Straight Ahead Science That Indicates Bigfoot Does Not Exist.

[Guest Crowlogic]

You're not thinking.  But I am, and here is showing it:

 

By your logic BIGFOOT'S REAL.  There is not shred one of evidence, and never has been, that all of this is a crock.  Therefore it isn't.  BY YOUR LOGIC.

 

OK, I'll give you another chance.  Now think this time, OK?

Let me guess this straight.  Unless a person is thinking in the same modality as you that other person is not thinking.  I don't think bigfoot is real.  Once I did but I came to understand that it is a social construct that has developed into certain revenue generating avenues.  Why not try looking at the problem as an entertaining form of play for some and a cottage industry for others. Heck just go to you tube and watch Barb &Gabby and the bigfoot girls leaving peach preserves out in the woods for their bigfoot brood and you'll understand what I'm saying.  It will get you a lot farther towards understanding why the game goes on.  Is each and every article of evidence a miscalculation or hoax?  Based on what has come out the other end of the evidence mill it surely does indicate it as much.

[Guest DWA]

Wow.  Um.  Wow.

 

Why not try looking at the problem the way indicated by...wait for it...the vast majority of information available on the problem.  Why not try that.  Oh, I know why not try that.  It is because someone got Extremely Frustrated that someone's True Belief was not vindicated on one's personal schedule.  Who are Barb and Gabby?  People I need not care about.  But see, I know that.  (Even if I don't know who they are.)  Just, you don't.

True Belief, frustrated as it always is by failure to pay attention to the world's workings.  Why not try thinking about that for a bit.  'Coz you need something to distract you from whatever is eating you about this.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Sykes was looking for novel primate DNA and he didn't find it. Neither has anyone else. At this point I'm pretty sure people are looking for the wrong thing. He did get an interesting hair sample though that came from Washington state. It came from a feral person and he thinks that might be what Sasquatch are. I think he's right, except there's more to it than that. There's a piece of the puzzle that people are missing, but if someone can get a body, that won't matter because then Sasquatch are proven to exist regardless of what the DNA shows. In other words, I wouldn't put much faith in DNA analysis. "Sasquatch" are as weird as human beings are

 

[Guest DWA]

But it isn't even that.

 

Who is sending in these samples?  People who saw something (if they even did) and gathered something (which likely didn't come from what they saw, if again they saw anything).

 

In other words:  guys and gals who don't know from scientific collection protocols, sending in stuff.  In other words:  rubbish.

 

Not that one can't test things.  But if anyone really thought The Proof was coming from those samples...well, one needs to find better things to speculate on with one's time.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

In Sykes' case, he was able to get rid of contamination on hair samples, so any DNA he got from those originated from the hair itself. That same hair sample put under a microscope matches the profile of other purported Sasquatch hair samples. The hair morphology is unique in some ways, but it mostly matches that of a human, so there's a dilemma now as to what Sasquatch really is. 

[MIB]

It came from a feral person and he thinks that might be what Sasquatch are. I think he's right, except there's more to it than that.

 

"more to it than that" ... ?   To say the least.   There was nowhere for a hoaxer to stand near enough the tracks I found to fake them.   

 

How did this feral person grow 24-1/2 inch long, 8-1/2 inch wide feet?  How did he learn to take 6-1/2 foot steps with no slide and no mud "splat" from leaping footstep to footstep?   How did he manage continuing up a greater than 45 degree slope with those same 6-1/2 foot steps without breaking stride?  

 

How did a feral person grow to stand crotch deep in water than comes to my chin or above?   Using Patty's proportions, leg length to total height, and the water depth for scale, we're talking about 10.5 to possibly over 12 feet.   Just use 10.5 though for caution.  How did a feral person get that big?

 

I really want to hear the answer to this because I think the suggestion bigfoot is merely a feral human is ludicrous. 

 

MIB

[Guest Crowlogic]

"more to it than that" ... ?   To say the least.   There was nowhere for a hoaxer to stand near enough the tracks I found to fake them.   

 

How did this feral person grow 24-1/2 inch long, 8-1/2 inch wide feet?  How did he learn to take 6-1/2 foot steps with no slide and no mud "splat" from leaping footstep to footstep?   How did he manage continuing up a greater than 45 degree slope with those same 6-1/2 foot steps without breaking stride?  

 

How did a feral person grow to stand crotch deep in water than comes to my chin or above?   Using Patty's proportions, leg length to total height, and the water depth for scale, we're talking about 10.5 to possibly over 12 feet.   Just use 10.5 though for caution.  How did a feral person get that big?

 

I really want to hear the answer to this because I think the suggestion bigfoot is merely a feral human is ludicrous. 

 

MIB

Feral people are perhaps the worst idea of what bigfoot could be.  Feral people still have the same minds as non feral unless there is a mental deficiency to begin with.  But seems like DNA isn't going to get the job done or that nobody has ever had bigfoot DNA to sample.  This is likely the reason and not a surprising reason.

[Oonjerah]

OntarioSquatch: "In Sykes' case ... so any DNA he got from those originated from the hair itself. That same

hair sample put under a microscope matches the profile of other purported Sasquatch hair samples." 

(Plussed)

 

Two or more Bigfoot hair samples that match? 

I didn't know this and find it very interesting. Can you link me to the report??

I would consider this good evidence if the matching profiles are not found

among the known modern human samples (Us) already in the gen bank.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Oonjerah

[Guest Crowlogic]

"more to it than that" ... ?   To say the least.   There was nowhere for a hoaxer to stand near enough the tracks I found to fake them.   

 

How did this feral person grow 24-1/2 inch long, 8-1/2 inch wide feet?  How did he learn to take 6-1/2 foot steps with no slide and no mud "splat" from leaping footstep to footstep?   How did he manage continuing up a greater than 45 degree slope with those same 6-1/2 foot steps without breaking stride?  

 

How did a feral person grow to stand crotch deep in water than comes to my chin or above?   Using Patty's proportions, leg length to total height, and the water depth for scale, we're talking about 10.5 to possibly over 12 feet.   Just use 10.5 though for caution.  How did a feral person get that big?

 

I really want to hear the answer to this because I think the suggestion bigfoot is merely a feral human is ludicrous. 

 

MIB

You were so taken by this trackway that you took photos of it yes?

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

OntarioSquatch: "In Sykes' case ... so any DNA he got from those originated from the hair itself. That same

hair sample put under a microscope matches the profile of other purported Sasquatch hair samples." 

(Plussed)

 

Two or more Bigfoot hair samples that match? 

I didn't know this and find it very interesting. Can you link me to the report??

I would consider this good evidence if the matching profiles are not found

among the known modern human samples (Us) already in the gen bank.

 

I linked to a report on the first page of the Bigfoot DNA thread and it's on Sasquatch hair and DNA. I don't think it's the type of evidence that people are expecting because to prove that Bigfoot is a new species, you need DNA that's from a new species. There's been a close match in gen bank so far for every Sasquatch DNA sample ever found. At this point, I think any authentic Sasquatch sample will just show human DNA and be dismissed as contamination, even though the hairs suggest otherwise.

 

Feral people are perhaps the worst idea of what bigfoot could be.  Feral people still have the same minds as non feral unless there is a mental deficiency to begin with.  But seems like DNA isn't going to get the job done or that nobody has ever had bigfoot DNA to sample.  This is likely the reason and not a surprising reason.

 

Like I said, there's more to it than them just being feral humans. The mismatch between the DNA and the creatures themselves suggests that they're not regular animals if you know what I mean. There's something really weird going on with Bigfoot and I don't think it'll be an easy mystery for people to solve.

[Guest Divergent1]

You're not thinking.  But I am, and here is showing it:

 

By your logic BIGFOOT'S REAL.  There is not shred one of evidence, and never has been, that all of this is a crock.  Therefore it isn't.  BY YOUR LOGIC.

 

OK, I'll give you another chance.  Now think this time, OK?

That bigfoot is real because 40,000 people can't be wrong.

[Guest Crowlogic]

That bigfoot is real because 40,000 people can't be wrong.

Every person that ever saw a Griffin was lying or mistaken.  By the same logic there must be Griffins.  There are even cohesive descriptions of them.................

[Guest DWA]

That bigfoot is real because 40,000 people can't be wrong.

To presume that 40,000 people, who mostly don't know a thing about science, are completing a picture, biologically correct right down to the last detail, of a bipedal temperate-zone opportunist-omnivore primate is...well, it's flat illogical.  And to say "how do you know that's what's happening?" is to say to oneself:  might want to get up to speed on this.

Any responses can be directed to the scientists who have applied their multiple degrees to agreeing with me.

Edited June 1, 2015 by DWA

[Guest Crowlogic]

To presume that 40,000 people, who mostly don't know a thing about science, are completing a picture, biologically correct right down to the last detail, of a bipedal temperate-zone opportunist-omnivore primate is...well, it's flat illogical.  And to say "how do you know that's what's happening?" is to say to oneself:  might want to get up to speed on this.

Any responses can be directed to the scientists who have applied their multiple degrees to agreeing with me.

List the scientists please.

[Guest DWA]

Crow:  please start reading.  I am NOT gonna start into this again.  Why IS it that people who have had every conceivable skeptical concern addressed, six ways to Sunday, here keep asking for things they already have asked for and gotten the answer...SEVERAL TIMES!?!?!  You won't be convinced without a carcass in front of you.  We feel sorry for you but we get it.

Try putting down your wayward focus and stay with us.  STAY WITH US, Crow...