Crittergetter Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 (edited) Your acceptance of the possibility was all that I was after, Tontar. How far you take that though is up to you, and I for one, won't fault you for any amount of disbelief. In same ways it is quite inconcieveable. Also, I am very happy to hear that you actively hunt for Bigfoot. From my current perspective as an internet bigfoot enthusiast, I respect that greatly, especially since you have your doubts. I would hunt myself, but my financial status as well as my location and schedule does not allow for it to be a reality at this junction of my life. The truth is that we will find out if Bigfoot exists or not eventually, and all it takes is some patience in all parties. I personally cannot wait to find out, and I look forward to the years I will be able to soak up new information about them if they are officially identified as a real animal. Edited May 18, 2012 by Crittergetter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Critter, cool then. We're not very far from extremely "squatchy" places, so it' snot a big deal for us to get out there. Relatively cheap, so we're happy about that. If I ever do see one, you'll hear about it! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 This just in from the facebook page: Question: "Melba/Sally - it's gone a bit quiet here. Any updates for us?" Reply: "Sally here - Nothing new to report. Things continue to progress". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 That's spot on. DNA testing and a cat scan proved Zana was human. Does anyone know if it was only the standard mtDNA testing that was done and not a full nuDNA test? I doubt the Nu was tested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 As always a bunch of anecdotal, unknown "facts", Cast tracks and other body impressions (hands, etc) with identifiable biometric indicators that withstand statistical checking are not "anecdotal" or "unknown". Neither are forensically typed hairs. They are concrete, physical items of evidence, testable, and analyzable.reports, ect ect blah blah blah and as yet unpublished reports equal only one thing at this point....no Bigfoot[ No, they equal a strong but not dispositive case FOR bigfoot. A full body (or a good DNA result) would simply be a bonus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 I don't know what you mean by putting quotation marks around the word 'facts' there, if you are indeed replying to me. All of the facts that I presented are, to the best of my knowledge, true. There are 4,502 recorded BIgfoot sightings on BFRO(Their individual veracity is questionable, but I didn't say it wasn't), I added them all together myself. Also the information about Meldrum, Sykes, and Ketchum all appear to be accurate as well. Though the statement that some of the videos hold value was basically my opinon I suppose, though I thought that was pretty clear... Requesting to see a Bigfoot, alive or dead, on an internet forum is a bit foolish. It should be obvious that I don't have one(I never claimed to have one anyway) and if I did have one why would I go about showing it to a random person on the internet. Even if I did, the logistics involved would be extremely complicated and it would be rather costly due to the required travel and the packaging costs involved. Also, you probably already would have heard of it. If there were 9K reports, would that then double the possibility bigfoot exists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 This just in from the facebook page: Question: "Melba/Sally - it's gone a bit quiet here. Any updates for us?" Reply: "Sally here - Nothing new to report. Things continue to progress". ughh -__- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 The simplest way I can summarize it is: A) there are general needs an animal has as far as caloric intake, and the combination of purported size of bigfoot combined with the biomes they are supposedly found in, makes it highly dubious they could survive in North America. Untrue. Bears thrive in N America, and they are similar in size and apparent diet to BF. That's one reason why the overlapping range findings of bear and BF are so significant.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Clearly Sally and Dr. Ketchum learned the lesson that so many labored so hard to teach them: Be careful about opening your mouth, because the horde of locusts is just waiting to take up residence. And I don't include this board or this thread in that statement. If anyone has been over to Bigfoot evidence in the last months, you've witnessed some of the most vile and disgusting trolling I've ever seen directed at Dr. Ketchum and Sally Ramey from a slew of anonymous commenters, some of whom felt free enough to risk felony liable by impersonating Dr. Ketchum and Sally in an abhorrent t fashion. I think the quiet is a great sign. Not a sign of imminent release, but a sign that they learned the hard lesson that less is more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 gershake wrote: "ughh -__-" Yeah, not exactly thrilling is it? I did notice that the time between question and response was very short. Seems the FB page is still closely monitored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted May 18, 2012 Moderator Share Posted May 18, 2012 If there were 9K reports, would that then double the possibility bigfoot exists? No. It doubles the possibility that its existence will be accepted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shaun Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 I disagree. Or close to human, yet still of a different species. How can you rule this out, particularly since the DNA techniques used were dated? DNA techniques may have progressed, but not that much as to make a difference in this specific case. Don't forget that the skull was also modern human, which when added to DNA evidence makes a strong case for Zana being human. Please keep in mind I don't make these points as a skeptic. I've seen what I consider to be an unclassified primate in northern America. However, I also believe scientific facts are hard to dispute. Clinging desperately to the belief that all 'evidence' MUST indicate a cryptoprimate doesn't do anyone any good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 I can dig something tangible, but so far I have not seen tangible stuff coming from DNA discussions. Where's the DNA coming from, what flesh? From hairs, like this..... and this.... Now you have seen something tangible in a DNA discussion. Lets not play games about where the results are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 From hairs, like this..... and this.... Now you have seen something tangible in a DNA discussion. Lets not play games about where the results are. These hairs have been analyzed for DNA? And the results are what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 We are going to let Dr. Ketchum tell us in this study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts