Guest Stan Norton Posted October 27, 2013 Share Posted October 27, 2013 OK. Slow start. Essentially all about Justin Smeja. I'm thinking: if you shot a sasquatch why didn't you stick it in your Jeep? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TexasTracker Posted October 27, 2013 Share Posted October 27, 2013 someone post a link so we can watch it please... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted October 27, 2013 Share Posted October 27, 2013 (edited) Oh dear. It's like a bad reality TV show... Quote: "It's beginning to feel more like a religion than science". Edited October 27, 2013 by Stan Norton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkGlasgow Posted October 27, 2013 Share Posted October 27, 2013 ^^ Not sure how the presenter reached that conclusion. Derek Randles steps up to the plate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted October 27, 2013 Share Posted October 27, 2013 There is No getting away from the fact that some of you chaps live in one of the most amazing parts of the world. Stunning landscapes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted October 27, 2013 Share Posted October 27, 2013 (edited) 1: black bear 2: (Smeja) black bear Remainder: bear, wolf, dog, porcupine, cow, wt deer and horse. Edited October 27, 2013 by Stan Norton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest crabshack Posted October 27, 2013 Share Posted October 27, 2013 It this the boot test? So after killing a bear he stepped in some wolf poop that ate a porcupine, cow, wt deer and horse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 27, 2013 Share Posted October 27, 2013 Basically everything apart from Bigfoot. Horse, cow, porcupine, wolf etc. In other words, something better than hair samples are needed. It woild have been better to see some discussion on the PG film, but ir wasn't ven mentioned. That said, this is a series about a guy who DNA tests hair samples, bot an in depth investigation into film and photographic evidence. This is no way says that BF doesn't exist, just that different evidence is required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted October 27, 2013 Share Posted October 27, 2013 It this the boot test? So after killing a bear he stepped in some wolf poop that ate a porcupine, cow, wt deer and horse? Ha! Nope. No blood at all on boot. Smeja said he was off to bed to cry for a couple of days. Bottom line is that this programme is not about sasquatch physical evidence but mostly about psychological conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkGlasgow Posted October 27, 2013 Share Posted October 27, 2013 Yup. Seemed the conclusion was that we're all a bit nuts and should maybe go and seek some help of some kind. All of this based on 12 flimsy samples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 27, 2013 Share Posted October 27, 2013 Washington state samples (including a sample from the Olympic project): 1. Cow 2. Cow 3. Black bear 4. White tail deer 5. Canine, wolf or dog (olympic project sample submitted by Derek Randles) 6. Canine, wolf or dog (Marcel Cagey) 7. NOT STATED 8. Arizona sample: Racoon 9. Texas sample: Horse 10. Michigan sample: Porcupine 11. Sierra Kills Smeja submitted hair samples of a black bear. No steak as such. Boot was tested for blood and NO blood could be found on the boot. He looked a broken man and was in tears after hearing the results. 12. Placer County, Northern Cal. (Dan shirley and Garland Fields) Black bear DID ANYONE ELSE PICK UP THAT ONE SAMPLE FROM WASHINGTON STATE WAS UNACCOUNTED FOR? Sykes did state at the ens of the programme that the US project did not find a 'bigfoot' so it is somewhat perplexing.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 27, 2013 Share Posted October 27, 2013 My very first gut feeling about Sykes was he was gonna be a boost for the skeptics Hope I am wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gotta Know Posted October 27, 2013 Share Posted October 27, 2013 Truly perplexing, given the "this will change the course of human history" (paraphrase) comment used to promote the show. And, what's the point of a peer review if there is nothing to look at? STILL thinking a size 18 shoe has to drop... DID ANYONE ELSE PICK UP THAT ONE SAMPLE FROM WASHINGTON STATE WAS UNACCOUNTED FOR?Sykes did state at the ens of the programme that the US project did not find a 'bigfoot' so it is somewhat perplexing.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest blackbriar Posted October 27, 2013 Share Posted October 27, 2013 (edited) Turns out we are all gullible idiots that want to believe, gutted. Lets face it, they were never going to reveal anything revolutionary were they. They made out that they'd given the bigfooters a new direction at the end, I'm still puzzled as to what direction that is though. Edited October 27, 2013 by blackbriar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted October 27, 2013 Share Posted October 27, 2013 My very first gut feeling about Sykes was he was gonna be a boost for the skeptics Hope I am wrong. Not sure about that but I suspect that this will be used as proof that its all rubbish anyway. Anyone familiar with the sasquatch phenomenon knows that the purported evidence is not restricted to hair - I don't think that's the most convincing 'evidence' anyway but, as Sykes says, if just one sample proves good then the game's over... this study, however prestigious, just demonstrates that those samples tested (12) are not primate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts