southernyahoo Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 If I am reading the post on this thread correctly, it would appear that the shooting of a Bigfoot has been confirmed and the issue of whether or not this event actually occurred is no longer in question. However, I have seen nothing that would confirm that bfs have been shot. I agree with GuyinIndiana that some folks mistakenly believe that some DNA results from tissues without a proper chain of custody will close the door on the debate regarding the existence of Bigfoot. it will take much more than that to convince most people of the existence of Bigfoot. I for one will be very skeptical of any DNA results that claim Bigfoot is human. Obviously, human DNA is very easy to get a hold of considering that there are is over 6 billion of us or so on the planet. I think there will be claims about the chain of custody too. What will we do when there is a wicked onslaught of them from researchers across the country? The skeptics are going to need some help on this , trying to bat them all down with " i don't believe it" statements on forums everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 (edited) There has been a woman working her ass off for the last two and a half years to bring you your proof. I would think researchers would think that's pretty cool. Maybe I'm wrong. Derek, I so hate to go there since it is off topic, but...no, I don't. Have you seen the Erickson footage? Is it worth the wait and could the OP and Erickson's research coincide with Dr. Ketchum's study being released? Also, Guy, you can't have it both ways. Derek has claimed he has evidence he will release. I guess that quote that floats around about "put to bigfoot researchers in a room" isn't far off. I would expect more from one researcher to another. Also, maybe you should read the thread again. The shooting is one piece, not the whole kit and caboodle, of what the OP is releasing. Edited August 9, 2011 by Jodie edited for compliance with forum rules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Warbow Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 I would like to thank General for posting here. It has helped to change my opinion of him. I do believe that was his entire intent. The “main stream†crypto blogs portray General as a cold blooded killer. I no longer believe that is the case. The one thing that is really bothering me is his description of the juvenile. I read the entire thread at work today. His description of the juvenile of being 5 to 7 years old and weighting 40lbs. I am hoping that General is mistaken on the weight or has omitted a small detail. After reading this I went home and weighted my son who just turned 5 years old. He weights exactly 40lbs. His height is 43 inches, less than 4 feet high without any fat on him. I’m hoping that the juvenile was greater than 40lbs and closer to the 80 to 100lbs that Derekfoot suggested on the MN.B.R.T Radio program. General, can you give an estimate the height of the juvenile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Sweetsusiq, I got to admit, sometimes you crack me up. I don't know when he'll be back so I'll take this one. As posted in this thread, just a few days ago, he regrets what he did. If he could hit the rewind button he would. It's affected him in many ways. He's hopefully morphing into a researcher. He now realizes the importance of gathering evidence, and it's very obvious that he would never do that again. DR Thank you Derekfoot. I appreciate your comment and taking the time to answer my question. I do feel better towards him at this moment. Who knows in the next minute.. but I'm trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Apologies if this doesn't belong here but it came up and I'm genuinely curious. I don't get the "chain of custody" argument. Is the critique going to be, "yep, you have hominid DNA from multiple samples, it's x% between man and chimp and it doesn't match anything else known to science but...we don't trust the chain of custody." Even if the DNA came from Uncle Bob, wouldn't that call into question everything we know about the human genome (or at least Uncle Bob)? Seriously, unless DNA sequences can be faked I don't understand the critique. Chain of custody is clearly important for a whole host of other reasons (is the animal extinct - if not, where does it live, etc) but otherwise wouldn't new hominid DNA be an incredible discovery? What am I missing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 The issue with custody is to prevent contamination. It is a lot more complicated than I'm describing here but you want the sample free of contaminates so you can get more amplifications that are true. I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 (edited) Guyinindiana, support another researcher, hell no, what sense would that make? Don't want your pom poms or your cheer-leading. A small touch of respect would be way cool though. Why respect you might ask? I have a teem of people working in the woods on a very regular basis. Unlike a lot of researchers we are a full on boots on the ground teem. I couldn't tell you how many thousands of miles we've hiked, and how many thousands of hours we've put into this field of research. The over 100 samples we've submitted to this study weren't picked off some sample tree. We've worked for them the old fashion way. As you previously posted,:" you've never heard of any of us", in a earlier post well, I don't know what to tell you. I've been heavily involved in research for the last 26 years. I spent 5 years working with Jeff Meldrum and the North American Ape Project. I'm the co-finder of the Skookum Cast in 2000. I worked with Rick Noll, John Pikering, Leroy Fish, David Ellis, Rich Germeau, Paul Graves, Matt Moneymaker and so on and so on. Not tooting my horn here but I do think I'm qualified to say I've paid my dues here, and then some. Maybe asking for an ounce of respect is to much for you. This sample is not the driving force behind the Olympic Project. It's but one piece of evidence among many many others that we've collected. I'm very proud of my teem and what they accomplished. If the research world came together more then the rest of the world would take us a lot more serious. HarryGreek, I know you're still on the fence a little, but I got to tell you, thank's for your level head and clear thinking. It's because of you and a few others that we're even posting here at all. DR Edited August 9, 2011 by Derekfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 HarryGreek, I know you're still on the fence a little, but I got to tell you, thank's for your level head and clear thinking. It's because of you and a few others that we're even posting here at all. DR Thanks DR. You all take what time you need. It is not the OP's fault someone managed to jump the gun. Looking forward to the end game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted August 9, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted August 9, 2011 If the research world came together more then the rest of the world would take us a lot more serious. DR But too many ego's & too much jealousy with many, unfortuantely.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Apologies if this doesn't belong here but it came up and I'm genuinely curious. I don't get the "chain of custody" argument. Is the critique going to be, "yep, you have hominid DNA from multiple samples, it's x% between man and chimp and it doesn't match anything else known to science but...we don't trust the chain of custody." Even if the DNA came from Uncle Bob, wouldn't that call into question everything we know about the human genome (or at least Uncle Bob)? Seriously, unless DNA sequences can be faked I don't understand the critique. Chain of custody is clearly important for a whole host of other reasons (is the animal extinct - if not, where does it live, etc) but otherwise wouldn't new hominid DNA be an incredible discovery? What am I missing? I think what the DNA says will be more important than the chain of custody, you can't get new hominid DNA from just any human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted August 9, 2011 Moderator Share Posted August 9, 2011 The one thing that is really bothering me is his description of the juvenile. I read the entire thread at work today. His description of the juvenile of being 5 to 7 years old and weighting 40lbs. I am hoping that General is mistaken on the weight or has omitted a small detail. After reading this I went home and weighted my son who just turned 5 years old. He weights exactly 40lbs. His height is 43 inches, less than 4 feet high without any fat on him. I’m hoping that the juvenile was greater than 40lbs and closer to the 80 to 100lbs that Derekfoot suggested on the MN.B.R.T Radio program.General, can you give an estimate the height of the juvenile. This whole mess would have been settled a long time ago if this so called juvenile would have been brought in by the hunters.They were only 80 - 150 yards from thier truck so that would not have been a problem. DNA is ok but a body would have been better since it wouldbe something that we could touch and feel and see with our own eye's.It like the chupa carba that they have been shooting out in Texas ,there are pictures and physical evidence of that animal and even though they say that it might be a mange coyote. The folks who shot it had the right mind to preserve that body .They had this creature at thier feet and the real proof to show the world was right there for them to grab and throw in the back of thier truck. I just cannot see how they could have left something that was strange,that was an animal shot that could bring no harm behind. I know that this has been talked about and i understand that the NDA which i believe is just wrong to start with.Is this the norm on any discovery to set up a NDA.What purpose does that serve?Like who going to steal your story since you and your teem have the DNA.After all you all have the proof of these creatures existance so what purpose does the NDA serve. I am sorry I just do not get it and sure I can wait to see what proof you actually have,that is just not a problem for me.I hope that things do work out great for you all that we are not being led differently .What ever happens do not ever give up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Worked with all those guys and still can't spell "team". Sorry, not enough sleep lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 (edited) If I hear the "only a body will prove Sasquatch" argument one more time, my head will explode. This is absolutely NOT the case, but it is the go-to argument of the skeptics. When the existence of Sasquatch is proven WITHOUT a body (which it will be), you will hear them say - "well, it doesn't prove it to ME" If we had a body, they would say, "it isn't proven until we have two bodies". Arghh! Edited August 9, 2011 by Harry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted August 9, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted August 9, 2011 What purpose does that serve?Like who going to steal your story since you and your teem have the DNA.After all you all have the proof of these creatures existance so what purpose does the NDA serve. Julio the scientific board and journal editors require limited discussions and no disclosure of results prior to final acceptance for publication. edited to add I posted this and the board chewed it up and spit it out....talking about heads exploding if this tech stuff doesn't get fixed soon I'll need a patch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 If I hear the "only a body will prove Sasquatch" argument one more time, my head will explode. This is absolutely NOT the case, but it is the go-to argument of the skeptics. When the existence of Sasquatch is proven WITHOUT a body (which it will be), you will hear them say - "well, it doesn't prove it to ME" If we had a body, they would say, "it isn't proven until we have two bodies". Arghh! Really? I feel like I always read this from the believers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts