Cotter Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 ^^ x 2, the guys at the office got a real good kick out of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 ^^^^^^ I almost had an accident when I watched this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) yeah, apparently cat's aren't all that great at parkour... lol ... only watch it 8 times... otherwise the cat gets it Edited March 22, 2012 by BFSleuth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 My sprite just came out my nose!! That is hilarious! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerhunter Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 A tack in the shoe equals an inconclusive polygraph result, just ask the Russians of the cold war era. Hutch, this is just a story until proof is given, so sit back and enjoy the ride. In the meantime, if that $500 is burning a hole in your pocket, I will be first in line with my hand out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Hutch, I for one completely get and support what your saying and have felt the same about this story from day one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I've resisted from commenting in this thread for a long time now. For no particular reason, other than that I really didnt think I had anything to contribute, at least that hasnt been kicked around so much, that the bones have been turned to dust. But I realize now, that there's been something that been seated firmly at the back of my mind, and I think it would be an interesting question to ask of Derek, and for anyone else who wants to chime in. I havent read every post in the thread, and I dont believe it's been discussed at any great length. It may have been over in the Ketchum Report thread, but I've spent far less time there. So.. myself, the problem I'm contemplating really doesnt hinge on whether I believe Justin's account of the events or not. I start with the "chunk" of meat that's been submitted, and start to realize that this also has broader implications on the overall DNA study being finalized at this point in time. With regards to this sample, and other's used in the study. The problem I have, is that let's say the results come back, and its exactly what many expect+want it to be, and some claim to know that it is. The difficulty in my mind, is that I find it hard to see how that result validates Justin's account, or even comes close to proving existence. Why ? Because as it stands, what you'll have proven is that a chunk of meat (and the other samples submitted/used in the study) have come from an "unknown" or undocumented ?? what ?? I'll refer to it as (critter-x). You have to know/realize that some people are going to immediately discount it, because critter-x is nowhere to be found. In regards to this particular sample (Justins), essentially you have a tissue sample, with an origin that can only be described as anecdotal evidence. I hate using that term, but since it's kind of hard to verify what happened that day, or where the sample came from- there's really no other way to say it. Obviously, if a carcass existed, and a tissue sample is removed, and tested- you have a grand-slam, case closed, stories over, result. Well, I mean at that point, the DNA test just becomes a secondary matter of curiosity, or to assign its place, as the carcass laying on a steel exam table is your "star attraction" The only analogy I can think to make is this. Suppose that in the case of Wooly-Mammoth's, that at some point in only recent history- some tissue had been found under the permafrost, by someone excavating, and without the accompanying skeleton/remains. A DNA test is undertaken, and the result comes back that the tissue is a relative of modern day Elephants. In a nearby cave, are some drawings showing a likeness of two early humans, one of which is throwing a spear at the sizeable beast, while the other tries to persuade him not too.. (sorry, my interjection of a little humor- not making light of anything). So my question is- would we be able to classify, and explain what a Wooly-Mammoth is, by having only that small scrap of flesh, and the accompanying anecdotal evidence that early humans hunted it ? We'd have for example, no idea what size it was in comparison to its modern ancestor, and it would be left as a only partially solved riddle, based on the fact that no type specimen had been obtained. The same analogy could be used for the entire multi-million year history of dinosaurs, which without fossilized skeletal remains, simply wouldnt exist at all to our knowledge. I guess I'm having a hard time in understanding why there's such a huge amount of anticipation of, and level of expectation, in regards to the pending DNA study, because to me- the results, as good or interesting as they may be, seem to be only one piece of an unassembled puzzle. I mean I would obviously see it as a stepping stone, or maybe a better description would be a foundation to build off of. I just dont see how it's going to result in anything definitive.... Am I wrong for feeling this way ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Great post, Art. I wholeheartedly agree with your assertion that "unknown animal" is just that and nothing more. However, if this "unknown animal" has been included in a study showing that its "unknown" DNA matches several other DNA samples taken across North America, and one or more of these samples is accompanied by convincing footage of a beast which has been rumored to have existed for centuries, then we have significantly narrowed what this "unknown" could be, to the point that we can make a claim as to what it is. However, my post is contingent on many things occurring which we have no proof of at this point: 1. Said DNA has, in fact, been proven to be some kind of unknown primate. 2. Said DNA does, in fact, match other DNA samples included in a DNA study. 3. There does, in fact, exist convincing footage of the donor of one or more DNA samples. 4. There does, in fact, exist a DNA study which is on the verge of being released. 5. The DNA study has, in fact, been sufficiently (and fairly) vetted by reputable members of the scientific community. If all the above does hold true, then there is no reason to doubt that General's story is (mostly) true. However, that's a BIG "if". So big, in fact, that at this point I am of the opinion that it would be a dream come true but will believe it when I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BackInAction Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I suspect that if the DNA from multiple samples all match Animal-X, it would, at least, peek the interest of the scientific community to begin a formal investigation rather than dismissing Animal-X outright. With hopes that someday a "real scientist" will collect a "confirmed" sample and the DNA matches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Nice post, NiceGuy. I agree with everything but number three. Even though Erickson's footage is supposedly part of the study and Ketchum claims to have a clear picture "or two", I don't think having that evidence is absolutely necessary. If the DNA shows unknown primate/hominid, then how else did General obtain the sample? The other details (claims about poaching or sufficient caliber or whatever else) are ultimately immaterial from a scientific perspective. There's one more thing that bears repeating: There is non-circumstantial evidence that could link Justin to the scene. If it hasn't been tested yet, someone isn't thinking clearly. IMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I agree with Art in that matching DNA results from 20 or 200 samples doesn't seal the deal with regard to what the 'unknown primate' looks like or what its habits are. And a dead body would only go so far as well, if one is on board with the theory that these creatures can vary greatly in their physical characteristics. As to a corroborating and convincing video that will lend provenance to a particular sample, I highly doubt there exists a video that is above reproach of being called a hoax. Hopefully I am wrong on this, as it would lessen the need for a someone to bring in a dead one, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 23, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) Well of course, there would also be cell-phone records of gps coordinates on that day in October or that day that either a tissue sample was photographed with the cellphone if done on-site...... assuming he did take cellphone pictures. That would be material especially if the October 8th day is correct and verification could take place anywhere from repeater or tower in that remote of an area. Ultimately, I guess the big reveal will be more dependent on other samples than the Sierra sample. The book will be nothing but a memory if there is no intact body parts to be produced or are no intact pictures of an entire organism produced and the science in the paper is verified anyway. Maybe a Letterman appearance could result...... Edited March 23, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) I'd be perfectly happy if the study substitutes "unknown primate/hominid" for bigfoot. At this stage of the game, DNA isn't going to tell you if the contributor has big feet and stinks. If a vetted study reveals there's a non-human(ish) primate in the forests of North America, it will be a mind-boggling discovery regardless of whether they have footage of the thing eating pancakes or spooning in the woods. Edited March 23, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) If Hutch didn't come in guns blazing this thread might not be "hot!" We are all waiting, so for that all the comments have some validity, as they are opinions, or as yet unsubstantiated facts. I can imagine the subject matter and resulting lab work justify secrecy for the study, and all the reputed NDAs. But, I do think in Justin's case, that sample, if shown to fit Dr. Ketchum's parameter's of Bigfoot should have been made early in an individual report, somehow. The first time she was able to successfully "test" that sample and identifiy it as :yes a BF," that result, should have been made available as a matter of ethical duty. Justin as the shooter and a human deserves a speedy resolution to this, as does the public and BFs (if we are to acknowledge them), all of the BF community should be on notice if true or not and what basic genus she is seeing to adjust their programs (kill, etc), other academics, in BF or related fields, should also be on notice to improve their research (the Open Access movement), and although I doubt release of the one "report" would roll over the Myth staus, those 1.9 million Finding Bigfoot viewers might consider more deeply the situation. What could the downsides of a release of just that story be? Too early and unaccepted does it fuel further hunters? I doubt b/c those that know or desire to are already in that mindset. Will it cause unnecessary public misunderstanindg? Doubt it, because of this long lead in and on net BS the trail is a bit muddy already...an early report preempts that. And the race to "discover" would be oer for hunters. Would it jepardize her deeper study? Not with the NDAs in place, nor even really the goal..how many big labs will set aside the production schedules to "jump' in immediately w/o waiting to see the bigger study? And if they did? Good, other studies should happen., and quickly. Could her larger study be compromised with just Justin's data reported? I suppose if part of the 'data" of her work is her methodology, perhaps she developed new primers or something (I can't speak to the lab tests/choices), and to even report her results in one test forces her to reveal novel lab processes. I suppose that is the most justifiable reason, if it would nix the any peer review? Is that possible? Unless it is apparent after release of the study, and Justin's extrinsic eidence (he has some photos or video if not of the day of follow up events?) to show there was a very deep reason to holding back on this potentially monumental documented killing of two BFs in October 2010 I will wonder about her choice. If the results of Justin's sample are not BF, well that would explain her silence as well, but not to Justin personally, or Op....seems they would know that. Edited March 23, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I'd be perfectly happy if the study substitutes "unknown primate/hominid" for bigfoot. At this stage of the game, DNA isn't going to tell you if the contributor has big feet and stinks. If a vetted study reveals there's a non-human(ish) primate in the forests of North America, it will be a mind-boggling discovery regardless of whether they have footage of the thing eating pancakes or spooning in the woods. I can't see how they can say anything else about the results- I assume (yes I know) there's more to it than we know... Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts