Guest bmartin Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 He speaks on a bunch of stuff... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 Yep, he talked about alot of stuff, but I think he's wrong about one thing....the medulla in some Sasquatch hair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 Apparently the authenticity of his prime exhibit (the twisted branch, the stench, the reported sighting, etc) rests completely on the statements of Paul Freeman. Is that correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 Apparently the authenticity of his prime exhibit (the twisted branch, the stench, the reported sighting, etc) rests completely on the statements of Paul Freeman. Is that correct? I believe he said he got a hair from the branch, I've never seen him mention where the twisted branch comes from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ginger3 Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 Henner's research and criteria are fairly well-known. Thanks for posting the videos though, it's great to have more people be familiar with the hair characteristics, as that should reduce some cries of "wolf" when what people have may actually BE wolf hair. Interstingly, the Sierra shooting sample displays none of these characteristics. The sample has a pronounced medulla. (Sasquatch is suspected to have only slight to no medulla) There are guard hairs and an undercoat (We do not expect an undercoat with primate/squatch hair - something Dr. Fahrenbach did not get into in this interview) There is strong tapering of the hair whereas primate hair is usually bluntly worn, vs tapered. (This is another characteristic that was not mentioned in this particular interview.) More question marks surrounding Ketchum's results Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Henner's research and criteria are fairly well-known. Thanks for posting the videos though, it's great to have more people be familiar with the hair characteristics, as that should reduce some cries of "wolf" when what people have may actually BE wolf hair. Interstingly, the Sierra shooting sample displays none of these characteristics. The sample has a pronounced medulla. (Sasquatch is suspected to have only slight to no medulla) There are guard hairs and an undercoat (We do not expect an undercoat with primate/squatch hair - something Dr. Fahrenbach did not get into in this interview) There is strong tapering of the hair whereas primate hair is usually bluntly worn, vs tapered. (This is another characteristic that was not mentioned in this particular interview.) More question marks surrounding Ketchum's results You've looked at the Sierra shooting sample under the microscope? Or the patch of skin with hair to discern the undercoat? Only members of the Ketchum team would know what you are stating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted September 20, 2011 Admin Share Posted September 20, 2011 More question marks surrounding Ketchum's results Welcome ginger to the BFF. Just wondering, how do you know about such details? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ginger3 Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 More than Ketchum's team have seen the sample. One very well respected source has found the details mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Well ginger, the people who discovered that sample are here on the forum, and have discussed their find, so if there is truth to other labs examining the sample we'll soon know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 And the plot thickens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest General Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Well ginger, the people who discovered that sample are here on the forum, and have discussed their find, so if there is truth to other labs examining the sample we'll soon know. Ginger is correct about almost everything. One of his facts is not correct, but I won't be the one to correct it. Nothing is being hidden here. This isn't a "leak" of new information. We knew all this the whole time. That flesh sample he speaks of was freely given to someone who is well respected in the bigfoot world so he could test it on his own and learn from it. Ginger speaks of it like this "new" information shows shame or throughs doubt on my story. I don't really see it that way at all. The sample is what the sample is. The fact that its nothing like what most thought it would be means nothing to me. I'm not here to defend or argue my side. I'm also not here to talk you into believing me. So ill leave it at that for now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kat Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Ginger is correct about almost everything. One of his facts is not correct, but I won't be the one to correct it. Nothing is being hidden here. This isn't a "leak" of new information. We knew all this the whole time. That flesh sample he speaks of was freely given to someone who is well respected in the bigfoot world so he could test it on his own and learn from it. Ginger speaks of it like this "new" information shows shame or throughs doubt on my story. I don't really see it that way at all. The sample is what the sample is. The fact that its nothing like what most thought it would be means nothing to me. I'm not here to defend or argue my side. I'm also not here to talk you into believing me. So ill leave it at that for now I think we all believe at least most of what you have said General. Do you have any idea when all this information will come out? I feel like I've been holding my breath forever on the Ketchum project. I know you can't go into a lot of things but saying "The fact that its nothing like what most thought it would be means nothing to me," makes me crazy with curiosity! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest General Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 I won't say I'm totally in the dark like most of you are but I don't know as much as some do either. I'm ready to get this over with too. I don't know exactly when "soon" is. I don't know why it has to work like this either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 As far as hair is concerned, it doesn't usually have uniform structure or consistency all over the body, whether it is human or animal. I don't know how you could draw any conclusions, one way or the other, about the hair without some kind of DNA analysis, which is difficult to do on hair, so I understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted September 20, 2011 Admin Share Posted September 20, 2011 (edited) More than Ketchum's team have seen the sample. One very well respected source has found the details mentioned. And who is that source is? Edited September 20, 2011 by gigantor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts