Guest Divergent1 Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 (edited) Sasfooty, there is another thread on here about tooth forensics by a wildlife biologist. I won't ask to see a picture of the apple but why not contact him and share? http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/50970-what-about-the-bones/ Edited April 12, 2015 by Divergent1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 I don't mind posting a picture of the apple. I'll do it first thing in the morning. I already turned the other computer off tonight & can't post pictures from this one. It's been in the freezer for almost three years & I don't know what the tooth prints will look like by now, but I was mainly interested in the DNA that was on it. Fortunately I have a picture of it when I first picked it up that I will post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 (edited) As a matter of fact, it's no problem at all. I currently have a big wad of hair, a ziplok bag of peach pits that they sucked the all peach off of & left in a pile beside the tree, & half an apple with wide, flat teeth marks on it. So, what is your point? The point is in your previous post. If you want them to be studied without killing anything then the only alternative is through tangible evidence like DNA. Edited April 12, 2015 by roguefooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 (edited) RF, I don't particularly care one way or the other if they get studied. I had a hair sample in the Ketchum study, that had the same nuDNA as the others that were presumed to be BF, & you already know what came of that. I imagine the rest of the hair, the apple & the peach pits would probably have about the same results, or turn out to be from a "polar bear", so why bother? Now we'll see how many people have "alternatives to BF being the biter of the apple". Here ya go, D1. The apple is older than I was thinking. You know what they say about time flying when you're having fun! Edited April 12, 2015 by Sasfooty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1980squatch Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 It's been in the freezer for almost three years... I would have messed up at some point and put it in a fruit smoothie... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 As a matter of fact, it's no problem at all. I currently have a big wad of hair, a ziplok bag of peach pits that they sucked the all peach off of & left in a pile beside the tree, & half an apple with wide, flat teeth marks on it. So, what is your point? So why aren't you getting the stuff analyzed so you can be the one who proves they exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 I already know they exist & don't need or desire any further proof. Besides, there's that bigfoot curse that people have to deal with when they get too close to "proof". I would have messed up at some point and put it in a fruit smoothie... I don't think you would have been tempted to make a smoothie out of this one. I dug around in the freezer & found it & it's in pretty bad shape. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest diana swampbooger Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 I suppose, Sasfooty, for the rest of the class that NEEEEEDS 'scientific proof'(* <--see below), they'll be held back a grade or three & play catch up sometime in the distant future. oh well. In the meantime, gleaning any behavioral booger peccadillos keeps up my interest. *So, just 'cause booger has some(small, medium, large?) portion of human DNA (mtDNA says human but the nuDNA say 'mosaic' of this & that), does that give it primate classification? Dr Robert Sapolsky: Are Humans Just Another Primate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted April 12, 2015 Moderator Share Posted April 12, 2015 You can go to belief, but not to figuring it all out. There is just no way of knowing what there is to know about these creatures even after a sighting. You can go to investigating and maybe feeling that you have it figured out. But then they throw you a curve, an un-expecting curve one that had you convinced that you knew all there is to know. There is no one that is in the know except maybe our Government or certain people there of who know and have dealt with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 I wonder how they will get them to come out & be studied...... Especially after somebody shoots a family member & steals the body. That can't be good PR. An apex predator that eats meat from prey it kills, such as deer, elk and hogs, all that have been in reports of a sasquatch killing, would have no problem killing a human if need be. I'm sure there is a rogue individual too that has killed a human. Tons of folks go missing each year, and as Missing 411 explains, some of the reports are down right baffling, and indicate Sasquatch activity. Doesn't seem to have put a damper on research activity, PR notwithstanding... Ted, I've only mentioned the visual in the new members welcome forum. I'll mention the other soon as this 25 post deal is done, grrrrrrrrrrrr..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JiggyPotamus Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) I think presumptuous is the perfect descriptor for such behavior, and I agree completely. There always has to be a balance between the data and the conclusions. What I mean is that it is perfectly acceptable in my opinion to draw conclusions from things like eyewitness reports, personal sightings, etc., but that any researcher must realize the limitations of such data. The biggest gap in our knowledge when it comes to such practices stems from the fact that we have no clue how applicable any one behavior is to the overall bigfoot population. Or maybe the biggest gap is the fact that we have no way to verify data... But would it be fair to say that a specific behavior is common and accurate for the majority of the population when a large number of eyewitness reports bolster such a conclusion. I have always stressed the uncertainty present in this line of research, and that it permeates essentially every crevice. Disregarding my personal knowledge when it comes to the existence of sasquatch, I think the only tenable conclusion on existence is that the available evidence definitely suggests this possibility, but that a "yes" or "no" answer would both be incorrect at this point. The only logical conclusion on existence, based upon the evidence and if tackling the problem in a purely scientific manner, would be a "middle of the road" opinion. But the funny thing is that we do not even need a shred of evidence for this thinking to remain accurate. This is because it is not scientifically acceptable to say that bigfoot could not or does not exist. It would be acceptable to state that existence is unlikely, but arriving at an unchangeable conclusion is only possible when something has been extensively studied and verified repeatedly under strict control conditions. In the absence of such research everything is essentially on the table in my opinion, and the likelihood of one thing over another comes down strictly to probability. The question of falsifiability and proving a negative is very important, but on the reverse the possibility of something does not translate into certainty either. We can prove the existence of something like a tomato or a grasshopper, but can we disprove the existence of a purple, green, and pink grasshopper that eats tomatoes? Of course not. All we can do is say whether it is likely. In conclusion, I think it is fine if a person has personal views on sasquatch that they firmly believe, but I would say they are being presumptuous to state that any of these beliefs are based upon certainty. Even if they have arrived at their conclusion based upon the analysis of the available evidence, evidence that is backed up repeatedly by other evidence, the most they can conclude with certainty is that one hypothesis or theory is more probable than another. I think it is important to answer the question of how I personally reconcile my belief in the existence of sasquatch, based upon personal experience, with my above statements. I can say that I know sasquatch exists, but I have to separate my personal knowledge and the methods I've used to acquire that knowledge with the available scientific knowledge and methodology. On this same note I have commented numerous times in the past that I believe it is perfectly acceptable for someone not to share my view, since we are talking about personal and not scientific knowledge, but that their view is only accurate or logical if they admit the possibility of the existence of sasquatch. But I can hear you asking if I make this same concession myself? I must, even though I am confident in what I saw. I still must admit that I could be wrong, but that the likelihood of such is extremely low. Not impossible, but not probable in my opinion. Edited April 13, 2015 by JiggyPotamus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 *So, just 'cause booger has some(small, medium, large?) portion of human DNA (mtDNA says human but the nuDNA say 'mosaic' of this & that), does that give it primate classification? Personally, I think if it has human mtDNA, there is only one natural way it could be there, and that would give it a great ape classification and most likely a genus homo classification to have been able to interbreed. Aside from chimeras, do you have other alternatives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 I don't think an honest person with average or above average intelligence who has what they believe is a legit encounter or sighting makes the leap from belief to I've got it all figured out" just based on that encounter. It would certainly change their perspective, and make a big shift in their world, but it is a helluva move to get to "I've got it all figured out"....in any field of endeavor. Most people I've run into in my life that try to convince me they have something as complex as BF all figured out are generally full of it, and even fuller of themselves... I'm 56 and have lived a pretty full life so far, lots of experiences that have put me in the company of extremely competent folks and the most competent never have to brag about their skill or knowledge...it shows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1980squatch Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Agree with Divergent and Northfork, from my encounter I know a number of details to be fact but overall I do not know anything, not even how human or not human they are. I guess not very human but I do not know really. It does however give one a lot of perspective on the subject, personally it makes me both more and less skeptical. I think most BFRO type A encounters are legit. Most of them read like mine - one and done chance encounters from frightened folks who do not end up on the BF radio/blogtalk circuit. But I approach scoftic level on much of the evidence presented lately, I suspect because I don't need any of it to be real - I'm not seeking proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts