A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark

[Bodhi]

There have been lots of hair analysis done, and some blood. They usually come back ''unknown primate''. Lots and lots...

Really? Please cite your sources. Please, please, please do not say Ketchum

For someone who doesn’t know the difference between a ranch hand and a man from the big city you seem to know a lot about Sasquatch. You presume to know more than you believe you know and that's painfully obvious.

 

Do I know what evidence is? Yes and you do not.  You may know how to link sources and B.S. people but you know nothing about evidence affirmed only by your own comments.  

 

Did I claim that to be evidence? No, but then again you whip up these fantasies when you have nothing intelligent to add.

 

I don’t know the author Lisa A. Sheil, but I would like know what credibility you bring to the discussion. Can you describe it please?  Short of claiming oneself with some sense of higher authority that they and they alone decide who is credible and who is not, who gave you that right and where does that disjointed sense of authority come from?

 

 

You mad bro?

[chelefoot]

Excuse me...

 

MOD STATEMENT

 

I have hidden, edited, deleted several posts in this thread. If your post has disappeared, that's why.

 

A few rules seemed to have slipped some folks minds lately. Let me refresh everyone's memory:

 

2. Do not make things personal. Attack the argument, not the arguer. No name calling. Terms like ‘liars’ and ‘idiots’ are beyond the pale and will not be tolerated here.

 

4. Respect other members and their right to their opinion.

 

I enjoy the "spirited" debate, however, the personal insults need to stop. This includes the derogatory names for skeptics/proponents, the comments about other members education or reading comprehension..... all of it. This goes for this thread, and the others!

 

Thanks!

[Guest]

There are lots of DNA analysis, from private individuals as well as government sources. I don't have links, but there have been lots (apparently) - it doesn't matter, just as the next dozen Blob-Squatches will not make any difference, as I have tried, free of charge, to tell people before they waste their lives chasing after the next great blobsquatch photo. Chasing Bigfoot is a foolish endeavor, unless at the very minimum you take all available information in, and do proper calculations, as I have done, and do a calculated 10 year program. Anything less is pure baffonery at this point in time, from what we know, but chasing BF for ''the ultimate proof'' of BF is akin to chasing after the ''Holy Grail'', or Dragon scales, it is a clown-show of baffonery. Does any one in the field view this as a long term, 10-20 year project? Hahaah.

 

The main problem is the need and desire of BF hunters for ''proof'' of BF. It is the wrong attitude to take in the first place.

 

Problemo, problemo solved. $20.00 please, paypal accepted.

[Bonehead74]

Oh yeah? I wasn't aware that a PhD was discrediting her? Only that some labs/mags were warned off.Or was it some unlettered 'journalist/s' paid to throw shade?

She discredited herself by massively overselling and then underdelivering the promised product.

[Guest diana swampbooger]

She discredited herself by massively overselling and then underdelivering the promised product.

It would help if you could point out in her paper where the facts of her findings are skewed.

I realize she has added some editorializing at the behest of a magazine or two which might confuse some people.

I've also looked at Dr Hart's blog. He didn't do any original work? Only analyzed sequences that very easily could have been hacked as evidenced by 'panda bear', etc etc !!! Something's strange in the woodshed. I think I'll try to find his YT interview/s hopefully.

My husband was granted an ScD from MIT, so in my humble opinion, I plowed through a few accepted papers.

[Bonehead74]

I never said that the "facts of her findings" were skewed. She suffered from a case of excessive hubris. Her science and her conclusions may be correct, but she failed to deliver what she and her supporters promised, which was indisputable, unequivocal, "beautiful and elegant" proof of bigfoot's existence. Proof that was "undeniable". That is not what her paper was, and that is my point.

ETA-

Has your husband reviewed her findings? That might be instructive.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Bonehead74

[southernyahoo]

so how do you figure that gorillas weren't trying to avoid humans?

 

 

They obviously didn't get the job done, but then we humans are so fast in the woods , up the trees and on mountain-sides, they just couldn't get away. 

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

There haven't been any samples that have been shown to come from an unknown primate. It's always been known species of animals. Some interesting results are occasionally found though, where the DNA is human, but it doesn't match anyone from the common population, almost as if they've been separate from regular people for a long time. That along with corresponding hairs suggests that Sasquatch might actually be feral humans that underwent sudden non-evolutionary changes. 

Edited July 2, 2015 by OntarioSquatch

[Bodhi]

It would help if you could point out in her paper where the facts of her findings are skewed.

I realize she has added some editorializing at the behest of a magazine or two which might confuse some people.

I've also looked at Dr Hart's blog. He didn't do any original work? Only analyzed sequences that very easily could have been hacked as evidenced by 'panda bear', etc etc !!! Something's strange in the woodshed. I think I'll try to find his YT interview/s hopefully.

My husband was granted an ScD from MIT, so in my humble opinion, I plowed through a few accepted papers.

Well, here's one point. She stated that the divergence which has led to her purported hybrid occurred 15,000 years ago which is simply not enough time. Hence, skewed.

There haven't been any samples that have been shown to come from an unknown primate. It's always been known species of animals. Some interesting results are occasionally found though, where the DNA is human, but it doesn't match anyone from the common population, almost as if they've been separate from regular people for a long time. That along with corresponding hairs suggests that Sasquatch might actually be feral humans that underwent sudden non-evolutionary changes. 

I thought that the "unknown primate" thing was incorrect, I've heard Dr. Disotell explain that what would be reported is an animal similar to "x" it wouldn't be reported as "unknown primate". I always chuckle when I see/hear people passing on that story of 'unknown primate".

But two things.

Q: Is there any example in nature of a species which went through a sudden non-evolutionary change - as a group so they could all interbreed?

Q: Are you positing that a breeding population of humans went feral? It couldn't be just one random guy or gal obviously, and in light of purported sightings it would have had to have occurred all over the continent.

[Guest Crowlogic]

There are lots of DNA analysis, from private individuals as well as government sources. I don't have links, but there have been lots (apparently) - it doesn't matter, just as the next dozen Blob-Squatches will not make any difference, as I have tried, free of charge, to tell people before they waste their lives chasing after the next great blobsquatch photo. Chasing Bigfoot is a foolish endeavor, unless at the very minimum you take all available information in, and do proper calculations, as I have done, and do a calculated 10 year program. Anything less is pure baffonery at this point in time, from what we know, but chasing BF for ''the ultimate proof'' of BF is akin to chasing after the ''Holy Grail'', or Dragon scales, it is a clown-show of baffonery. Does any one in the field view this as a long term, 10-20 year project? Hahaah.

 

The main problem is the need and desire of BF hunters for ''proof'' of BF. It is the wrong attitude to take in the first place.

 

Problemo, problemo solved. $20.00 please, paypal accepted.

The major mistake everyone makes in all crypto and fringe elements is to accept unsubstantiated claims and statements as facts or at least viable for belief.  The stumbling block of the crypto/fringe element is the sheer romanticism it breeds.  Bigfoot represents the great mysterious "out there" roaming free unfettered by the lot  befalling the human condition.  Is it a wonder that many bigfoot researchers are poor or less than well off?  They are not poor or less than well off because of bigfoot they are  centering on bigfoot because they are poor or less than well off.  There will always be some with means who enter the hunt sans the romance but by and large that's not the case.  During my early bigfoot days bigfoot got me through a lot of days like, I hate my job, I hate my boss, I need a new car, I need more money etc etc.  But bigfoot man bigfoot don't need a job or a car or money.  Bigfoot is still in the garden so to speak.  He's almost us but he transcends us.  Core bigfoot paradigms laid out by one who lived it.  I bet I'm not alone.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Crowlogic

[Guest diana swampbooger]

Just watched After Hours with Rictor's interview with the Drs Hart & Disotell from the fall of 2013. Dr Hart mentioned he was going to do further studies on Sample 31. I hope so.

 

I agree that Melba hasn't 'proved' sasquatch. Are we talking lawsuit?

 

It does seem that her nuDNA sequences don't match up with much in the databank. So, what is squatch?

 

 

Bonehead, my husband passed a few years ago. His thesis was in inorganic chemistry.

[Guest Crowlogic]

It was Dr. Haskell Hart:

http://www.bigfootclaims.blogspot.com/

Dr. Hart pretty much put  Ketchum firmly in the circular file once and for all.

[Guest diana swampbooger]

Dr. Hart pretty much put  Ketchum firmly in the circular file once and for all.

 

Dr Hart indicated that it would have been better science to do a careful analysis of the mtDNA & nuDNA. Dr Disotell indicated he doesn't have time to do a careful analysis unless he's paid & applauded Dr Hart for willing to do further research.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

Well, here's one point. She stated that the divergence which has led to her purported hybrid occurred 15,000 years ago which is simply not enough time. Hence, skewed.

 

 

why wouldn't 15K years be enough?

[Bonehead74]

Bonehead, my husband passed a few years ago. His thesis was in inorganic chemistry.

I'm sorry to hear that, Diana. My condolences. His take on the study would have been interesting, I'm sure.