Guest parnassus Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 So your hypothesis is, since the TBRC has already stated that a forensic test has positively identified it as blood, that we're lying. Is that it? Why don't you just cut to the chase and say you think the TBRC is hoaxing this? b: plz knock off the straw man/"are you calling me a liar" stuff. Can't we have a civil conversation? I don't think this represents drops of shed, undiluted blood. That's my opinion. I am saying what I said. I don't have a hypothesis other than my opinion (and of course I would hypothesize that it didn't come from a bigfoot). You've answered questions and I appreciate that. Sorry if I hit a nerve. You don't know how it got there either, or whether it was diluted. Why no DNA report yet? Have you inquired of the lab in the last 5-6 weeks?
ShadowBorn Posted December 18, 2011 Moderator Posted December 18, 2011 If the subject was shot and i am sure it was, were there any reports to nearby hospitals of a case of an accedental shooting?Shot placement means alot on the body of any creature whether it be a lung shot, a stomach shot or gut shot,and a liver shot.Blood coloring means alot to a hunter and it lets him know whether he/she should go after the animal or wait for it to expire. From what i have read so far it seems that the team did see some thing but at the same time was not sure but took the shot anyhow.Now the question is whether the placement was right.To me it seems that it was not a good placement of the shot.If all that was collected was a few drops of blood how does that make it a good shot.On top of all this you had other subjects that were in the area so the area was not cleanse and comprimise this area for the team members. Like i have said before i have no problem with the taking of a creature just that it will not be done by me.But there are things in this incident that make feel are false( I should not say false since this word is to strong of a word to use)but leaves more questions then answers. I feel like that the shooter was way to quick to shoot rather then to wait it out.I feel like the shooter was like my friend when seen these turkey's(toms,long beards)circling on this trail.I told him that we could hold back and sneak up on them and we can both take shots at these toms.Instead he ran quickly drawing his shotgun and started firing.If the chance was given to the shooter would of he had taken the time to take a shot that could have posibly killed this subject?When i seen my first creature it did not move and yes I had plenty of time to take a shot at it but i chose not to. Are there pictures of where this creature trailed off too?and if there are are they posted?were there prints that were found in the area of where the subject was shot at?I am asking this because there should be more evidence then just blood.There should be branches broken at different heights.There should be prints where a heavy creature took off running.If the subject was shot there should be areas where the subject layed down and more blood collected.All signs showing that a subject the size of what is discribed as bigfoot was there and shot at.Flesh and blood will leave sign in any place and no i am not an expert on this.Nor do i claim one and maybe i should have not posted but there should be more evidence of a large bipedal that was being shot at.So i am sorry if I offended any one in advance by asking question that should be more obvious.
Guest Posted December 19, 2011 Posted December 19, 2011 plz knock off the straw man/"are you calling me a liar" stuff. Can't we have a civil conversation? We're having nothing but a civilized conversation. It's gone like this: 1. TBRC finds something that they believe to be blood. 2. We subject it to a forensic test to determine if it's blood. Test comes back positive. We tell everyone we found it, though of course we don't know what the blood is from. 3. You express an opinion that it doesn't look like blood. 4. Other express an opinion that it does look like blood. Maybe I'm missing something, but if it's not blood, then we're lying and/or incredibly incompetent. You say it isn't blood, so I hear you accusing us of trying to pass it off as something it is not. Opinions have consequences. What's uncivilized about that? From what i have read so far it seems that the team did see some thing but at the same time was not sure but took the shot anyhow. No, Daryl's quite sure of what he saw. were there prints that were found in the area of where the subject was shot at?I am asking this because there should be more evidence then just blood.There should be branches broken at different heights.There should be prints where a heavy creature took off running. You should read this thread. In it you will find many answers.
Guest Posted December 19, 2011 Posted December 19, 2011 You know,there is every bit the possibility that Bigfoot is a race of man, it would certainly explain why they are so darn elusive considering all the trace evidence,yet we can not get as close as we would like. Would certainly go a long way in explaining the recordings,whether its mimicry or not on your own recording retrieved eight days before you decided to attempt to kill one. It would also go a long ways to explaining why the same type of tree structures are found thousands of miles apart,that could be an indication of shared and taught knowledge. Don't believe it? A wiener dog and a mastiff are still going to test as dog DNA, and if you think that it is even clear enough to show specific breeds,then think about this,even a so called pure pred dog will carry up to 60 different breeds DNA in its tests.If they share a common method of communication, then your attempt has probably done a lot for research,not to mention what it has done for the reputation of big foot research over all.
ShadowBorn Posted December 19, 2011 Moderator Posted December 19, 2011 Thanks Bipto Had to read it twice.Thanks for answering. You know,there is every bit the possibility that Bigfoot is a race of man, it would certainly explain why they are so darn elusive considering all the trace evidence,yet we can not get as close as we would like. Would certainly go a long way in explaining the recordings,whether its mimicry or not on your own recording retrieved eight days before you decided to attempt to kill one. It would also go a long ways to explaining why the same type of tree structures are found thousands of miles apart,that could be an indication of shared and taught knowledge. Don't believe it? A wiener dog and a mastiff are still going to test as dog DNA, and if you think that it is even clear enough to show specific breeds,then think about this,even a so called pure pred dog will carry up to 60 different breeds DNA in its tests.If they share a common method of communication, then your attempt has probably done a lot for research,not to mention what it has done for the reputation of big foot research over all. JohnC I had my dogs puppies tested which came up with several different breeds. It would also go a long ways to explaining why the same type of tree structures are found thousands of miles apart,that could be an indication of shared and taught knowledge. Thats Knowlodge that we do not have or maybe we have lost.Pretty soon the evidence is going to be clear and what are we going to be doing next. After all these samples match up to our ancestry but at the same time have that animalness to it what then?
Guest parnassus Posted December 19, 2011 Posted December 19, 2011 (edited) We're having nothing but a civilized conversation. It's gone like this: 1. TBRC finds something that they believe to be blood. 2. We subject it to a forensic test to determine if it's blood. Test comes back positive. We tell everyone we found it, though of course we don't know what the blood is from. 3. You express an opinion that it doesn't look like blood. 4. Other express an opinion that it does look like blood. Maybe I'm missing something, but if it's not blood, then we're lying and/or incredibly incompetent. You say it isn't blood, so I hear you accusing us of trying to pass it off as something it is not. Opinions have consequences. What's uncivilized about that? No, Daryl's quite sure of what he saw. You should read this thread. In it you will find many answers. b, Can you see the word liar in my post? If you can, then I did call someone a liar. If not, then I didn't. Then why do you ask? to derail the thread into some kind of name calling/mod action? I'm not into name calling and its not allowed here, and you won't meet me outside, but everyone lies, so it's a moot point. so what's the point of your question? In my experience this "are you calling me a liar" stuff is usually feigned indignation and an attempt to garner support, justify aggression or departure, and thus close off a discussion without having to deal with the issue. Maybe that's not why you wrote it. There are several explanations for these droplets not being whole fresh shed blood, if in fact I am correct. I'm not even sure that there is a good way to distinguish diluted from whole blood in this situation, so the point may be moot, unless you can get a blood spatter expert to look at it. But why don't we wait to get what evidence we can about the first hypothesis before moving on to the second. Back to the issue: What are you going to do about getting the results? what is the holdup? p. Edited December 19, 2011 by parnassus
Guest tpick Posted December 19, 2011 Posted December 19, 2011 b, Can you see the word liar in my post? If you can, then I did call someone a liar. If not, then I didn't. Then why do you ask? to derail the thread into some kind of name calling/mod action? I'm not into name calling and its not allowed here, and you won't meet me outside, but everyone lies, so it's a moot point. so what's the point of your question? In my experience this "are you calling me a liar" stuff is usually feigned indignation and an attempt to garner support, justify aggression or departure, and thus close off a discussion without having to deal with the issue. Maybe that's not why you wrote it. There are several explanations for these droplets not being whole fresh shed blood, if in fact I am correct. I'm not even sure that there is a good way to distinguish diluted from whole blood in this situation, so the point may be moot, unless you can get a blood spatter expert to look at it. But why don't we wait to get what evidence we can about the first hypothesis before moving on to the second. Back to the issue: What are you going to do about getting the results? what is the holdup? p. The blood looks a little "watery" to me too but I have seen this trailing game before. I am surprised you haven't.. It can happen from more of a flesh wound or a "gut shot" or from the animal being sweaty or even dew on the ground. I tracked a deer the other day and you really couldn't tell the difference in the the dew and the blood in most places. I haven't tracked "thousands" but I know more than most. From those photos, I certainly can't come to the conclusion that Bipto and the guys "planted" the blood. To say he did is calling him a liar whether you used the word or not. That's just my opinion....which happens to be a fact. I do have a problem with the choice of weapon. The only reason you take a shotgun to harvest a bigfoot is if you are pretty sure the shot you are gonna get is well within 75-80 yards. If you think you might have a shot at ranges over that, you take any choice of a number of good deer/bear calibers. How do you know you are only going to get a shot in shotgun range? Seems odd to me. Also, I have to wonder why a guy would take a girlfriend onto a piece of property that is legendary for bigfoot activity. Thank you Bipto for subjecting yourself to the scrutiny. Just my two cents...
Guest Posted December 19, 2011 Posted December 19, 2011 If I remember correctly the blood was found a couple/few days later so I don't think it was ever portrayed as fresh blood. Wasn't it found by the next team rotated in? It looked pretty degraded to me, especially since it was sitting out in the heat for a while. More than likely it was probably unusable, but I'm sure coming out and saying that is going to just be turned around and used for some to say, "of course it is, because this is a hoax and everyone is lying". Even though if looked at fairly, it being unusable is the most likely outcome.
Guest parnassus Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 If I remember correctly the blood was found a couple/few days later so I don't think it was ever portrayed as fresh blood. Wasn't it found by the next team rotated in? It looked pretty degraded to me, especially since it was sitting out in the heat for a while. More than likely it was probably unusable, but I'm sure coming out and saying that is going to just be turned around and used for some to say, "of course it is, because this is a hoax and everyone is lying". Even though if looked at fairly, it being unusable is the most likely outcome. abf: that wouldn't make it unusable for DNA. But at this late date it looks like there aren't going to any results released. Who knows why? Sorry to be cynical, but I have to say this is par for the course. p.
Guest Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 abf: that wouldn't make it unusable for DNA. But at this late date it looks like there aren't going to any results released. Who knows why? Sorry to be cynical, but I have to say this is par for the course. p. Sorry poor word choice. I guess what I was trying to say was that the condition (being exposed to the elements) of the sample was going to make it difficult to get results. What I recall being said was that there wasn't very much to work with. It seems like that part of the discussion may have been deleted. I will be the first to admit, DNA analysis is certainly not my area of expertise.
Guest Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 The DNA is on its way! Extracting it from blood is very easy in a laboratory nowadays, everybody has to hang in their it won't be long now.
Guest Patty3 Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 So your hypothesis is, since the TBRC has already stated that a forensic test has positively identified it as blood, that we're lying. Is that it? Why don't you just cut to the chase and say you think the TBRC is hoaxing this? I'm sorry I still think it was. The way it was played, and that it was a copycat of the current blob DNA fad we are seeing these days.
Guest Thepattywagon Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 I'm sorry I still think it was. The way it was played, and that it was a copycat of the current blob DNA fad we are seeing these days. Please elucidate.
Guest StankApe Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 Blob DNA! the new Bigfoot meme? (oh cmon, like it or not that was pretty clever!)
Recommended Posts