Guest JiggyPotamus Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Personally I've always doubted hair samples in general. I think this is logical considering the following: there are so many more identified animals that could potentially lose a hair somewhere than there are sasquatch. Think of just bears alone. Out of ANY hair found in the woods, the large percentage of them are going to belong to known animals, plain and simple. Plus, bears are always scratching themselves on trees, or doing who knows what. I don't think sasquatch would do this, considering they have arms and hands. They would as soon pick up a stick and scratch themselves I'm sure. That is what I would do, and they seem to possess some human intelligence characteristics. The more I think about it, it seems extremely difficult to go out in the woods and find sasquatch DNA, not just because of all the other animals out there, but also because the behaviors of various animals are going to have an effect on when and where they lose hair. I admit that this is sort of in conflict with my idea of a largely increasing bigfoot population, although there would still be more bears and other animals whose hairs could potentially be confused with that of sasquatch. In my opinion all of these efforts will likely prove a waste of time. What is needed is a body, plain and simple. And I do not think that people should criticize those who are pro-kill either. There are equal opportunities out there for those who wish to capture a bigfoot alive, and those who wish to kill one. Who will accomplish their goals first? Not to mention there is equal opportunity for those wishing to prove existence via DNA samples found in the woods. The ONLY viable samples in my opinion are those taken DIRECTLY from a sasquatch. And I do not need to tell anyone here how difficult that would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Go to an alleged Bigfoot nest....get all the hair you can handle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanFooter Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Personally I use sterilized 20 gauge shotgun bore brushes zip tied to the tip of a spruce branch with the copper wire teeth sticking out from the underside of the branch. I put them up at about 6 foot to 6 foot 4 . These work great for hair collection, I deployed about 4 of them this last year on main game trails in area D, we will see what turns up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted November 1, 2013 Author Share Posted November 1, 2013 These work great for hair collection, I deployed about 4 of them this last year on main game trails in area D, we will see what turns up. Really? Tell us all about the Bigfoot hairs you have collected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanFooter Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Drew , non yet , just deployed them this year but I have done extensive testing with them on humans and animals to see if they are effective at grabbing hair and holding it. I apologize if this sounded vague, I have yet to get back and see if we got anything. Just wanted to offer researchers a cheap and easy way to aid in hair collection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 The Sykes study has become a complete non-event for me. I didn't wait on it with baited breath and after I saw the first slanted episode I mentally tuned out. What a surprise. And I held out practically 0 hope on the Smeja boots considering their carelessly attended to state. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Bigfoot will never be found or discovered in such a way that it will be universally recognized. Patterson found it but all he got was a bunch of jack-a-ninnies squabbling over a technology that didn't exist then and that has yet to manifest itself now. The only way now is for it to show itself. Maybe show up at Yellowstone carrying a buffalo as a roadside attraction posing with tourists. After the bitter taste from the Ketchum "report" I give up on seeking affirmations from "science". I'll take a pass on the lab coats and just rely on my own wit and discernment as I have always done. what? you give up on sykes because he didn't find what you wanted him to find. he seems to have found a lot of stuff that both logical and scientific sense. the Zana results especially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted November 2, 2013 Moderator Share Posted November 2, 2013 Nathan - Kudos for creative thinking. That's awesome! MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 The Sykes study has become a complete non-event for me. I didn't wait on it with baited breath and after I saw the first slanted episode I mentally tuned out. What a surprise. And I held out practically 0 hope on the Smeja boots considering their carelessly attended to state. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Bigfoot will never be found or discovered in such a way that it will be universally recognized. Patterson found it but all he got was a bunch of jack-a-ninnies squabbling over a technology that didn't exist then and that has yet to manifest itself now. The only way now is for it to show itself. Maybe show up at Yellowstone carrying a buffalo as a roadside attraction posing with tourists. After the bitter taste from the Ketchum "report" I give up on seeking affirmations from "science". I'll take a pass on the lab coats and just rely on my own wit and discernment as I have always done. How would a specimen, live or dead, not be universally recognized? I grant you that Bigfoot will never be universally recognized with more of the current crop of evidence, but a an actual specimen? That could never be disputed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePhaige Posted November 3, 2013 Share Posted November 3, 2013 Nothing has changed for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 3, 2013 Share Posted November 3, 2013 nathan it is a great idea. potentially another...those really nice big fat dried cockleburrs...grab hair very well...and stretching my mind to imagine what set up would work.. go nathan! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Migrantworkers Posted November 3, 2013 Share Posted November 3, 2013 The Sykes study gives me hope as to the ultimate proving the existence of Bigfoot A very well respected has approached the subject with an open mind and appears to have been funded very well to do so My take as to which samples got "the full testing" was that after he studied each visually he then selected those that were ambiguous under the microscope I hope that he turns something up...I hope that this causes the bf community to dig a little deeper...and more carefully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest blackbriar Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 It was a dissapointment but I wasn't really expecting anything else however much I was wanting the big "we've found him". I can see how it would dishearten people that this big study has drawn to its conclusion, it could leave people thinking that they aren't real but realisticly, they only tested a few samples, 90% of which were just from found hair, so they just proved that they hadn't found Sasquatch rather than disproving its existence. As an island dweller (UK) I have no chance of a sighting here, no chance of anything other than second or third hand offerings on the internet or TV for bigfootery, if the numbers of people who do see these things even taking into account some will be attention seekers and looneys, there are still plenty of experienced, knowledgable and believable sightings that far outweigh the mere 12 or so samples of hair that were proved to be from something identifiable. I'm still as convinced as I was that it might be real, sitting firmly on the fence, but feet on the real side ready to jump down when I see one or science finally catches up with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 (edited) First of all the Sykes report has two dna hits on a unclassified species of bear from two different samples taken 800 miles apart. I see this as a victory in many ways. First of all how ludicrous is it for science to have this large of a blind spot? And if there is one are there others? Two, lets just say for a moment that a unclassified large bear is responsible for yeti reports...... What does that do to the imagination hypothesis made by skeptics? People where not simply seeing things......... Just because it may now be a possibility that a yeti is a undiscovered bear? Does not destroy Sasquatch.......,, But I will say again that hair samples do not give me high hopes with discovery, as Sykes report about a undiscovered bear is now being called into question If smeja's sample had came back as primate? Throwing a party is way....way premature. Edited November 19, 2013 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WV FOOTER Posted November 19, 2013 Admin Share Posted November 19, 2013 Personally I use sterilized 20 gauge shotgun bore brushes zip tied to the tip of a spruce branch with the copper wire teeth sticking out from the underside of the branch. I put them up at about 6 foot to 6 foot 4 . These work great for hair collection, I deployed about 4 of them this last year on main game trails in area D, we will see what turns up. +1 to you NathanFooter. That is an excellent idea. I bet it works Great. I think Sykes is Doing the best he can with what he's got. This whole episode has cast a shadow of doubt on the stories told of the samples origins. IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 If Sasquatch are as rare as many people believe them to be, the odds of randomly finding physical evidence, are extremely low. After all, as Derick Randles stated on the NatGeo show, you have a better chance of getting struck by lightening, than seeing a Bigfoot. Following that logic; what are the odds of randomly finding a Sasquatch hair, in a wilderness area, filled with other "hairy" animals? After all, for every animal, that has fur or hair, how many of those hairs are shed or pulled out, as they go about their business? An average animal must contribute hundreds, if not thousands, of hairs over a period of a year. That's a lot of loose hairs that are floating around a forest. They get picked up by the wind, blown all over the place and can end up miles from where they originated. If you consider these variables, it really accentuates how low the odds, really are, of randomly coming across a Sasquatch hair. Keeping that in mind, it would require testing tens of thousands of samples before a DNA expert was lucky enough to yield something interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts