Hunting for Grizzly Bears/ Bear Bones finds?

[Thorvir]

3 minutes ago, Talus said:

I'm bowing out...this is starting to look like people are taking this too personal. Its just a discussion. I'm doing research, getting a bite..chat later.

You do that.  Have fun with it.

[glorybebe]

1 minute ago, Talus said:

Thorvir

I never argued my point from you statement 'SHOULD take the entire carcass home' It was based on... 

'(again (reasserting a point you tried to drive home before)..what is the purpose of hunting bear...aside from perhaps having to destroy a sick or dangerous one')  which I added to assure you that they did kill for reasons beyond mercy kills on bears or killing dangerous ones.

 

that statement you made previously. Don't go saying argued against your 'SHOULD' statement. I was questioning the above statement where you said 

'again...what is the purpose of hunting bear...aside from perhaps having to destroy a sick or dangerous one' with 

the purpose doesn't always considerate of using the whole animal and that bones and carcass does get left behind. 

I'm bowing out...this is starting to look like people are taking this too personal. Its just a discussion. I'm doing research, getting a bite..chat later.

You quoted the wrong person.  If that happens and you want to change who you quote, you will need to erase the quote box.  On a mobile you keep hitting back space until just the box shows up. A little 'x' will show up on the top left hand corner and click on that or hit the back space.  Then you go to the person you want to quote and click quote.  This will appear in your reply box and off you go.

[stereologist]

10 hours ago, Talus said:

stereologist

• Telekinetic

  said;

This thread is nothing more than pretending that there is a reason BF bones are not found.

Despite hunters having been out in th e woods for hundreds of years with rifles they have never ever shot a BF. That is amazing considering that hunters have managed to kill off all of the big predators including wolves and mountain lions. They hunted deer to extinction in Pennsylvania. The same is probably true of other states as well. Despite this intensive hunting practice no BFs have been shot. It is pretty hard to kill off something that does not exist.

I would say that hunting practices make it even clearer that BF does not exist. It is not an excuse concerning finding bones. It is all about reinforcing the idea that BF does not exist.

Even in your quote 'hunters have managed to kill off all of the big predators including wolves and mountain lions' it reveals your generalizations and assumptions. Not all the wolves and mountain lions have been hunted to extinction. Otherwise we would all be quite aware they were extinct. 

I'm just trying to validate generalized opinions (including my own that bear bones are hard to find) because it seems to me discounting my statement is largely based on opinion. 

Yes; logically it doesn't seem to make sense Stereologist, that we haven't shot a big foot...IF we are just lumping Sasquatch into the category of an animal with animal intelligence and we don't consider that 

A: People don't actively go out thinking 'I'm gonna go hunt a bigfoot' today. 

B: Even those seeking to hunt big foot have limited knowledge on how to hunt a big foot because most dismiss its existence, don't believe the tracks, or have a frame of reference on how to track a primate with higher intelligence and more advanced evasive tactics; One being; stay far the hell away from the edges of human settlements where hunters go.

C; I don't imagine your regular 'Joe Hunter' hops in his truck and drives 8 hours beyond major populated areas or designated/stocked hunting grounds or even go far beyond major logging roads to find bears to hunt. Convenience undermines flying a helicopter 6 hours into areas inaccessible without helicopters or Sesna's/ SIngle engine planes, and if you do that really rich; in which case we're not talking about the median statistically but a minority population.

 Hunting a plethora of game stalked animals in pre-designated hunting areas surrounded by human populations only proves we (the government) stocks (Game areas) for Joe Hunter to do what he likes so he will go to the local gun/hunting store and buy stuff for his hobby and support the local economy thus appeasing tax payers and winning support for his district mayor in office.

It doesn't say we would have been gaming and killing a ton of BF's because realistically; BF's wouldn't be boxing themselves in areas heavily populated (especially areas) where hunters have been heard, leaving signs of passage etc. They would be up in the Pacific NW deep some 80 + miles the hell far away from us or along the Appalachian east coast range where Joe Hunter wouldn't drag his tubby us up anyways because he'd have a cardiac arrest before he climbed any serious altitude up the forested mountains.

Your assumptions don't include our human tendancy to be 

Lazy

Complacent

Seeking quick easy gratification: Like hunting locally so we can get back home and hit the beer store before the game starts:  Joe Hunters likely thoughts.

Please place what other write in quotes. It makes it much easier to read through your post. When you do that you are less likely to misrepresent my posts.

For example, I suggested that "... all the wolves and mountain lions have been hunted to extinction." Obviously not since I've seen them in the wild. I doubt you have spent much time outdoors. There are large areas of the US where mountain lions and wolves were hunted to extinction. Huge areas. And not just predators. Deer and elk as well were hunted to extinction in large areas.

Despite the fact that I posted a newspaper article in which bear bones were shown to the police because people thought they were human and other links were posted by others showing that people find bear bones in the wild and personal accounts from posters that they have found bear bones you question it. Yes, bear bones are found.

What is not found are BF bones because BF does not exist. No bones, no hair, nothing. No hunters have shot a BF yet they exterminated deer, elk, wolves, and catamounts from huge areas. Pennsylvania is larger than Cuba, It is larger than Malawi. The area in which wolves and mountain lions was wiped out is larger than the European Union.

A. Makes no sense at all. I am not talking about deciding to go hunting BF. Hunters do shoot animals they are not hunting or didn't you know that?

B. Is plain dumb. It has nothing whatsoever to do with people hunting deer for the restaurant trade that cleared entire states of the deer population.

C. Is you telling us how little you know. I already knew that.

The rest of your musings make no sense either.

[stereologist]

Believers in BF are always coming up with excuses as to why BF cannot be located. The one thing they will not say is that BF is a fantasy.

The simple fact of the matter is that BF have never been found. The bones of other animals are found. That includes bears.

Bears are hunted. You don't seem to know anything about hunting and have posted your musings that are based on nothing. You really might want to look into bear hunting. Here is a link. This is for New Jersey, one of the densest population states.

http://www.nj.com/sussex-county/index.ssf/2016/12/nj_bear_hunt_surpasses_3000th_bear_killed_since_hu.html

Do people travel to hunt bear? You bet they do. Here is an example. There are plenty of bear hunt places across the US.

http://www.swanmountainoutfitters.com/trip/montana-black-bear-hunts/

A problem you are making is that you are thinking about today's hunting practices and not events from 150 to 100 years ago when people hunted and shot all sorts of animals for the restaurant trade. The rules were pretty simple back then. You shot everything you could and sold it. This was not for recreation, or fun, but for money.

Despite intensive hunting practices not a single BF was reported or shot. There are plenty of BF reports from Pennsylvania today despite it being quite clear that they were not there before the huge growth in the Pennsylvania population.

Where I live there are BF reports. But hunting decimated the deer, killed off the elk, the wolves, and the mountain lions. BF reports are modern. They are not old where I live.

You can't find the bones of an imaginary animal.

[Horta]

14 hours ago, Talus said:

Posted Tuesday at 11:50 PM · Report pos

OK!!! FOR ALL YOU NAYSAYERS TO MY QUESTION LISTEN UP AND ACTUALLY READ WHAT I"M WRITING.

I'm not stating that bear bones aren't found or that bears don't exist. C'mon guys I'm not an idiot, of course bears exist. The question I proposed was based on a statement that bear bones were hard to find and that evidence of there presence in an area is largely based on scat, tracks or fur trappings, not actual bones found.  

I know they are in museums..because some hunter shot it and skinned it.

The point I'm trying to make if you read my post was the reasons why bear bones may be seen more frequently is that HUNTING BEARS IS A NATIONAL AMERICAN HOBBY as is hunting deer etc. ACTUALLY HUNTING BIG FOOT IS NOT A NATIONAL HOBBY. You Americans love your guns and hunting..its clear, through commercials/magazines/gun sales/ statistics etc. This alone would increase the number of bear bones found; if assuming what you say by some authority of statement that they are found frequently is in fact true.

Oh, I read it all right. But I find it irrelevant and illogical. 

The reason bear bones (or scat or anything else) is found more often than bigfoot bones has nothing to do with hunters or anything else, it is simply because bears exist. Nothing is, or has ever been found of bigfoot, this is because bigfoot doesn't exist. That's why hunting it is not a "national hobby". You can't hunt something that isn't there. You can only pretend to hunt it (which is what many bigfooters do).

Therefore such comparisons have no meaning. Seems simple enough.

Quote

If they are found in the wild regularly; show me a statistic or article! 

No. Find your own, do your own research.

Quote

Not just a tidal wave of geniuses who state authoritatively like a zoologist experts when they are basing their opinion assumption. Because if we are going to play that game I could just say 'I see Big Foots all the time!!

You could, but then we would simply have to wonder whether you were lying or delusional (or both). Unless you could provide something by way of verification, of course (you know, the way people can do for bears).

Quote

Are we are here to question things which science isn't willing to consider or are we just here to conflate our egos by steamrolling those who question reality??

Not here to do either.  Nothing has been provided to indicate an existence for bigfoot, so scientifically, it would amount to a study of fairies.

It doesn't hurt to question reality, waving goodbye to it isn't such a good idea though. Offering a contrary opinion isn't always simply a way to "conflate our egos" (a typo?..."inflate"?). If your point is that bigfoot bones could be rarer and more difficult than bears, for a number of reasons (if it were to exist), I agree in principle. This is quite a minor point overall though, as to the claim of bigfoot's existence.

Quote

If you want to just drop a picture and make a statement to sound better or smart; Hell; just go join a warhammer game and build a bigger army and squash somebody; otherwise; What are you doing on this site anyways if your going to just backlash questions with general laymans collective 'common sense' opinions? Because common sense is only perspective; your perspective and then there is group think which is all just taking the growing side based on emotional reasons to oppose another opinion. The same psycholological opinion that told Germans to listen to authorities and believe Jews are evil?

Wtf...? lol.

Quote

If you thinks BF is bogus and you blindly disagree with everyone who tries to 'consider logically' the possibility by questioning our 'authoritative assumptions' don't go on this site; because if you feel that way and your here, your wasting your time; join Warhammer or watch 'The Simpsons' and feel big..because I'm trying to consider what people want to excuse based on a 'common sense' which is largely your sense.

Regards

Bigfoot is bogus, certainly. There is an (extremely) thin chance that there is a real creature (not necessarily what people think it is) behind one or two of the other claims from around the world though. They are far more plausible to begin with, and aren't as obviously a modern fabrication/myth of pop culture, like bigfoot. It does seem far more likely that folklore (based on the same fakes, mistakes and delusion) account for those also, though. This isn't "blindly disagreeing", it is an opinion reached after careful consideration and preponderance of the subject and associated claims, over an extended period (along with looking around hairy man/monster habitat on more than one continent). If it's all the same to you though, the Simpsons doesn't appeal and I have no idea what "Warhammer" is.

Quote

Fed up with egos!

Lol.

Some advice that you are obviously free to disregard. Arguing strongly is fine, but if you take such things personally, this will become tedious very quickly, and veering to ad hominems is the quickest way to ruin a thread, and forums in general. It's not such a big deal, it's about bigfoot after all lol.

Edited February 3, 2017 by Horta

[PrisonerX]

I stumbled upon a deer corpse, tracks indicating it was killed by coyotes. It was nearly picked clean. It could not have been more than 1.5 days old or it would have been snowed over. A week later, nothing remained at all. Nothing. The forest devours most corpses quickly. Stumbling upon any remains of a rare animal's corpse is highly unlikely. 

Edited February 4, 2017 by PrisonerX

[stereologist]

23 hours ago, PrisonerX said:

I stumbled upon a deer corpse, tracks indicating it was killed by coyotes. It was nearly picked clean. It could not have been more than 1.5 days old or it would have been snowed over. A week later, nothing remained at all. Nothing. The forest devours most corpses quickly. Stumbling upon any remains of a rare animal's corpse is highly unlikely. 

Some remains are quickly scattered. Bones can be chewed on by rodents seeking the mineral content. Still there are plenty of deer bones out in the woods. I run into them often. Deer are common and I expect to find them. I also find the skulls and teeth of rodents. The less common animals are the predators. I've seen a bear skeleton once and coyote skeletons several times. These are out there and they can be found. A far less common skeleton in the woods are human remains. Every year we hear about someone found in the woods. They can be murder victims, lost hikers, and even the remains of people that wandered away and could not take care of themselves.

No bones is only a part of the story. There is nothing found. No hair, no scat, nothing. Bear scat is relatively easy to find. Coyote scat is easy to locate. Deer scat is everywhere in our area. Anyone ever locate BF scat? No.

 

[PrisonerX]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

Some remains are quickly scattered. Bones can be chewed on by rodents seeking the mineral content. Still there are plenty of deer bones out in the woods. I run into them often. Deer are common and I expect to find them. I also find the skulls and teeth of rodents. The less common animals are the predators. I've seen a bear skeleton once and coyote skeletons several times. These are out there and they can be found. A far less common skeleton in the woods are human remains. Every year we hear about someone found in the woods. They can be murder victims, lost hikers, and even the remains of people that wandered away and could not take care of themselves.

No bones is only a part of the story. There is nothing found. No hair, no scat, nothing. Bear scat is relatively easy to find. Coyote scat is easy to locate. Deer scat is everywhere in our area. Anyone ever locate BF scat? No.

 

Not entirely accurate. There has been both hair and scat samples found that test results could not determine the origins of. This has happened more than once. The problem is there exists no confirmed samples with which to compare them to; meaning we may have already found scat and hair from a Sasquatch, but it's unable to be identified because we lack a confirmed specimen to match it to. 

[oldrover]

49 minutes ago, PrisonerX said:

Not entirely accurate. There has been both hair and scat samples found that test results could not determine the origins of. This has happened more than once.

But that only means that those samples proved inconclusive, not that they were suggestive of anything unknown. 

[PrisonerX]

2 hours ago, oldrover said:

But that only means that those samples proved inconclusive, not that they were suggestive of anything unknown. 

Point stands there's room to assert the possibility of there having already been samples recovered. We'll be able to go back and re-examine those samples should we ever prove the creatures existence. 

[oldrover]

8 minutes ago, PrisonerX said:

Point stands there's room to assert the possibility of there having already been samples recovered. We'll be able to go back and re-examine those samples should we ever prove the creatures existence. 

I disagree. Samples which aren't fit for analysis don't suggest anything other than they're degraded or spoiled in some way. I send samples for analysis every working day, most are fine, some can't be used. It isn't suggestive of anything other than the nature of analysis. 

[PrisonerX]

27 minutes ago, oldrover said:

I disagree. Samples which aren't fit for analysis don't suggest anything other than they're degraded or spoiled in some way. I send samples for analysis every working day, most are fine, some can't be used. It isn't suggestive of anything other than the nature of analysis. 

This is a straw man. That's not the case for the samples I was referring to.  

[oldrover]

1 minute ago, PrisonerX said:

This is a straw man. That's not the case for the samples I was referring to.  

Is it? Perhaps I've misunderstood the point you were making here then

 

48 minutes ago, PrisonerX said:

Point stands there's room to assert the possibility of there having already been samples recovered. We'll be able to go back and re-examine those samples should we ever prove the creatures existence.

Were you not saying that those 

 

4 hours ago, PrisonerX said:

 hair and scat samples found that test results could not determine the origins

Opened the possibility that there was an unknown source out there? If not I apologise I misunderstood, if you were then my point stands.

[PrisonerX]

3 minutes ago, oldrover said:

Is it? Perhaps I've misunderstood the point you were making here then

Were you not saying that those 

Opened the possibility that there was an unknown source out there? If not I apologise I misunderstood, if you were then my point stands.

Yes, it does, in regards to some of the samples collected. Not unfit samples, as you somehow decided I was talking about, but fit samples that are undetermined after being analyzed.

[Sakari]

On 1/31/2017 at 8:45 PM, Talus said:

Hunting for grizzly bears

 

June 25th, 2008 

 

More and more foreigners are paying top dollar for the opportunity to see a magnificent grizzly in the wild. British Columbia, though, still permits the sport killing of an animal that is highly evocative of what remains of our wilderness and is regarded as a keystone indicator of ecosystem health. Last year, a record-setting 430 grizzlies died for sport, for animal control, or from poaching, yet the complex science used by government to establish hunting quotas remains at the heart of one of the most controversial wildlife-management issues in Canada. That’s why environmentalists, First Nations, and bear-viewing companies believe the province is risking international shame over the hunting of grizzlies, considered by the federal Species at Risk Act, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, and the B.C. Conservation Data Centre to be a species of special concern.

 

http://www.straight.com/article-151135/hunting-grizzly-bears

 

 

It's time to end the grisly trophy hunt

March 12, 2015 | 

The spring grizzly kill starts April 1 and extends for several weeks, followed by a second fall season. By year's end, several hundred will have died at the hands of humans, close to 90 per cent shot by trophy hunters — many of them foreign licence-holders, as the B.C. government plans to enact new regulations to allow hunters from outside B.C. to take 40 per cent of grizzlies slated for killing. The government also plans to allow foreign interests and corporations to buy and run guide-outfitting territories previously run only by B.C. residents. Local hunting organizations say the new rules put them at a disadvantage.

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/science-matters/2015/03/its-time-to-end-the-grisly-trophy-hunt/

Best Bear Hunts

SEPTEMBER 18, 2007

 

Black bear hunting suffers from a peculiar paradox: While bears continue to maintain or increase their numbers across most parts of their range, seasons are becoming more restrictive. This is in part because of anti-hunting challenges over the last few years. Colorado lost its spring bear season a few years ago, thanks to a ballot-box referendum. In Ontario, spring bear hunts were eliminated-for reasons that remain obscure-as a result of money and pressure exerted by anti-hunters. In many states, bear units are now hunted in accordance with quotas.

 

http://www.outdoorlife.com/ARTICLES/HUNTING/2007/09/BEST-BEAR-HUNTS

 

Now, that is something to protest about.....Not joking.

[oldrover]

2 minutes ago, PrisonerX said:

Yes, it does, in regards to some of the samples collected. Not unfit samples, as you somehow decided I was talking about, but fit samples that are undetermined after being analyzed.

Ah I see. I assumed you were talking about inconclusive or discarded samples because those are the only kind of inconclusive samples I was aware of. Would you be able to cite some of these that have been analysed and still remain unclear?  

[Sakari]

On 1/31/2017 at 10:04 PM, Horta said:

From another thread on these boards...

Bigfoot bones....(please fill it in when you get some)...

 

This is amounting to another bigfoot fallacy. Bigfoot either exists, or it doesn't (regardless of bears). Sadly for bigfoot proponents, it seems that it doesn't.

You did not quote the pictures.......

 

On 2/2/2017 at 9:36 AM, Talus said:

Are we are here to question things which science isn't willing to consider or are we just here to conflate our egos by steamrolling those who question reality??

 

 

 

 

Science will consider anything, if evidence is presented to support it........Sorry, bigfoot has none.

As for bear bones, and carcasses....Ah nevermind, this has been discussed to death. I have a game to get ready for.

[PrisonerX]

13 minutes ago, oldrover said:

Ah I see. I assumed you were talking about inconclusive or discarded samples because those are the only kind of inconclusive samples I was aware of. Would you be able to cite some of these that have been analysed and still remain unclear?  

Sure, here's a couple that should suffice:

Dr Gerald Lowenstien from University of Cali on a hair found in Pike Peak Colorado. "I've tested these hairs for all the major groups of mammals that have large specimens - like deer, bears, and so forth, and it only reacts to the primates. And of the primates, it only reacts with hominids. And there are only five hominids: human, chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, and gibbon." Lowenstien believes that the hair belongs to a "large animal closely related to human and chimpanzee,".

Professor Brian Sykes of the Institute of Molecular Medicine at Oxford University on the result of a hair found at the base of a cedar tree. "It's certainly mysterious...there was a plump follicle there. We normally wouldn't have any difficulty at all. It had all the hallmarks of good material...We found some DNA in it, but we don't know what it is." "It's not a human. It's not a bear. It's not anything else that we've so far been able to identify - a mystery. We've never encountered any data that we couldn't recognize before..."

[oldrover]

1 minute ago, PrisonerX said:

Sure, here's a couple that should suffice:

Dr Gerald Lowenstien from University of Cali on a hair found in Pike Peak Colorado. "I've tested these hairs for all the major groups of mammals that have large specimens - like deer, bears, and so forth, and it only reacts to the primates. And of the primates, it only reacts with hominids. And there are only five hominids: human, chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, and gibbon." Lowenstien believes that the hair belongs to a "large animal closely related to human and chimpanzee,".

Professor Brian Sykes of the Institute of Molecular Medicine at Oxford University on the result of a hair found at the base of a cedar tree. "It's certainly mysterious...there was a plump follicle there. We normally wouldn't have any difficulty at all. It had all the hallmarks of good material...We found some DNA in it, but we don't know what it is." "It's not a human. It's not a bear. It's not anything else that we've so far been able to identify - a mystery. We've never encountered any data that we couldn't recognize before..."

Thank you, I'll have a look at those. 

[oldrover]

40 minutes ago, PrisonerX said:

Dr Gerald Lowenstien from University of Cali on a hair found in Pike Peak Colorado. "I've tested these hairs for all the major groups of mammals that have large specimens - like deer, bears, and so forth, and it only reacts to the primates. And of the primates, it only reacts with hominids. And there are only five hominids: human, chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, and gibbon." Lowenstien believes that the hair belongs to a "large animal closely related to human and chimpanzee,".

Firstly, there isn't a Dr Gerald Lowenstien listed anywhere, except here http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/the-patterson-footage.3443203/page-13 

Which I'm assuming was your source as the Sykes reference was the next one. 

There are listings for a Jerry Lowenstein and for a Jerold Lowenstein, to be honest I'm not sure if it's the same man. TLooking at their profiles on 'Linked in' and 'ResearchGate' I think they are, they certainly look alike, and their work seems to overlap. And in the crypto context both men are listed as having analysed samples. Jerry has done a purported yeti bone fragment, but found it inconclusive (Google Jerry Lowenstein yeti), and Jerold has analysed hair samples.

As for the results of the hair samples reports vary but I must concede that according to the non-peer reviwed sources I've come across, regarding at least one of the samples Jerold Lowenstein did say that the samples he found were "much like the hair of a primate or a human, but that it did not exactly match either one". https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8qTeAwAAQBAJ&pg=RA1-PA25&lpg=RA1-PA25&dq=dr+jerold+lowenstein+bigfoot&source=bl&ots=UZjHENp6NW&sig=Wg-ybt1NHwAHZCE8t-3zVEASvO0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZlJfQ7_nRAhXJBcAKHYbAB0IQ6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=dr jerold lowenstein bigfoot&f=false

However, from the same link, the hairs were also examined by a Dr W H Farenbach of the Oregon Regional Primate Research Center (who can also be verified as having been publishing on the subject in the scientific literature), was less convinced. Although admittedly, it was not based on a concrete identification, but again, this is not from a peer reviewed source. He's reported as being absolutely dismissive of the subject, but as it's presented there, his comments do definitely support your assertion. See toward the bottom of the right hand column of page 28 at the link. 

So, as to your point, yes, I do concede that there are reports of hairs remaining enigmatic after analyses. But I have to qualify that by saying that in this example, as far as I've been able to find while taking a break from thylacines for two minutes, it isn't presented in a format or from a source which would, in my opinion, make it scientifically valid. But, I can see why that might well sound like sour grapes.

So, I will say that while I'm extremely sceptical of the source, I do concede the point that you made. 

As for Bryan Sykes, that one I'll leave, because to be honest I'm extremely dissatisfied with so much of what Sykes has said that, unlike Jerry/Jerold Lowenstein, I can't begin to take take him seriously as a source. But that's another matter. 

 

 

 

 

[Farmer77]

7 minutes ago, oldrover said:

Firstly, there isn't a Dr Gerald Lowenstien listed anywhere, except here http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/the-patterson-footage.3443203/page-13 

Which I'm assuming was your source as the Sykes reference was the next one. 

There are listings for a Jerry Lowenstein and for a Jerold Lowenstein, to be honest I'm not sure if it's the same man. TLooking at their profiles on 'Linked in' and 'ResearchGate' I think they are, they certainly look alike, and their work seems to overlap. And in the crypto context both men are listed as having analysed samples. Jerry has done a purported yeti bone fragment, but found it inconclusive (Google Jerry Lowenstein yeti), and Jerold has analysed hair samples.

As for the results of the hair samples reports vary but I must concede that according to the non-peer reviwed sources I've come across, regarding at least one of the samples Jerold Lowenstein did say that the samples he found were "much like the hair of a primate or a human, but that it did not exactly match either one". https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8qTeAwAAQBAJ&pg=RA1-PA25&lpg=RA1-PA25&dq=dr+jerold+lowenstein+bigfoot&source=bl&ots=UZjHENp6NW&sig=Wg-ybt1NHwAHZCE8t-3zVEASvO0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZlJfQ7_nRAhXJBcAKHYbAB0IQ6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=dr jerold lowenstein bigfoot&f=false

However, from the same link, the hairs were also examined by a Dr W H Farenbach of the Oregon Regional Primate Research Center (who can also be verified as having been publishing on the subject in the scientific literature), was less convinced. Although admittedly, it was not based on a concrete identification, but again, this is not from a peer reviewed source. He's reported as being absolutely dismissive of the subject, but as it's presented there, his comments do definitely support your assertion. See toward the bottom of the right hand column of page 28 at the link. 

So, as to your point, yes, I do concede that there are reports of hairs remaining enigmatic after analyses. But I have to qualify that by saying that in this example, as far as I've been able to find while taking a break from thylacines for two minutes, it isn't presented in a format or from a source which would, in my opinion, make it scientifically valid. But, I can see why that might well sound like sour grapes.

So, I will say that while I'm extremely sceptical of the source, I do concede the point that you made. 

As for Bryan Sykes, that one I'll leave, because to be honest I'm extremely dissatisfied with so much of what Sykes has said that, unlike Jerry/Jerold Lowenstein, I can't begin to take take him seriously as a source. But that's another matter. 

 

 

 

 

Since you seem to have a scientific base can you explain what the scoop is with the melba ketchum deal? Sasquatch Genome Project  The website looks like crap but the data is there along with several rounds of peer review. 

I dipped my toe into the subject but without fully grasping the science behind the conversation I find im just left to choose between competing expert opinions. 

 

Edited February 5, 2017 by Farmer77

[oldrover]

3 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Since you seem to have a scientific base can you explain what the scoop is with the melba ketchum deal? Sasquatch Genome Project  The website looks like crap but the data is there along with several rounds of peer review. 

I dipped my toe into the subject but without fully grasping the science behind the conversation I find im just left to choose between competing expert opinions. 

 

As far as a formal scientific base I'm extremely limited to my own area. Much of which is 'soft science'. The only thing I'd say is to check every source you can, if it isn't referenced then it isn't real. Even if it is referenced, the references may not say what the author citing them infers they do. And that problem isn't restricted to non mainstream stuff either, you'll find that in pieces in the mainstream journals too. I was shown a glaring example yesterday. Basically always be a sceptic. 

Ketchum's 'paper' was doing the rounds a few years ago, I was sent a copy. The point is the idea of it ever having been peer reviewed is an illusion, it was never submitted to that. The 'journal' DeNovo was created especially for that paper. Believe me there is nothing in that paper that stood up. It wasn't ever designed to be read by anyone who was used to reading technical publications. It clearly wasn't anything of the sort. 

Did you read the bigfoot paper a couple of years ago written by someone who was claimed to be a professor of somewhere, can't remember his name, but he went by the pseudonym of 'Johnny Dagger'? That was similar. Just a mess. 

Believe me, it's all nonsense. 

[PrisonerX]

42 minutes ago, oldrover said:

Firstly, there isn't a Dr Gerald Lowenstien listed anywhere, except here http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/the-patterson-footage.3443203/page-13 

Which I'm assuming was your source as the Sykes reference was the next one. 

There are listings for a Jerry Lowenstein and for a Jerold Lowenstein, to be honest I'm not sure if it's the same man. TLooking at their profiles on 'Linked in' and 'ResearchGate' I think they are, they certainly look alike, and their work seems to overlap. And in the crypto context both men are listed as having analysed samples. Jerry has done a purported yeti bone fragment, but found it inconclusive (Google Jerry Lowenstein yeti), and Jerold has analysed hair samples.

As for the results of the hair samples reports vary but I must concede that according to the non-peer reviwed sources I've come across, regarding at least one of the samples Jerold Lowenstein did say that the samples he found were "much like the hair of a primate or a human, but that it did not exactly match either one". https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8qTeAwAAQBAJ&pg=RA1-PA25&lpg=RA1-PA25&dq=dr+jerold+lowenstein+bigfoot&source=bl&ots=UZjHENp6NW&sig=Wg-ybt1NHwAHZCE8t-3zVEASvO0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZlJfQ7_nRAhXJBcAKHYbAB0IQ6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=dr jerold lowenstein bigfoot&f=false

However, from the same link, the hairs were also examined by a Dr W H Farenbach of the Oregon Regional Primate Research Center (who can also be verified as having been publishing on the subject in the scientific literature), was less convinced. Although admittedly, it was not based on a concrete identification, but again, this is not from a peer reviewed source. He's reported as being absolutely dismissive of the subject, but as it's presented there, his comments do definitely support your assertion. See toward the bottom of the right hand column of page 28 at the link. 

So, as to your point, yes, I do concede that there are reports of hairs remaining enigmatic after analyses. But I have to qualify that by saying that in this example, as far as I've been able to find while taking a break from thylacines for two minutes, it isn't presented in a format or from a source which would, in my opinion, make it scientifically valid. But, I can see why that might well sound like sour grapes.

So, I will say that while I'm extremely sceptical of the source, I do concede the point that you made. 

As for Bryan Sykes, that one I'll leave, because to be honest I'm extremely dissatisfied with so much of what Sykes has said that, unlike Jerry/Jerold Lowenstein, I can't begin to take take him seriously as a source. But that's another matter. 

 

 

 

 

I copy pasted that to save time. The book mentioned there is the source.  "Bigfoot: Encounters in New York & New England."

Another interesting article worth reading on the topic:

"The authors have examined five specimens of preserved feces and three specimens of animal hair suspected to be of Sasquatch or Bigfoot origin. They find that two of the fecal and two of the hair specimens are definitely attributable to known animals, but the remaining samples are not. Recognizing the limited sample studied, they call for further such analyses to ascertain the origin of the unidentified specimens."

http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/86-analysis-feces-and-hair

 

[oldrover]

10 minutes ago, PrisonerX said:

I copy pasted that to save time. The book mentioned there is the source.  "Bigfoot: Encounters in New York & New England."

Another interesting article worth reading on the topic:

"The authors have examined five specimens of preserved feces and three specimens of animal hair suspected to be of Sasquatch or Bigfoot origin. They find that two of the fecal and two of the hair specimens are definitely attributable to known animals, but the remaining samples are not. Recognizing the limited sample studied, they call for further such analyses to ascertain the origin of the unidentified specimens."

http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/86-analysis-feces-and-hair

 

As above to Farmer really. I can concede the original point that in the case of Jerry/Jerold it has been reported that there is reference on the bigfoot sites to there having been samples which have apparently been analysed and found to be unidentifiable by someone who it can be demonstrated has got a cue what they're talking about. But, as I said that's just from non verified sources. But, who are these guys? How would anyone know if they had the expertise to say one way or the other about the samples they found? 

[Horta]

On 2/6/2017 at 7:03 AM, PrisonerX said:

Sure, here's a couple that should suffice:

Dr Gerald Lowenstien from University of Cali on a hair found in Pike Peak Colorado. "I've tested these hairs for all the major groups of mammals that have large specimens - like deer, bears, and so forth, and it only reacts to the primates. And of the primates, it only reacts with hominids. And there are only five hominids: human, chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, and gibbon." Lowenstien believes that the hair belongs to a "large animal closely related to human and chimpanzee,".

Assuming this person exists, has the required expertise, and did an analysis at all, there isn't anything vague about what he is saying. He is saying that it was from an unknown and as yet undiscovered hominid species "closely resembling chimps and humans". Though it's difficult to find anything about it, outside of bigfoot literature. This is simply another bigfoot claim, no better (probably a bit less) convincing than someone saying they have seen a bigfoot.

What should happen, is that such things should be submitted to scientific literature for publication and for other scientists to look at. Journals would be clamouring over themselves to publish such an amazing find. Yet, as we saw with the Ketchum "bigfoot has a man-unknown on planet earth-bear-opossum-racoon genome", this is where such claims can begin to unravel and why it is worth being sceptical. As we also saw with the Sykes ancient polar bear claims. This is probably also why Meldrum, Bindernagel etc. have never published anything to support their claims in any reputable, peer reviewed journal. They already know their claims won't stand scrutiny.

So these are unverified claims, no more than that. Anecdotes.

Edited February 7, 2017 by Horta