TimB Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Like when they announced the denisovian discovery and everyone laughed because they didn't have a whole body specimen. I remember all that ridicule well!!! Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted August 9, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted August 9, 2012 Yep, the tip of a little finger bone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Hah, can't wait to see that make the 6 o'clock news. Bigfoot exists, no longer considered a hoax. Well no, we don't have one, don't have a photo, don't know exactly where they are, but we have some DNA from one a guy shot and left for scavengers... I can just see Suzanne Malveux doing the interview on CNN. ;-) Are we forgetting the Erickson project video that will be released with the DNA study? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Is that going to happen still? I thought they had a falling out. And that's the video that Bill Munns has seen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 (edited) Adrian has been waiting for the paper to be published to back up his documentary findings, no? speel check Edited August 9, 2012 by indiefoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 (edited) I believe the documentary is finished. It's rumoured he has gotten video that's better than even the Patterson-Gimlin film. I think some his videos were shown to both Dr. John Bindernagel and Dr. Meldrum. Dr. Bindernagel was especially impressed. The Doc won't come out before the paper though. Edited August 9, 2012 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 OntarioSquatch, With all due respect, you state things in such a declarative manner that is seems it is fact. However, almost all of your statements appear (from what I can see) to be a culmination of rumors running amok on other websites. Please, do tell...are you an "insider"?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Ah, but a sample is not the same as a specimen. A sample might be a tooth, or a claw, or a fingernail, or hair, or blood, or skin, and such a piece of sample tissue might be unrecognizable as what it really came from. A specimen would be a whole animal, something that could really, conclusively be called something. For example, the best sample so far, I think, is the Smeja sample, the skin shard. Hard to build a morphological animal from a piece of hairy skin. So you have a piece of skin, which has viable DNA, which does not match anything else on record. Does that mean we have a bigfoot piece of skin and bigfoot DNA? Hmmm, I'm not so sure that would be the peer reviewed conclusion. Like I tried to say way back when, you can't feed DNA code into some sort of synthesizer and have it draw out a model of what the DNA is supposed to represent were it a whole animal. Unknown DNA is just that, a mystery still. This is where you are just simply wrong. The DNA will show what it's closest relatives are, and this places it on the phylogenetic tree. A new member on the hominidae branch found in the US. would be a real tough thing to explain any other way. You can argue you still can't see the creature, but you can't ignore it's placement on the tree of life, which does give you a description. http://www.whozoo.org/mammals/Primates/primatephylogeny.htm 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 I'm not really an insider Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest poignant Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 With the recent revelation of Homo rudolfensis, I'm speculating that the public psyche is being prepared for the big sasquatch reveal. Good science with bad marketing will get you no where. It's all about timing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 So Erickson bought several videos from the landowner, some real, some maybe not. Some people have seen these, and some think they are real, some think they are not real? I heard one had really good views of the face, but the eyes don't blink? So I'm curious, how does one separate the real from the faked videos? Did Erickson himself take any video himself? It'd be good to see the video, but the idea that some is real and some is fake is troubling, wouldn't you say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 It's rumoured most of Erickson's videos are from his own team of scientists. He purchased the rights to 4 of 5 from the previous land owner. Apparently the land owner threw in a fake one which was sent to Bill Munns and confirmed as a modified chewbacca mask lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Why send Bill a hoaxed video? What's the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 To confirm it was a hoax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 ^ Rumors and hoaxes and lies, Oh My!! There is no fact or fiction in this whole mess just a no mans land in the middle. The pro ketchum camp is so willing to believe any rumor or statement on pure faith and yet the first thing you ask for when someone questions any of it is "whats your facts, whats your facts?" What everyone should be worried about is if the DNA will prove what the samples actually are, will we have to start calling bigfoot "unknown match" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts