Will Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 (edited) One could argue that BF do exist to science but that they are considered extinct forms of humans. Kinda like the ceolocanth was discovered not to be extinct after all. But we did know about coelocanths, and that they were a form of lobe-finned fish. And yet again I have to point out that modern humans are primates, but they are the only modern primates that have a foot quite like ours and are bipedal, if you don't count bigfoot. You can make a case that sometimes bears and gorillas (and other great apes) go bipedal, but there aren't any bipedal wild gorillas, chimps or anything like that in North America and just because a bear stands up doesn't mean it is going to come at you. A hunter should always be sure of his animal identification before taking a shot, anyway. General himself admits he made a mistake. All I am saying is that IF law enforcement gets proof of the incident and proof that the subjects were indeed human, of any kind, that justice will prevail in the end. It might become a lose lose situation. If the proof comes out that BF are real, and are a form of extinct human or another species of human then law enforcement will have a case against General because ALL kinds of humans are protected by law (well except for fetuses but that is another issue altogether). They have a potential witness and they have a potential DNA sample. Looks like General will be forthcoming about a confession and will be cooperative. Lets just hope a jury will be merciful given the potential importance of the incidents. We're not in the Wild West any more. At least I hope not. I believe in justice. If you walk around in the woods during hunting season in a furry suit, then get shot by a hunter. Are you saying the hunter would be prosecuted? Edited August 11, 2011 by will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 (edited) Well bigfoot "may" be related to us, but they still look alot different to a fresh witness in that they are covered in hair and more telling features can be obscured at a distance. I think the DNA will set it straight that they look different for a reason. Dr. K. would not be publishing on everyday human DNA. Edited August 11, 2011 by southernyahoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Regardless of bigfoot being real or human, If someone feels they are in fear for their life they have the right to defend themselves. Im no lawyer but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last nite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bsruther Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Dr. K. would not be publishing on everday human DNA. Or run-of-the-mill humans even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 I got some time to kill and no one has told us to get back on topic yet, so.... Can we please get back on topic..? (sorry couldnt resist) Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Well if you want to get back on topic, RL just published another post about the KR, EP, OP and the Sierra Shootings. Not sure if it's allowed to post a link, so I'll just leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 (edited) Considering the fact that there has been no slam dunk, home run evidence to support the existence of Bigfoot, I'd say that we do indeed need extraordinary evidence. Either way, its arguing semantics. Evidence is needed. Prag telling me that he knows Bigfoot is human because he has looked in their eyes is a laughable form of evidence. Those are just a few examples from prominent people in the Bigfoot community. There are a multitude of DNA tests out there that say primate DNA. As are there those that say human DNA. It's not as cut and dried as you are making it out to be. Both of these DNA samples were human. Nelson will admit that if you call or write him. So will Ketchum. The Snelgrove DNA had a Native American SNP that Nelson (being a bug guy) didnt recognize, and the "Yeti" DNA was human by Ketchum's testing, but the hair looked visually to Ketchum too thick to be human. Edited August 12, 2011 by parnassus edited to remove personal snipe at Dr Ketchum who is A MEMBER of BFF and afforded same level of respect, and protection afforded to other members..! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 (edited) Both of these DNA samples were human. Nelson will admit that if you call or write him. So will Ketchum. The Snelgrove DNA had a Native American SNP that Nelson (being a bug guy) didnt recognize, and the "Yeti" DNA was human by Ketchum's testing, but the hair looked visually to Ketchum too thick to be human Do we even know what type of test Nelson ran? mtDNA or nuDNA? Where is it shown to be from a Native American lineage? The Yeti sample scored strong on a human panel of markers, but Dr. K would have said it was human if it matched all markers. She said it was unknown. Edited August 12, 2011 by Art1972 edited to remove part of Parn's quote... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RioBravo Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 (edited) Both of these DNA samples were human. Nelson will admit that if you call or write him. So will Ketchum. The Snelgrove DNA had a Native American SNP that Nelson (being a bug guy) didnt recognize, and the "Yeti" DNA was human by Ketchum's testing, but the hair looked visually to Ketchum too thick to be human. Do we even know what type of test Nelson ran? mtDNA or nuDNA? Where is it shown to be from a Native American lineage? The Yeti sample scored strong on a human panel of markers, but Dr. K would have said it was human if it matched all markers. She said it was unknown. Oh, boy. Looks like this thread will be locked soon. Edited August 12, 2011 by Art1972 edited to remove part of Parn's quote.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wtwest Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Well if you want to get back on topic, RL just published another post about the KR, EP, OP and the Sierra Shootings. Not sure if it's allowed to post a link, so I'll just leave it at that. Very interesting post from RL. I wonder how much of that stuff is true. I'd like to think that the OP retrieving the body part is true, but it might just be wishful thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BuzzardEater Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Was it Damon Runyon who said,"Dog bites man is not a story. Man bites dog, now that's a story!"? What reportage will this event receive in the media? What will the media's take on the story be? How to sensationalize? What is the most provocative sound byte? After the initial hub bub what familiar story will the public liken this to? Where will it be filed, in the public's perception? I am glad it wasn't me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Man Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 (edited) Both of these DNA samples were human. Nelson will admit that if you call or write him. So will Ketchum. The Snelgrove DNA had a Native American SNP that Nelson (being a bug guy) didnt recognize, and the "Yeti" DNA was human by Ketchum's testing, but the hair looked visually to Ketchum too thick to be human Nope - I just asked Melba your exact words and she did not "admit" it was human. I don't know, again, where you get your information about her project or her personally, but none of it is correct. I have contacted A&M about using the term "Dr." to describe a DVM and they verified that is the correct usage. I also verified the course of study and as a scientist myself, I can indeed say she is both a "Dr." and a scientist. Again, you (and all) should be waiting for the results (when published) and tear that apart....don't bother with rumors, hearsay, opinions....wait for a peer reviewed paper and then have at it. Edited August 12, 2011 by Art1972 edited to remove part of Parn's quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest General Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Question for General regarding this statement in post #388. "Yes meat eaters (deer forsure) and berries.I know I saw their crap" Are you allowed to share any information about the scat you found, or is that something covered under your NDA? If so, I am curious if you could answer the following: How long prior to the shooting incident was it that you found scat that you attributed to Bigfoot? Where did you see this scat? Was it on a road or off in the brush/woods, and if so, approximately how far from the road did you see it? Did you find only one pile of scat, or did you happen upon more than one in the area you were looking? Did you take any pictures of it, and if so, are you permitted to share them here? Could you describe it to us as far as size, color, number of piles etc? Any physical description would be great. Your statement implies that you took time to carefully check it out. Thanks much General! i dont have any pictures of the poo. we saw multiple piles. mostly in the road, yes in the ''road'' their not really roads but you drive on em. yes i understand fully the difference between bear/deer/elk/horse/cow/cougar/coyote/fox ect poop, i've spent my entire life in the woods. no doubt in my mind it was something huge and different then the rest of those animals. we started seeing these piles in the morning and kept saying what in the world is that. i believe thats in dereks account on the ops site. it was huuge. it looked basically like horse crap in size and quantity. somewhere between horse crap and bear crap over all. very samaliar in size and color to horse crap forsure, no horses in area and did look much different then horse thats the best i can describe it. as far as quantity more then a bear but much less then a horse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 i dont have any pictures of the poo. we saw multiple piles. mostly in the road, yes in the ''road'' their not really roads but you drive on em. yes i understand fully the difference between bear/deer/elk/horse/cow/cougar/coyote/fox ect poop, i've spent my entire life in the woods. no doubt in my mind it was something huge and different then the rest of those animals. we started seeing these piles in the morning and kept saying what in the world is that. i believe thats in dereks account on the ops site. it was huuge. it looked basically like horse crap in size and quantity. somewhere between horse crap and bear crap over all. very samaliar in size and color to horse crap forsure, no horses in area and did look much different then horse thats the best i can describe it. as far as quantity more then a bear but much less then a horse. Probably a silly question but how do you identify deer in a scat sample? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted August 12, 2011 Admin Share Posted August 12, 2011 what is up with the double posts??? Ekk! Working on it HairyMan. It's gonna be days, not months until the issues are resolved... Parnassus, you got powned again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts