Madison5716 Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 What a terrible interviewer. He should have had a dozen questions written out and then LET THE GUY TALK. Interesting conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franco Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 (edited) I dont how many of all, listen to coast to coast am. Mon 24 June, Dave Pailides was on said, the Ketchum DNA study prove that BF was A human Hybrid. This is reason all dna submit keeps coming back as "Not A Unknown Species" . But as tainted with Human DNA. HE goes on to state that BF is Not a ape, But a unknown Human Species possibly a relic Human Species. Late on in the Show a older man came ofn and told of his bigfoot Story from 1966. Where a 8 ft tall hairy human and him wound walking into a field together. He was picking apples and found himself face to face with it. He said he notice the hairy man looking at his apples so he sat down on a fallen log. Being taught not run from large animals. The BF sat down opposite, he placed apples on the log between them. The Creature grab them and ate. He says he was within 5 feet of him. And it looked human prutuding brow cover in hair at least 8 ft tall. Then he heard a noise turned and saw a pregnant female. Cover in hair looking more human the APE. What if what we are looking for is the wrong thing, a ape instead of a human type of Animal. This would explain the massive Intelligence of the Animal. Paulides did quotes some news article, thats points to them being a human like tribe. He states that " why isn't this evidence discussed in bigfoot forums and or Conventions. He believes we are dealing with relic humans not apes and if we looked deeper in the DNA and stop looking for something unknown... We would find our ansrews. Edited August 5, 2019 by Franco 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 (edited) Yep. More than one member here is of that opinion. Human DNA in Sasquatch samples is not contamination. IMHO it would be virtually impossible that EVERY suspected BF sample, other than coming back the OBVIOUS bear etc., was subjected to poor technique by the sample handlers. But of course that's what we are supposed to believe. handling DNA properly and using the protocols laid out in EVERY SINGLE course given is so basic as to be nearly fool proof. So fool proof that even if one or two samples are accidently contaminated some will slip through. I don't know when folks that study these occurrences will begin to realize this. Even poorly handled samples show bear and other common animals including Humans but the results "somehow" fail when it comes to BF? I never bought that line of bull and do not buy it now. There's something very wrong about these outcomes because DNA samples are handled all the time by the millions to include wildlife biologists as well as criminologists who NEED to be able to separate out animal DNA from Human. It's done EVERY DAY, ALL DAY. But BF samples are ALWAYS contaminated? Ot degraded to the point where all other animals including Humans show up but not Sasquatch? EVER? The nesting site in the OP has incredibly bizarre details which were reported in the mainstream media but the e-DNA samples from soil taken from UNDER the center of the nests Came back the usual animals , including Human so no problems there. BUT! the samples, announced on two small podcasts, were too degraded to see a novel primate? Wake up people! Edited August 5, 2019 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franco Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 5 minutes ago, hiflier said: Yep. More than one member here is of that opinion. Human DNA in Sasquatch samples is not contamination. IMHO it would be virtually impossible that EVERY suspected BF sample, other than coming back the OBVIOUS bear etc., was subjected to poor technique by the sample handlers. But of course that's what we are supposed to believe. handling DNA properly and using the protocols laid out in EVERY SINGLE course given is so basic as to be nearly fool proof. So fool proof that even if one or two samples are accidently contaminated some will slip through. I don't know when folks that study these occurrences will begin to realize this. Even poorly handled samples show bear and other common animals including Humans but the results "somehow" fail when it comes to BF? I never bought that line of bull and do not buy it now. There's something very wrong about these outcomes because DNA samples are handled all the time by the millions to include wildlife biologists as well as criminologists who NEED to be able to separate out animal DNA from Human. It's done EVERY DAY, ALL DAY. But BF samples are ALWAYS contaminated? Ot degraded to the point where all other animals including Humans show up but not Sasquatch? EVER? Wake up people! I am beginning to believe, Actually they are of Human origin.... Not apes... It actually explains alot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Franco said: I am beginning to believe, Actually they are of Human origin.... Not apes... It actually explains alot. It explains EVERYTHING. including the over-the-top consistency regarding "Human-contaminated" samples. I have said many times that that many samples coming back as being contaminated by Humans (everytime!) using poor technique makes no logical sense whatsoever. How in hell are we supposed to swallow such nonsense- and for how long? My only take away is that BF is NOT of "Human" origin but is a species of Homo all of it's own. Is that what you meant? Edited August 5, 2019 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted August 5, 2019 BFF Patron Share Posted August 5, 2019 On 7/30/2019 at 6:18 PM, wiiawiwb said: Evidence does not equal proof. It never has. Evidence is the offering of information that helps to provide a basis for conclusion. Whether that conclusion is reached is subject to interpretation. Let's take the OJ case. Was there evidence? Yes, there was plenty of evidence presented to the court. Was there proof? Ask the jury. Civily the jury found a "preponderance" of the evidence to be their proof outside the criminal trial apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franco Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 4 minutes ago, bipedalist said: Civily the jury found a "preponderance" of the evidence to be their proof outside the criminal trial apparently. If the gloves dont fit!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainshadow Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 As only an an armchair observer, my take is undocumented relic homo, based on plausibly (fits with existing scientific president), and my gut take on frame 352, with my perception being there is no way that is a costume (the expresion is halfway between concern and being ticked off), and to me, that is not an Ape. My opinion also excludes all woo, with any perceived odd activity being explained as human misinterpretation of highly adapted stealth (and intelligence), and please note I don't perceive the possible use of infrasound as woo. But, again, all I have is opinion and an affinity for the scientific method. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvedis Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 2 hours ago, Franco said: I dont how many of all, listen to coast to coast am. Mon 24 June, Dave Pailides was on said, the Ketchum DNA study prove that BF was A human Hybrid. This is reason all dna submit keeps coming back as "Not A Unknown Species" . But as tainted with Human DNA. HE goes on to state that BF is Not a ape, But a unknown Human Species possibly a relic Human Species. Late on in the Show a older man came ofn and told of his bigfoot Story from 1966. Where a 8 ft tall hairy human and him wound walking into a field together. He was picking apples and found himself face to face with it. He said he notice the hairy man looking at his apples so he sat down on a fallen log. Being taught not run from large animals. The BF sat down opposite, he placed apples on the log between them. The Creature grab them and ate. He says he was within 5 feet of him. And it looked human prutuding brow cover in hair at least 8 ft tall. Then he heard a noise turned and saw a pregnant female. Cover in hair looking more human the APE. What if what we are looking for is the wrong thing, a ape instead of a human type of Animal. This would explain the massive Intelligence of the Animal. Paulides did quotes some news article, thats points to them being a human like tribe. He states that " why isn't this evidence discussed in bigfoot forums and or Conventions. He believes we are dealing with relic humans not apes and if we looked deeper in the DNA and stop looking for something unknown... We would find our ansrews. If he did say all of that then it marks a significant change in how Paulides discusses Bigfoot. He usually has no theories and nothing at all worthwhile to say other than this happened and no one knows why. Sounds like it is worth a listen. On one hand, the Relict theory has been out there for a while and pretty obvious for most people to understand. The problem is the Ketchum study blew it. It should never have been a Ketchum study at all and needed a legit scientist to direct the project. Involving Burtsev was a problem as well as the clown in his lab coat Webb Sentell, etc. If Erickson or whoever was responsible for running the show wanted legit results then he needed legit people involved. It's not the data itself that is the entire problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted August 5, 2019 BFF Patron Share Posted August 5, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, hiflier said: It explains EVERYTHING. including the over-the-top consistency regarding "Human-contaminated" samples. I have said many times that that many samples coming back as being contaminated by Humans (everytime!) using poor technique makes no logical sense whatsoever. How in hell are we supposed to swallow such nonsense- and for how long? My only take away is that BF is NOT of "Human" origin but is a species of Homo all of it's own. Is that what you meant? Until a scientist with the stature of someone working at Max Planck Institute for. Evolutionary Anthropology dives into the fray, there will be no answers. Angel dna hybrids are not going to ice this cake. Bryan Sykes may have entered the fray but I am not sure that it was the best shot possible. Edited August 5, 2019 by bipedalist 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 1 minute ago, Arvedis said: ..........The problem is the Ketchum study blew it. It should never have been a Ketchum study at all and needed a legit scientist to direct the project........ The woman is a veterinarian. If that is not a legitimate "scientist", who is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvedis Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 1 minute ago, Huntster said: The woman is a veterinarian. If that is not a legitimate "scientist", who is? What part of her dialogues convinced anyone of her legitimacy to present data to a scientific community to substantiate an unknown species? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted August 5, 2019 BFF Patron Share Posted August 5, 2019 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Huntster said: The woman is a veterinarian. If that is not a legitimate "scientist", who is? Actually she was a veterinarian who dabbled in pedigrees and breed selection process heritability of various animals commercially to boot. The scientific process and chain of methodology short-circuited everything besides manufactured data as far as I could tell; including manufacturing fake journals and pretending to buy them to simulate legitimacy. The scientist in question did not produce a final product instilling confidence in either the scientific method or the chief investigator. Edited August 5, 2019 by bipedalist 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arvedis Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 6 minutes ago, bipedalist said: Actually she was a veterinarian who dabbled in pedigrees and breed selection process heritability of various animals commercially to boot. The scientific process and chain of methodology short-circuited everything besides manufactured data as far as I could tell; including manufacturing fake journals and pretending to buy them to simulate legitimacy. The scientist in question did not produce a final product instilling confidence in either the scientific method or the chief investigator. Yes, a more rigorous chain of custody needed to be established. One thing they really needed to do was expose the methodology cleanly supported by data. No scientific journal will look at it otherwise. It's a tough thing to prove with the bias in the established academic community so you really need to lean on the data and ultimately, all that was left was theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 My question remains unanswered, and if it is answered, it will lead to the next obvious question......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts