Guest RayG Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 My guess is that the frozen crow is going to remain safely packed away in the freezer. We've seen the hype over bigfoot pronouncements a number of times in the past, and still no bigfoot. I predict this will be no different. I hope I'm wrong. I'd love to be wrong, but my inner skeptic is whispering 'I doubt it'. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 ^^ Ray I prefer the term 'guarded' but I get your point. By beef isn't with the skeptics, but rather the 'true deniers' and we all know who they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted February 17, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted February 17, 2012 You may be right Ray, i personally don't think you are though because from my mindset, my bet is that some people ( these people ) have stumbled across a few of these things i saw so many years ago and got some DNA of them. To me that isn't completely out of the question at all if you look at it from my perspective. This whole Project makes not one iota of difference to me either way nor does it change anything so i'm trying to be non biased, problem is all my natural instincts are jumping up inside me to let them out saying " I told you so " but i'd like to think i won't . I do find the " Thank you to xxx for your contribution " etc that we've seen over the past 48 hours quite telling however that 1 ) Things are positive 2 ) A conclusion is near. What do you read into them ? ^^ I don't know Bobby do you think it's time to lay some crow out on the counter to thaw or are we being premature? I'd like to think so HODS, but there has been lots of " This is it " moments where this subject is concerned but none never on this scale & if i had to bet my life on it, i'd give this a thumbs up when you put everything together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TexasTracker Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 with all the facebook posts tonight, you think she's spillin the bean tomorrow.???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted February 17, 2012 Admin Share Posted February 17, 2012 I'd like to thank Dr Ketchum for waiting until we upgraded our server! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TexasTracker Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I'd really like to see the servers get tested.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted February 17, 2012 Admin Share Posted February 17, 2012 and that we will... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TexasTracker Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 will all the stuff from her, thought she might drop the bomb after midnight..??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) I'm not a hair expert by any means but I do have a few questions/concerns/thoughts re the Texla results SouthernYahoo. The first being the broken cedar trees where the hairs were collected. More specifically the assumption that the cause of the breaks was due to our hairy friend, and therefore lending credence to the hair also being from that assumed suspect. I believe this to be flawed reasoning. Here's why. Conifers such as the Cedars that were identified, have a very rough bark surface, which in itself makes them highly susceptible to damage due to snow and ice. Why? Because the ice adheres very well to the surface, and as for snow, as in snow loading, the broad surface of the needle boughs, as well as the brittle nature of the species' branches themselves, leads to much easier breakage then other tree species. Such breakage does not follow a pattern where adjacent similar species tree would fall to the same fate either as there are other variables involved. While there may not be much elevation gain in Oklahoma as compared to here in the PNW, there is still significant snowfall & ice storms even at lower elevations, more than enough to cause the damage being shown in the photos. The lion share of tree breaks you have pictured are most definitely caused by snow & ice loading. I recognize the characteristics. Broken trees of this fashion are not a reliable form of evidence of Sasquatch, unless they were actually seen doing the damage, which I understand wasn't the case. If Dr. Ketchum or other scientists use tree breaks as evidence of Sasquatch as being why a sample was collected and therefore deemed Sasquatch to be the likely cause, then I would encourage those people to read my amateur paper as well because it is an entirely unreliable causal factor. While it might happen occasionally it is far more likely to be caused by nature. Sometimes different perspectives can be important. I'd also point out that bovine love to scratch themselves on rough surfaces such as these and a stomach or rib cage won't leave much visible damage besides the tearing that was witnessed. The sapling could have still been damaged by weather as referred to above and then used as a scratching post later on. It would not be unusual for a loose top to be kicked several yards away too and within a few weeks there would be no tracks remaining. As for the hair samples shown. It would still be helpful to view additional cross sections of the Unknown Hairs. Maybe different sections or varied lighting methods if they existed? I ask because as you know it seems that even with human hairs there can be various characteristics that may or may not be visible depending on aspects such as lighting, magnification, photographic method, hair condition, age, etc. So if more examples were provided, you might have more avenues of comparison so as to utilize the different cataloguing sources that are available. For example, here's an FBI page on Hair Analysis. Note the different micro-photographic methods being used on just human hair to bring out different characteristics. This isn't a big deal but I find it 'interesting' that a technician who should be expected to be unbiased, would use the newly popular slang term 'Squatch' in assessing the sample. Emphasis below mine. Pet peeve, I actually don't like the term. "Yeah, 3 of the skin tags retrieved from the samples did not match or "NO MATCH FOUND" according to computer analysis. Weird, huh? As far as I can tell, I can't match the sequencing codes exactly to any animal/human. This can be due to a number of reasons, however, the skin tags appeared in really good shape. I'm not officially allowed to say that they belong to a squatch but another explanation is highly unprobable given the location, time of year, and the appearance (size, shape, color, thickness, etc.)." Even though the Texla members feel they have ruled out HSS human because they feel it would require one of two highly unlikely scenarios for such hairs to find their way onto the broken branches, I would argue against relying on such a hypothesis. It would in fact be possible! For example what if kids were playing in the area? What if the kids were mystified by what caused the broken branches as well (snow & ice which leaves no marks and will cause tree to move in different angles) and in examining the trees closely, got their own long hair pulled out by what is naturally a very snaggy vegetation species? Kids will be kids and one mystery inquiry compounds itself as evidence of another. One could probably come up with other avenues for the hair being found there if desired. Bottom line is, broken saplings should never be used as evidence of Sasquatch without corroboration of a witness who actually saw it happen. Seeing how some members within the bigfoot field have given such unquestioning unsubstantiated importance to what are unreliable tree breaks in the past, I would strongly encourage any future papers, documentaries, or other upcoming Sasquatch findings to not use this form of field evidence without ample corroboration of the event. Edited February 17, 2012 by PragmaticTheorist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) Now Ketchum has posted this: "Also, thanks so very much to all of you for your kind words and support. This makes all of the criticism easier to tolerate. This would not have taken so long but so much was required." Note the formulation "would not have taken so long...was required" rather than "is taking so long...is required." Edited February 17, 2012 by Christopher Noel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted February 17, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted February 17, 2012 with all the facebook posts tonight, you think she's spillin the bean tomorrow.???? My fingers are crossed that there are " beans " to spill TT, not a just a " bean "... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Now Ketchum has posted this: "Also, thanks so very much to all of you for your kind words and support. This makes all of the criticism easier to tolerate. This would not have taken so long but so much was required." Note the formulation "would not have taken so long...was required" rather than "is taking so long...is required." Now your really scaring me. You know what i hate? living in Australia means its day time in the U.S when im sleeping, cant bare thinking what im going to miss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I just had a thought. What if this is just another hoax but brought into the 21st century on a bigger scale than any previous hoax with the DNA results in fact being faked in some way. They sure will make a lot of money if they found "Bigfoot". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) BA....I think it would probably be far easier to get real sasquatch DNA than to fake a study on this scale. We're talking 200 samples, apparently, 28 different individual sasquatches, and multiple independant labs testing samples "blindly".......how are you going to fake that? We've moved on a bit since the Piltdown Man saga. And have you considered the career-ending impact of such a long drawn out fraud for professional people? No, I bet your house that there is no fraud involved. That isn't to say that I bet the science stacks up, because it would be stupid to pre-judge the report and all its associated stuff..........but it won't be fraudulent. Mike Edited February 17, 2012 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Ketchum tweeted this sentence about 7 hours ago(that's around midnight in NY); I am so excited about our findings and am anxious myself to get them out into the public. Wish science wasn't so slow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts