southernyahoo Posted September 20, 2011 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 appreciate you speaking up on this General, I can understand having the other respected person examine the sample, it should happen that way if it is the real deal.
Guest slimwitless Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 And who is that source is? Well, how many well-respected people in the bigfoot world are deemed qualified to make determinations about bigfoot hair? On the other hand, if General is right and one of the determinations is false, then maybe the source isn't exactly qualified to be examining hair...which might add a few additional suspects (really, the short list of well-respected scientists in the bigfoot world is actually the same as the long list). I'd say it's likely someone Randles knows and has worked with...and is still alive. Does Meldrum have a dog named Ginger? Kidding...I have no idea but I like to speculate over my morning coffee.
Guest Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 Didn't I see on here a while back where Dr. Meldrum had become a member? Not sure what the username is though. Anyway......after so much speculation over the chunk sent to Dr. Ketchum, we all assume it was a chunk 'o squatch but now maybe it wasn't? Maybe it is coyote or chipmunk or something. Of course, another way to speculate is that the sample tested "human". Wonder if that is the "it is what it is" hint. Just when ya think it can't get any more strange.
Guest slimwitless Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 It could be that some assumptions about sasquatch have been wrong (or incomplete).
southernyahoo Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 Ginger3, Henner says that sasquatch hair is basicly indistinguishable from human hair. Human hair is said to have a cross of characteristics between animal guard hairs and undercoat hairs. Undercoat hairs are very short and fine while guard hairs are longer , more coarse. Can you describe the guard hairs from the sierra sample? Do they resemble any type of human hair in appearance to the unaided eye ? ie; pubic hair , head hair, color ,wavy, straight , how long etc? I can't really appreciate raising questions about ketchums findings if we don't have these simple details.
Guest Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 Ginger3? I wonder how many google searches there have been for "red headed bigfoot researches" since Monday? How can there be question marks around Ketchum's results? Have her team's results been released? What did I miss?
Guest slimwitless Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 (edited) I *think* he's suggesting the hair from the shooting sample doesn't match what is supposedly known about sasquatch hair and therefore the sample is not from a sasquatch. The implication being Ketchum's positive ID (inferred) is in doubt. I think it's just as likely someone doesn't know as much about bigfoot hair as they think they do (also remember General claims one of Ginger's reported "facts" about the sample is wrong). It'd be nice to have some follow-up on this. Edited September 22, 2011 by slimwitless
Guest Posted September 22, 2011 Posted September 22, 2011 Agree. This should be a thread on it's own. That's big news if the sample is wolf or something else. Ginger, please elaborate.
southernyahoo Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 Well, how many well-respected people in the bigfoot world are deemed qualified to make determinations about bigfoot hair? On the other hand, if General is right and one of the determinations is false, then maybe the source isn't exactly qualified to be examining hair...which might add a few additional suspects (really, the short list of well-respected scientists in the bigfoot world is actually the same as the long list). I'd say it's likely someone Randles knows and has worked with...and is still alive. Does Meldrum have a dog named Ginger? Kidding...I have no idea but I like to speculate over my morning coffee. I just want to put this on the record Slim, I respect Henners work, but feel his position on sasquatch hair is confounding. He says adamatly that bigfoot is not human , yet his criteria singles out human characteristics. I realize this is due to what types of hair have been found with certain types of sign and in association with sightings primarily the PNW. It's a logical approach to follow the evidence but it also assumes a consistency that may not be so prevalant. There is speculation that there are a couple different types out there with more primitive genetics from potentially a progenitor species.
Guest slimwitless Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 Interesting. Do you think Henner is the source? Hasn't your team submitted hairs with a medulla? It seems there's been a lot of talk about a progenitor species lately. David Claerr raised the possibility in his Bigfoot DNA Hypothesis. For reasons I won't go into I can't help but wonder whether Ketchum's study is the source for much of the "speculation" in that article. It's an interesting idea - perhaps even a little disturbing.
southernyahoo Posted September 23, 2011 Posted September 23, 2011 Interesting. Do you think Henner is the source? Hasn't your team submitted hairs with a medulla? It seems there's been a lot of talk about a progenitor species lately. David Claerr raised the possibility in his Bigfoot DNA Hypothesis. For reasons I won't go into I can't help but wonder whether Ketchum's study is the source for much of the "speculation" in that article. It's an interesting idea - perhaps even a little disturbing. It makes sense that Henner would get to examine the sample, and yes we sent him a couple hairs that did have a medulla, I think he took one look at that and said bear. There is a precedent for some hairs to yield Human DNA while being Id'd as bear in archaeology. Here's a link. I was looking for primate hair micrographs one day when I found this info. Read through page 428. http://books.google.com/books?id=2tQLRHdQxD4C&pg=PA427&lpg=PA427&dq=primate+hair+micrographs+pendejo+cave&source=bl&ots=zs4jrNb_Eu&sig=sv8ncsp39Eh_09PYKFOVE6Dv4Q0&hl=en&ei=unTgTbLZM6ON0AHHy5DDCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=primate%20hair%20micrographs%20pendejo%20cave&f=false
Guest slimwitless Posted September 27, 2011 Posted September 27, 2011 Still no sign of Ginger3. Someone must have him by the guard hairs.
Guest ginger3 Posted September 27, 2011 Posted September 27, 2011 I have no reason to doubt the General's truthfulness. Most I have spoken with feel that he seems to be an honest person. I do know people who have seen the sample first hand - some of whom looked at it under a microscope, and are very familiar with primate hair morphology. They are in a position to compare it with 'strongly credentialled' sasquatch hair from other sources. Their observations were as I stated. They do see similarities between this hair and other known mammals. DNA research on their sample has been hampered due to contamination. Only Ketchum has had clean samples. We certainly do not know everything about Sasquatch, and there's nothing saying that we know every creature out there. All I can say is that most aspects of this sample do not conform to what we expect from primate hair, and other "accepted" samples of Sasquatch hair. "It's not conforming to established expectations and precedents", is about all that can be said about this. It's too bad that this sample was not taken directly from the body, then there would be fewer question marks. PS - interesting that y'all have assumed I'm a guy!
Guest Posted September 27, 2011 Posted September 27, 2011 "interesting that y'all have assumed I'm a guy!" I noticed several people keep saying "he", in reference to you. And each time, I thought it was odd, since I've never met a guy named "Ginger".... In fact the only guy "Ginger" I can think of was the drummer for Cream (Ginger Baker), and I'm fairly confident that was probably a nickname. Then again, maybe your being all secretive, and trying to throw us off ! A.
Guest slimwitless Posted September 27, 2011 Posted September 27, 2011 (edited) Wouldn't hair from most known mammals be easily identifiable? After all we're not talking about a few random hairs here; this is a flesh sample with skin and attached hair. If it's not from a sasquatch, wouldn't an expert be able to say with a high degree of confidence what animal it did come from? If that's not true, how can we make any assumptions about the origins of this particular sample without DNA? With that in mind, it seems there is a parallel DNA study being carried out. Ginger claims analysis has been hampered by contamination but surely enough DNA can eventually be extracted to make some kind of meaningful determination. Maybe they're writing it off because the mitochondrial DNA keeps coming back human. Hopefully Ginger can keep us informed as I doubt this parallel study is covered by Ketchum's NDA (which in itself raises some interesting questions). Yes, I'm looking at you, Mr. Disotell. Edited September 27, 2011 by slimwitless
Recommended Posts