bipedalist Posted November 20, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted November 20, 2013 (edited) Yes, Justin got bear verified by many now. Bloody boots a dead end....... So that leaves you with someones word, a lie detector result and the mystery of whether bloody clothes or a Sasquatch kid ever got stuffed for posterities sake. Sorry, I'm blunt. But that is it in the nutshell for me. I guarantee you there is a sasquatch hair or hairs in an abandoned birds-nest somewhere at this very minute. Edited November 20, 2013 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 During the Ketchum DNA thing, many of us were hoping for the Sykes Report to support the belief that Bigfoot exists. Now that it looks as though the best of the best samples have come back as typical North American animals, have any of you changed your outlook on the Bigfoot phenomenon? Would anyone be more interested in studying the psychological/ neurological nature of the Bigfoot phenomenon? Is there a point where just because you have 'Seen' Bigfoot, you say to yourself 'maybe there is another explanation for what I saw'? Sykes shouldn't change any proponent's opinion. Nothing's been done that could do that for a logical person. (Except for dzu-teh - long acknowledged by everybody to be a bear - possibly being a polar bear now. That's an exciting finding. Unlisted primate, not so much. That's what people are reporting, isn't it? Duh.) All Sykes can do is test what is brought to him. If you've seen one, why should a bunch of random people bringing him random stuff change what you think? Of course it shouldn't. The core of the non-starting "skeptical" (it isn't) thesis on this is that if you aren't a scientist, you are utterly incompetent to relate your visual experience of the world. Now, all of a sudden, laymen are biologists who are only bringing the cream of the evidence to the table? Sure, if you think fairies are real, you'd buy that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 I should also respond to this: Would anyone be more interested in studying the psychological/ neurological nature of the Bigfoot phenomenon? No more than I would be interested in studying whether my entire life has, in fact, been an illusion. You see what you see. I haven't seen a bigfoot; but it seems to me the very unlikeliest of clinical diagnoses that thousands of people are hallucinating a biologically-correct bipedal primate. You might get me more interested in whether everyone in the United Nations is a practicing witch. Is there a point where just because you have 'Seen' Bigfoot, you say to yourself 'maybe there is another explanation for what I saw'? Not if I'm sane, and saw one, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 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. In a purely random scenario I would agree, yet we expect that witnesses with recent sightings and subsequent investigators at these sites should have a better chance of finding them. To improve the odds, one could follow the paths they were seen to travel and note unusual spoor. The tree breaks and manipulations would be the most promising. I'm sure thats why Derek's wolf sample was sent in. It's just too bad that fate and the wind would carry a smaller critters hair up to a tree limb along a trackway he was following at 6ft+ off the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted November 23, 2013 Share Posted November 23, 2013 Not at all....these are great examples of why science doesn't pursue the subject...it always ends the same way....so far Everytime real evidence is submitted....no Bigfoot just common animals. Meanwhile new species are discovered globally in very remote locations....except for that sneaky ole bigfoot right in our backyards. The Zana story is a great example of how unreliable anecdotal reports are. Especially when the observer has no experience with what they are seeing, as well as how a myth is created and morph into "fact" as its regurgitated over and over, into a really big pile of...well you get the picture! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted November 23, 2013 Share Posted November 23, 2013 I guarantee you there is a sasquatch hair or hairs in an abandoned birds-nest somewhere at this very minute. Maybe we should start grabbing every abandoned bird nest we find deep in the woods and check them out! You never know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts