended Posts