Olympic Peninsula Nesting Area Update

[Guest DWA]

I don't do other people's work for them around here anymore.  In fact I don't even *talk* to a lot of people around here any more. I find them irrelevant.  Ta'sville!

[Patterson-Gimlin]

3 hours ago, dmaker said:

Excuse me? I was not the one who left a snide remark along with the link, that was you. I pointed out that this is not my first go around with DWA about this exact topic. In the past, I have done the googling and provided links for articles. Perhaps not that exact same link, I can't be sure. I believe the article I mentioned in the past was this one:

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/hair.htm

 

I do thank you for your contribution, however. The point is whether or not DWA will defend his claim. I suspect not, he never has in the past. 

 

 

Thank you so much for sharing. I heard of some of that. Anyway I enjoyed reading it .

Yours to hiflier . Thank you both.

[dmaker]

10 hours ago, DWA said:

 

I don't do other people's work for them around here anymore

 

It's not other people's work. It's you supporting your own claim. But don't worry, no else expects you to actually support your own claim. Just sit back all smug and pretend you're not reading these messages. 

[norseman]

14 hours ago, dmaker said:

An outdated hair analysis that does not include DNA, is not of much value. 

 

It's something.... and it's interesting. Would like to know what produced the hair if not a Bigfoot.

 

But it's not a smoking gun, no.

 

 

[hiflier]

20 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

It's something.... and it's interesting. Would like to know what produced the hair if not a Bigfoot.

 

But it's not a smoking gun, no.

 

What I found interesting in both articles was this:

 

"Fahrenbach was quoted as saying his samples, presumably Sasquatch hairs, varied from “3 to 15 inches in length; most samples are under 90 microns in diameter (90 microns = 0.00354330709 of an inch) and most all have a reddish tinge under the microscope; Interestingly, these hairs that are presumptive for Sasquatch generally lack a medulla. The kicker is that we have found human hair with similar characteristics …yes confusing."

 

IF the hair sample variations included a 15" long hair then what is it off of if NOT Human? What animal produces 15" long hair??!? I mean it's easy to read articles like this in the general sense but when a detail like that is read then, for me, it jumps right off of the page. So, elk tail? Horse tail/mane? Moose wattle? Human? If it was me in the lab with Fahrenbach's expertise THAT's the sample I would look at first and work down shorter and shorter as I go- especially targeting the 4-6" range. All of the samples of course would eventually be looked at but the 15' long piece(s) would be first.

[scottv]

The mountain lion study I referenced was done in winter. As Norseman said, can't hide your tracks in the snow. Has anyone ever tried backtracking (or forward tracking for that matter) a bigfoot trackway?

[hiflier]

Many have- in both directions. And while it is usually thought to follow a trackway to see where it leads there have been cases where someone wanted to see where Sasquatch has been. Good question. Maybe an internet search "backtracking Bigfoot tracks" would generate a list?

[norseman]

3 hours ago, scottv said:

The mountain lion study I referenced was done in winter. As Norseman said, can't hide your tracks in the snow. Has anyone ever tried backtracking (or forward tracking for that matter) a bigfoot trackway?

 

As a kid I was with my father out hunting a Xmas tree and came upon a track way going the same way we were. After following it aways my father spun on his heels and said we were getting out of there.

 

Nothing since then. And I had hounds and owned snowmobiles and currently own a tracked Polaris Ranger. Have not cut anything compelling. But, cutting a big Tom cougar track can take weeks or even months depending on how often it snows. Fresh snow covers tracks and scent. Obviously a Bigfoot track is going to require a lot more snow to bury than a cougar track.

 

Its the million dollar question. Today I had off in the oil field and was bored so I was reading Colville Confederated Tribe's accounts on Stick Indians aka Bigfoot. They claimed that they dug roots and tubers and cat tails all year long and dried them and hid them in caves. And lived there all winter. If a Bigfoot could stockpile away enough food for the winter? And that's a big IF considering their caloric daily intake? Then it would account for why we usually do not see tracks in snow. They are hidden away in caves laying on grass beds eating dried roots. In summer they like fish and hang out close to rivers. But Grand Coulee dam killed our salmon run. Occasionally they will kill or steal red meat such as deer. But mostly plant material.

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/fusch.htm

[WSA]

Seems I recall one of the more compelling snow track ways was followed for miles. Was it Utah, possibly Michigan ? I was pretty impressed with the video of one of them, showing how far it went and especially the stride length. Could it have been hoaxed by somebody with articulating stilts? Guess it is technically possible, but seems a pretty huge investment of energy for little payout. A hoaxer probably would have busted his/her butt trying, under those slippery conditions.   

[Guest DWA]

It was I think in the northern tier of states, MI being a possibility.  But it was a long trackway, and not made in an area where one would be likely to come across it, and of course, one coming across it doesn't make the act "likely." Finding animal tracks is usually a matter of luck.

 

A snowmobiler says that he'd never have seen his trackway find, which he bisected with his vehicle, had he not had the perfect angle to catch the light playing on it.  The BFRO found a snow trackway, I think this one was in Utah, one night; the next day when they returned, a bunch of people were playing in the snow around an SUV parked right on the trackway.

 

Faking snow tracks is evidence of insanity, which makes one kinda doubt that the faker would have command of anything else he'd need to pull it off.

[Martin]

On 6/11/2017 at 0:57 PM, hiflier said:

 

What I found interesting in both articles was this:

 

"Fahrenbach was quoted as saying his samples, presumably Sasquatch hairs, varied from “3 to 15 inches in length; most samples are under 90 microns in diameter (90 microns = 0.00354330709 of an inch) and most all have a reddish tinge under the microscope; Interestingly, these hairs that are presumptive for Sasquatch generally lack a medulla. The kicker is that we have found human hair with similar characteristics …yes confusing."

 

IF the hair sample variations included a 15" long hair then what is it off of if NOT Human? What animal produces 15" long hair??!? I mean it's easy to read articles like this in the general sense but when a detail like that is read then, for me, it jumps right off of the page. So, elk tail? Horse tail/mane? Moose wattle? Human? If it was me in the lab with Fahrenbach's expertise THAT's the sample I would look at first and work down shorter and shorter as I go- especially targeting the 4-6" range. All of the samples of course would eventually be looked at but the 15' long piece(s) would be first.

 

One thing to remember about Fahrenbach hair analysis: Source:http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/manimal.htm Quote is in Part Two

 

In May 2004, Dr. Fahrenbach analyzed hairs that Janice claims to have pulled from Fox’s wrist, and the scientist’s conclusion was this: “The morphology of this hair is clearly primate in character, all standard mammals of N. America are ruled out, and the remaining confounding variable – human hair – is not similar to this hair at all, in that the density of pigmentation far exceeds that of the blackest human hair. These observations provide a legitimizing underpinning to the factual details reported by Jan Coy (Carter) (as co-author) in the book by Mary Green, deviant interpretations thereof notwithstanding.”   

 

 The Janice Coy Story was a fabrication from beginning to end, If I remember correctly the hair from the barn was synthetic costume hair.

[Branco]

On 6/13/2017 at 0:40 PM, Martin said:

 

One thing to remember about Fahrenbach hair analysis: Source:http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/manimal.htm Quote is in Part Two

 

In May 2004, Dr. Fahrenbach analyzed hairs that Janice claims to have pulled from Fox’s wrist, and the scientist’s conclusion was this: “The morphology of this hair is clearly primate in character, all standard mammals of N. America are ruled out, and the remaining confounding variable – human hair – is not similar to this hair at all, in that the density of pigmentation far exceeds that of the blackest human hair. These observations provide a legitimizing underpinning to the factual details reported by Jan Coy (Carter) (as co-author) in the book by Mary Green, deviant interpretations thereof notwithstanding.”   

 

 The Janice Coy Story was a fabrication from beginning to end, If I remember correctly the hair from the barn was synthetic costume hair.

Would you be so kind as to search your memory and see if you can come up with a source for that. That Dr. Fahrenbach would mistake synthetic yarn for a primate hair would be about a likely as an astronomer mistaking a kid's kite for a new planet. 

[Guest DWA]

Yeah.  Talk about something that would need to be proven?  Something that didn't happen would need to be proven, I'd think

[dmaker]

1 hour ago, DWA said:

Yeah.  Talk about something that would need to be proven?  Something that didn't happen would need to be proven, I'd think

LOL. Coming from the guy who takes every bigfoot report as truth and also makes grand claims about evidence discoveries (unknown primate DNA, anyone?) that he cannot prove. 

 

Your inconsistencies and ironic turns are truly fascinating. 

[Martin]

12 hours ago, Branco said:

Would you be so kind as to search your memory and see if you can come up with a source for that. That Dr. Fahrenbach would mistake synthetic yarn for a primate hair would be about a likely as an astronomer mistaking a kid's kite for a new planet. 

 

I will see if I can locate this information over the weekend.

 

In the mean time my point still stands

 

On 6/13/2017 at 1:40 PM, Martin said:

 

One thing to remember about Fahrenbach hair analysis: Source:http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/manimal.htm Quote is in Part Two

 

In May 2004, Dr. Fahrenbach analyzed hairs that Janice claims to have pulled from Fox’s wrist, and the scientist’s conclusion was this: “The morphology of this hair is clearly primate in character, all standard mammals of N. America are ruled out, and the remaining confounding variable – human hair – is not similar to this hair at all, in that the density of pigmentation far exceeds that of the blackest human hair. These observations provide a legitimizing underpinning to the factual details reported by Jan Coy (Carter) (as co-author) in the book by Mary Green, deviant interpretations thereof notwithstanding.”   

 

 The Janice Coy Story was a fabrication from beginning to end, If I remember correctly the hair from the barn was synthetic costume hair.

 

The entire story was made up and there were no Bigfoot. Whatever "hair" Fahrenbach analyzed wasn't Bigfoot hair.