274 replies to this topic

[QuiteContrary]

"Once upon a time..."

[Stardrive]

QuiteContrary, on 30 November 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:

"Science is coming to Bigfoot via Sykes DNA"  NW

NW, explain this a little more. Thanks

I can't speak for NW but what it means to me is let's see what Dr. Sykes finds. Link

[R4z3rsPar4d0x]

Iv heard that Bigfoot could just be a Shaman thats chosen to live in the wild and off the land and over the years hes become more animal

[Sakari]

R4z3rsPar4d0x, on 30 November 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

Iv heard that Bigfoot could just be a Shaman thats chosen to live in the wild and off the land and over the years hes become more animal

And travels all over the US and Canada?

[QuiteContrary]

Stardrive, on 30 November 2012 - 07:01 PM, said:

I can't speak for NW but what it means to me is let's see what Dr. Sykes finds. Link

Thanks! Looks like we don't have long at all to wait.
I wonder what the results will prove to all the sides in this subject, as NW pointed out.
There is always wiggle room.

[Night Walker]

QuiteContrary, on 30 November 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:

"Science is coming to Bigfoot via Sykes DNA"  NW

NW, explain this a little more. Thanks

Stardrive, on 30 November 2012 - 07:01 PM, said:

I can't speak for NW but what it means to me is let's see what Dr. Sykes finds. Link

Yeah, that's the one. The peer-reviewed Bigfoot DNA study minus shenanigans. Interesting to see how it will turn out...

R4z3rsPar4d0x, on 30 November 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

Iv heard that Bigfoot could just be a Shaman thats chosen to live in the wild and off the land and over the years hes become more animal

Sakari, on 30 November 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

And travels all over the US and Canada?

There is no one answer fits all when it comes to Bigfoot. The Shaman explanation may account for a small proportion (also in Australia, too) of alleged sightings but due to the secret/sacred nature of the Shaman it is difficult for outsiders to explore such possibilities...

[jsowersby]

The tracks for me are most compelling. DNA is great too but a track is something much more personal. I've never seen a BF track but know from tracking other animals and people (for fun) that you can tell a great deal about what you are tracking from the tracks they leave. And, I find it very hard to beleive that a hoaxer with intimate knowledge of anatomy and engineering for that matter, (one would need to engineer a foot that moves according the individual physiology of individual BFs) is making tracks in the middle of now where for people to find, without leaving his own tracks. I think the animal is intelligent and more attune to its environment and able to escape detection easily. After all, have you seen the people looking for this thing? Flashlights, talking to each other as if the thing is deaf or something. They need to step up their game if they want to really find the thing. Hire some special forces people that can actually go in undetected.

After reading the announcement, DNA as they are describing cannot be faked.

Edited by jsowersby, 30 November 2012 - 10:18 PM.

[Night Walker]

jsowersby, on 30 November 2012 - 10:16 PM, said:

The tracks for me are most compelling. DNA is great too but a track is something much more personal. I've never seen a BF track but know from tracking other animals and people (for fun) that you can tell a great deal about what you are tracking from the tracks they leave. And, I find it very hard to beleive that a hoaxer with intimate knowledge of anatomy and engineering for that matter, (one would need to engineer a foot that moves according the individual physiology of individual BFs) is making tracks in the middle of now where for people to find, without leaving his own tracks.

Where are these tracks documented? Most likely the people who make the tracks are the same as those who "find" them and "report" it. Furthermore, it doesn't take an intimate knowledge of anatomy and engineering to fake a track which somebody believes to be real. Belief/bias distorts one's perceptions to suit. Not much of a mystery, really...

jsowersby, on 30 November 2012 - 10:16 PM, said:

After reading the announcement, DNA as they are describing cannot be faked.

DNA cannot be faked but people's claims about what the DNA really tells us sure can. This is the World of Bigfoot, after all...

[jsowersby]

Night Walker, on 30 November 2012 - 10:37 PM, said:

Where are these tracks documented? Most likely the people who make the tracks are the same as those who "find" them and "report" it. Furthermore, it doesn't take an intimate knowledge of anatomy and engineering to fake a track which somebody believes to be real. Belief/bias distorts one's perceptions to suit. Not much of a mystery, really...



DNA cannot be faked but people's claims about what the DNA really tells us sure can. This is the World of Bigfoot, after all...

Claims can be faked, otherwise know as lies. I suppose there is financial gains to those claims. It was pretty straight forward what was in the DNA samples, what left it is not clear. The tracks that have been documented with plaster casts vary in quality but the most intriguing tracks show ridges in the skin, different arches than human feet, old injuries meaning injuries that have healed over time and left the foot slightly deformed, and physiologic shifts where the movement of the bones of the feet are moving while the print is being left. Depth of the print, length of stride, width of the prints, direction, location are things to look at. Tracks in a line indicate traveling to a known location like food or water sources. You're right in saying if someone wants to find a track they will see tracks everywhere. But, the best plaster casts of BF tracks are compelling. If someone is faking such tracks, they are wasting their time as a hoaxer and should be in special effects.

[QuiteContrary]

jsowersby, on 30 November 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

Claims can be faked, otherwise know as lies. I suppose there is financial gains to those claims. It was pretty straight forward what was in the DNA samples, what left it is not clear. The tracks that have been documented with plaster casts vary in quality but the most intriguing tracks show ridges in the skin, different arches than human feet, old injuries meaning injuries that have healed over time and left the foot slightly deformed, and physiologic shifts where the movement of the bones of the feet are moving while the print is being left. Depth of the print, length of stride, width of the prints, direction, location are things to look at. Tracks in a line indicate traveling to a known location like food or water sources. You're right in saying if someone wants to find a track they will see tracks everywhere. But, the best plaster casts of BF tracks are compelling. If someone is faking such tracks, they are wasting their time as a hoaxer and should be in special effects.

"the most intriguing tracks show ridges in the skin, different arches than human feet, old injuries meaning injuries that have healed over time and left the foot slightly deformed, and physiologic shifts where the movement of the bones of the feet are moving while the print is being left. Depth of the print, length of stride, width of the prints"

Who has made these claims? Where is mainstream peer review documentation of these tracks with the same amazing conclusions: 1) These characteristics are indeed true for some tracks. 2)Some tracks are real and indicate an as of yet undocumented animal.  

Only my opinion, but what scientist worth his salt couldn't/wouldn't share with colleagues and get other scientists on board with this evidence to have pushed Sasquatch into the mainstream by now?

[Ad hoc]

whole thing rings false as usual. the kind of jump-the gun hyperbole and conclusion grasping that scientists with careers to worry about don't tend to do. ><

Her career must be really at rock bottom to pull a stunt like this though... because when it (almost certainly) proves to be nonsense, it's kinda hard to come back from that and enter respected circles...
I think an earlier comment about her conducting her research from a meth lab sounds worryingly believable.

Anyway, at least her name will have a ring to it when she begins employment at mcdonalds.

Edited by ad hoc, 30 November 2012 - 11:34 PM.

[Sakari]

ad hoc, on 30 November 2012 - 11:33 PM, said:

whole thing rings false as usual. the kind of jump-the gun hyperbole and conclusion grasping that scientists with careers to worry about don't tend to do. ><

Her career must be really at rock bottom to pull a stunt like this though... because when it (almost certainly) proves to be nonsense, it's kinda hard to come back from that and enter respected circles...
I think an earlier comment about her conducting her research from a meth lab sounds worryingly believable.

Anyway, at least her name will have a ring to it when she begins employment at mcdonalds.

Not when it comes to the Bigfoot community......

[jsowersby]

QuiteContrary, on 30 November 2012 - 11:16 PM, said:

"the most intriguing tracks show ridges in the skin, different arches than human feet, old injuries meaning injuries that have healed over time and left the foot slightly deformed, and physiologic shifts where the movement of the bones of the feet are moving while the print is being left. Depth of the print, length of stride, width of the prints"

Who has made these claims? Where is mainstream peer review documentation of these tracks with the same amazing conclusions: 1) These characteristics are indeed true for some tracks. 2)Some tracks are real and indicate an as of yet undocumented animal.  

Only my opinion, but what scientist worth his salt couldn't/wouldn't share with colleagues and get other scientists on board with this evidence to have pushed Sasquatch into the mainstream by now?

[jsowersby]

Or maybe it's Shaq jogging in remote regions of the U.S., for centuries... An undiscovered tribe of very big humans, dressing in ape costumes? A hoaxer(s) making prints in the wilderness for thousands of years?

[QuiteContrary]

I am aware of Dr. Meldrum's work. Where are his mainstream colleagues who agree? This would be a once in a lifetime discovery.
Why are his claims ignored?