Guest Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Call me crazy, naive, overly positive, but it seems like a lot of things are pointing towards it being next Thursday. There were already rumours of next Thursday and then her PR person finally goes public with a lot of stuff. Sort of getting the PR thing rolling and saying we should expect it on a Thursday at 2 . I don't think it's good PR to tell everyone to look at NBC at 2 every Thursday if they are going to have to do it for the next 8 weeks or so. If it's not next Thursday then I expect it soon. Has Melba ever said anything but please be patient? Contrary to popular belief I don't think she has. This seems like a little more than that to me. Has Melba posted this many things on Facebook in one day in the past? Some of the things she is saying seem to point towards this thing wrapping up. I'm not throwing a party next Thursday at 2 or anything, but it seems like things are extremely close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 17, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted February 17, 2012 More likely: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted February 17, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted February 17, 2012 I think we could potentially see a whole new debate, about that word Human. That's what i see as being the problem with it all as if we're questioning Humans, we might just be questioning other extremely delicate subjects, some of which we aren't even allowed to go down the line of on this forum, if you get my drift. I don't know, the " bigness " of this for me, it's not just like discovering a new Animal species like we have been doing for years, this one is very different if the leaks are to be believed, and that just worries me a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 When I say questioning "Human", I mean by DNA definition. There are specific markers that they look at, and if enough of those markers are in the right spots in the sequence, then they call it human. But, there are a lot of spots,and when I say it could redefine what we call human, I am talking about something that has many of the genetic points of humanity, but then more. Perhaps there is specific, statistically provable, variants,that are showing, as well as the human markers. If that makes any sense to you. It would certainly explain the ambiguous results in early studies, that led to "contamination" being the conclusion. All we can do is, wait and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 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. Prag, What we call cedar here in the plains is different than out west. It is the Eastern Red Cedar and is a Juniper. They are very limber and will lay over when covered with snow and ice. http://en.wikipedia....erus_virginiana 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Yes it would indeed appear to be a Juniper and that it isn't a true cedar as inferred. But I guarantee too, the stalk of only very young saplings of about 3' and under will bend and lay down. The ones of the size being shown won't be so giving, especially in sub-freezing temperatures where they can even become brittle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 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. Prag, try to understand that it's not anyones opinion that every broken limb on a cedar was done by a bigfoot, We simply pay attention to them, and people can argue until they are blue in the face about other possibilities. We've been aware that bovine rub themselves on these same trees for a long time. The bottom line is that looking for those led to the find, and it is an alledged behavior not yet understood as being related to sasquatch but potentially for similar reasons they would do it also. That might be useful info for people researching in the plains of Oklahoma and eastward through the Appalachians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I'm just waiting for someone to say "Houston, we have a problem" as this count down continues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 HSS is human and humans are HSS. Correct. Anatomically modern humans are Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens sapiens are anatomically modern humans. No one has disputed that. The thing you seem want to dispute is the fact that Homo erectus, Homo floresiensis, Homo habilis, etc. are also human. Homo means human in biosystematics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 A certain Ohio Night shot from a Cam has just popped again today on FB. I thought it wasn't allowed to until this was all done & the NDA stopped it after MK pulled the Video from being public ? Got a linky, or are we fearful of going there? I don't know if I have seen or not. Google search didn't lead me anywhere near FB... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RioBravo Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 That's what i see as being the problem with it all as if we're questioning Humans, we might just be questioning other extremely delicate subjects, some of which we aren't even allowed to go down the line of on this forum, if you get my drift. I don't know, the " bigness " of this for me, it's not just like discovering a new Animal species like we have been doing for years, this one is very different if the leaks are to be believed, and that just worries me a little. The discovery of such a creature would indeed be profound. I'd say it's second only to the revelation of life elsewhere in the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I'm just waiting for someone to say "Houston, we have a problem" as this count down continues. Yep. This is not going to go as smoothly and as simply as paper is released -> scientific community embraces sasquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterbarber Posted February 17, 2012 Admin Share Posted February 17, 2012 Everything will be fine, the report is coming out shortly and I hear that they've made the necessary revisions: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Hi Bipedal: I think the paper would tend to lead the scientific community to embrace an undiscovered primate in NA. Which of course would spur more interest in the subject. I can see how the discussion in this thread (in some areas) is divided by a very fine line. Though I agree the paper wouldn't prove the existence of sasquatch - as defined by the lore/sightings/encounters. But it would certainly provide fuel to the theories of a creature like BF existing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 17, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted February 17, 2012 Heck, I'll settle on more knowledge of Sasquatch teeth, hair, bones, blood, etc. Who needs dna? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts