Olympic Peninsula Nesting Area Update

[SWWASAS]

Let me add.   Even a science experiment in a lab is based on observation.  It may involve an electron microscope but some human scientist has to observe what the microscope reveals and interpret what is happening.     Of course as with quantum physics and BF for that matter,   by observing you may change the results of the experiment.   It would seem that dmaker thinks evidence is only pure without observation.  

Edited June 5, 2017 by SWWASAS

[Branco]

Exactly SWWASAS, on the nose. (Only six words from your clear and concise five sentence post seems out of place; "It would seem that dmaker thinks.......")

[Guest DWA]

I'd love to know where people think all this knowledge comes from.  Is it a telescope, talking to a computer?  No, it's a guy, saying to a gal, look at this.  Two guys going, let's do this, hmmmm, let's repeat that sequence.  It's a guy telling his graduate advisor, what do you think?

 

It's people, talking, the vast majority of which...goes unrecorded.

 

SCIENCE.

[Art1972]

On 5/31/2017 at 11:21 AM, dmaker said:

I agree with you, I find the nests interesting as well. But, supposed bigfoot nests are a bit of a pet peeve of mine. This is something that should be an incredible source of biological evidence.

 

 

 

 

Come on man, don't you know that Bigfoots follow the "leave no trace" + "carry out what you carried in" policies set forth by Federal and numerous State Environmental Conservation Departments ?   If we could only encourage humans to be so fastidious when cleaning up their camp sites, our state parks and forest areas would be much more pristine.  

[scottv]

While many sciences are indeed based on observation (can't dissect a black hole), zoology needs a specimen for proof of existence. When you have that then the observations will become accepted.

[FarArcher]

Many sightings, narratives, and reports of the mountain gorilla were made, and made known.

 

Those that had seen them, and described them - were correct.

 

There's a world of knowledge that science is as yet unaware of.  Biological species included.

 

Accepted?  Personally - I don't give a crap - and am comfortable knowing for a fact - that the real ignorance is with the scientists, anthropologists, etc.  

 

The ignorance is not mine.

Edited June 6, 2017 by FarArcher

[scottv]

Yes, there gorilla sightings, narratives and reports. The lowland gorilla had also been documented years earlier so a mountain gorilla wasn't something without some provenance. Then people went in and collected a specimen.

 

If you don't care whether the species is accepted or not then good for you, but there are others who feel differently.

[Incorrigible1]

Asking for a hair is grounds to set the "knowers" off?

[Branco]

"A" bigfoot hair sample found at a bedding site is worthless as "proof of their existence." It would not be adequate for DNA, and there is no forensic lab - except the ones under government control - that have a "reference" sample for comparison if a microscopic exam was done. Been there, done that. Dr. Fahrenbach is the only scientist I know who has had the experience and the confidence to openly confirm that hair he had examined under the microscope were from Bigfoot. Bigfoot hair samples that others and myself have obtained and sent to the best commercial forensic hair lab in this country could not be positively separated from that of a human, although they conceded that the condition of the hair - no cut ends, algae growing on the cuticle, insect egg sacks attached, matted with forest debris,etc., clearly indicated the hair came from someone, or something living in the woods.

 

Hair samples are difficult to see. When found, I simply save it, look at it under a microscope and determine if it came off a typical wild animal. If not, it will be compared to the three general types of human hair. If it matches one of those, it is compared to Bigfoot hair reference samples on hand. 

Edited June 6, 2017 by Branco

[Incorrigible1]

Appreciate the info. Thank you.

[NCBFr]

I read the best way to determine between human and bigfoot hair is to look at the end and see if it has been cut.  A rounded end is BF, a flat end is human.  How do you make the determination?

[dmaker]

48 minutes ago, Branco said:

It would not be adequate for DNA,

Why not?

 

Dr.Fahrenbach does hair morphology analysis, not DNA, I believe. Hair morphology does not have the best track record for species identification. DNA is the way to go. 

 

I have heard that as well about uncut hair being bigfoot. The theory being that a bigfoot has never been to a barber. But that does not hold up under scrutiny. Our bodies produce plenty of new hair regularly. If one of those were to be recovered, before it was ever cut,  and analyzed? Never been cut, must be bigfoot!

 

 

 

 

Edited June 6, 2017 by dmaker

[Arrowhead]

Not to derail this thread, but does anyone have any actual comments about the nests?  

 

I did find an interview with some video.

 

http://www.bigfootresearchnews.com/2017/04/discovering-bigfoot-nest.html

 

 

[Branco]

1 hour ago, NCBFr said:

I read the best way to determine between human and bigfoot hair is to look at the end and see if it has been cut.  A rounded end is BF, a flat end is human.  How do you make the determination?

That's part of it, although hairs are usually pretty frayed and/or split at the distal end. Other parts are close exam of the medulla, examining for foreign materials - algae growing on the cuticle, insect egg sacks, matted forest debris, location, color and density of the pigment granules,etc.  

 

 

[Branco]

1 hour ago, dmaker said:

Why not?

 

Dr.Fahrenbach does hair morphology analysis, not DNA, I believe.

That's exactly what I said!? 

 

Hair morphology does not have the best track record for species identification.

For known species of wild and domestic animals, it is a simple and near flawless method of identification.

 

DNA is the way to go.

For hair naturally fallen and found at a bedding site, and likely having lain there for some time, it would totally useless to even consider for DNA analysis. Highly unlikely the root would still be attached, if so, weathering would have destroyed it.

 

Any scientist would reject DNA from a good sample of Bigfoot hair as being from anything other than a human. None of them have access to a known Bigfoot DNA analyses for comparsion.  

 

I have heard that as well about uncut hair being bigfoot. The theory being that a bigfoot has never been to a barber. But that does not hold up under scrutiny. Our bodies produce plenty of new hair regularly. If one of those were to be recovered, before it was ever cut,  and analyzed?

Well, one of the first things people who study hair samples under a microscope do is to measure the diameter of the hair at the proximate end, the distal end and at the median length. Even though you found and submitted hair from a child whose hair had never been cut, I really don't think any examiner would declare:

"Never been cut, must be bigfoot!"