Guest Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 I don't quite understand what you are asking for, Darrell. As a firm, 100% believer who has never had a personal encounter, I don't believe that "conclusive" evidence exists. I believe there is reasonable evidence, as in it's reasonable to think these things could collectively add up to a real live animal we know as bigfoot, but I don't understand how it is determined by any agenda. In fact- what "agendas" exist in Bigfoot? If you believe it's real, then naturally you would want to let others know why you believe. If you've seen one personally then I guess your "agenda" might be to prove it's real. Other than that, is there really anyone out there who doesn't believe in it, but WANTS others to believe it? If a person wants you to believe in the animal, then they themselves must truly believe in it too. What agenda are you referring to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 All Mulder is saying is that the approach to each subject should be treated equally. Why should evidence of Sasquatch be dismissed out of hand? That has nothing to do with evidence of unicorns, dogmen, chupacabras or anything else. All that means is that it shouldn't be too unreasonable to expect that if something is brought forth seriously, it should be looked at seriously. If looked at objectively, and the evidence falls on it's face, then so be it. So you are right in saying that with his expectations of one standard for all claims, everything should be looked at, and if your unicorn evidence is laughed out of the building in five seconds, then that's the evidence's fault, not science's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 What about leprechauns? If you could prove the're real, you'll get rich. A big ol' pot of gold, although you might have to fight the bigfoots and unicorns for it. You better get that epic battle on film! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) If looked at objectively, and the evidence falls on it's face, then so be it. So you are right in saying that with his expectations of one standard for all claims, everything should be looked at, and if your unicorn evidence is laughed out of the building in five seconds, then that's the evidence's fault, not science's. And so far, bigfoot evidence that is produced for public review does fall flat on it's face because most of what is shown are blob squatches, wads of hair, footprints that could be from anything other than a bigfoot. It is no different than the picture I took and claimed was a segment of a unicorn horn. Edited August 1, 2012 by CTfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 And so far, bigfoot evidence that is produced for public review does fall flat on it's face because most of what is shown are blob squatches, wads of hair, footprints that could be from anything other than a bigfoot. It is no different than the picture I took and claimed was a segment of a unicorn horn. Blob squatches- sure I'll grant you that. MOST are blob squatches. There's still that pesky PGF though, and a few other pretty profound videos. Wads of hair- curious that you would dismiss this, as hair contains DNA and can also be identified morphologically. If hair found in the wild cannot be identified, then it follows logically that it could belong to an as-yet unidentified animal. Hair is actually good evidence. Footprints that could be anything other than bigfoot- this is where you show your bias. They can be anything? The reason they are so compelling is because they specifically CANNOT be anything. There is morphological and statistical data that suggests (again, nothing conclusive) that it comes from a population of real animals. Really, this is the kind of thing that annoys me to no end. This stuff is all out there for you to look at for yourself. The only thing that isn't out there is anything having to do with the Ketchum report. You claim there is no evidence, then ignorantly dismiss things you obviously know nothing about. I know there is probably a nicer way to say that, but I put as much effort into saying it as you did into throwing out all that evidence out of hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Here's some interesting reading about other, "the report is coming" incidents. http://www.bbb.org/east-texas/busine...on-tx-24003140 http://www.complaintsboard.com/compl...s-c344359.html http://www.optigen.com/opt9_imppatlawx831.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Interesting, according to Tom Burnette (per his complaint he filed), DMK is in possession of a possible BF skull. Is Tom Burnette a player in the BF arena? I understand that DMK and Sally are members here, perhaps they can comment? And the pattern of 'next week' does have me a bit concerned, but I can understand that resources would be focused in clandestine areas if they were on to something as groundbreaking as BF discovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) Blob squatches- sure I'll grant you that. MOST are blob squatches. There's still that pesky PGF though, and a few other pretty profound videos. Wads of hair- curious that you would dismiss this, as hair contains DNA and can also be identified morphologically. If hair found in the wild cannot be identified, then it follows logically that it could belong to an as-yet unidentified animal. Hair is actually good evidence. Footprints that could be anything other than bigfoot- this is where you show your bias. They can be anything? The reason they are so compelling is because they specifically CANNOT be anything. There is morphological and statistical data that suggests (again, nothing conclusive) that it comes from a population of real animals. Really, this is the kind of thing that annoys me to no end. This stuff is all out there for you to look at for yourself. The only thing that isn't out there is anything having to do with the Ketchum report. You claim there is no evidence, then ignorantly dismiss things you obviously know nothing about. I know there is probably a nicer way to say that, but I put as much effort into saying it as you did into throwing out all that evidence out of hand. You have a player in the PGF that claims it was a hoax. Why do you not believe him yet the guy from ENOCH gets dismissed? Is it because one is a book and the other is a film? Has any hair come come back that wasn't identified as something else? Prints have been faked and misidentified, they may be evidence for something but you can't say what they are either for or against the existence of bigfoot. Is it really evidence then? I don't make the rules. I tried presenting evidence for a unicorn of equal quality that has been proferred for bigfoot. YOu actually said in a prior quote, " What is NOT reasonable is to assume any evidence is not real evidence, because the animal is known to not be real. That's bass-ackwards as they say." So which is it more plausible based on the quality of the evidence and why? Edited August 1, 2012 by CTfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 In these complaints about Ketchums dna business there's a guy named Tom Burnette that claims he sent a bigfoot skull to Melba for testing. This is the first I've heard of this. Anybody got some info about it? link www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/dna-diagnostics-dba-shelterwood-laboratories-timpson-texas-c344359.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 If you look on the bbb report, 24 complaints were resolved. It sounds like she has more of an employee problem or managing of employee's. their wasn't any complaints filed that say she didn't preform the test correctly, so it doesn't seem to be a problem with her work, it's the time it's preformed in. Many,very intelligent people I know have problems with time in general, it's like they never pay attention to it. I don't think it's fair to call her work flawed because it's not done in a specific time frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 I hope he got the skull back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Tom Burnette is the NATURE'S SECRET AGENTS Guy. (ISBN 978-1607437994). He mentions sending off DNA samples and maybe even the skull in the Book. It seems like he used to post here. GK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 To clear up my post a bit, I did not want to imply that her work is flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Someone start a stop-watch. Stop it when RL 'leaks' this info! And per his complaint, it doesn't appear the skull has been returned. Oh, here's a quick synopsis of the book from Amazon. "Natures secret agents starts out when a man walking a timber boundary is ran out of the woods by an ape type creature thought to be a sasquatch....Mystified and scared to death he tries to make friends with them by leaving out food for them...To his amazement they began to leave him small amounts of wild mushrooms and acorns... He is able to photograph the creatures, and they take him through a night marish hell through the next 10 years. Not understanding their ways or habits he stumbles trying to make friends with them. The dominant male does not like his activities and makes mock attacks when Brunette goes to feed. Not believing his eyes he sees the male one day and it is big as a horse, now he believes the giant prehistoric ape believed to be extinct is well and alive here in North Carolina.....and is flourishing with a social group of them.... Tom Brunettes keeps a well written journal of all his activities, and in the end of the book he finds a baby sasquatch or ape next to his dog feeding pan in his back yard. The baby had just been birthed and he takes it to the woods hoping his mother would return for the infant, she never did and he found the remains a couple of weeks later.....He sent the remains to a dna research facility and is still waiting for the results, so far after eight months the dna strainds have not been traceable to any known species... This book is a true story and probably one of the most in-depth studies ever conducted by any bigfoot researcher in the world....Read the book and make up your own mind....." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frosstman Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) This is him. Edited August 1, 2012 by frosstman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts