• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Bigfoot follies

Status
Not open for further replies.
Northern Lights said:
My understanding of DNA is cursory at best, so please correct me if this is incorrect. I've been lead to believe that poop or scat is a very poor source for producing viable DNA samples. The only DNA are the mitochondria cells which are attached at the front end while exiting the body and nothing resides within the scat itself.

With that said, we do find many examples of human looking scat in the woods while we are out. We document it along with other examples of evidence, but I'm not going to post a bunch of pictures on this forum because it's pretty gross stuff and just isn't necessary. It's out there, trust me.
Click to expand...

Well, cities, apartment complexes, hoas, etc. are testing dog poop for DNA to fine the owners who are not following the law/rules.

So I would say that poop must be pretty reliable as a DNA source.
 
Belief in bigfoot (actually even defending the claim of believing in bigfoot) requires imposing a censorship on reality.

Mind you, its the same for all sorts of woo, religion included.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Well, cities, apartment complexes, hoas, etc. are testing dog poop for DNA to fine the owners who are not following the law/rules.

So I would say that poop must be pretty reliable as a DNA source.
Click to expand...

Really??? I would love to read more about this. Got a link?
 
Northern Lights said:
Well, maybe someday you'll be like Volsquatch and really have an encounter and switch from skeptic to believer.
Click to expand...

The things I described happened. The tree (it is a hackberry tree) came down on a calm night. The tree guys are taking it down today. The branch just got too heavy. The turtles are out looking to lay eggs, I think. I still don't know how the snapping turtle got inside my fence, but I can assure you its not bigfoot. I was showing how easy it is to take mundane happenings and attribute them to biggie.

If you still believe that Bigfoot threw the good-n-plenty, can you give an explanation of why you think he carried it around for so long, why it didn't melt in his hand, and if you think he practiced throwing the candy before sneaking up on your campsite that night. I'm also wondering why you think he did it.

Of course, everyone needs to believe in something. I believe I'll have a couple of margaritas when I get home. Volsquatch got nuthin' on me.
 
Summary of the Echo Incident:
http://woodape.org/index.php/news/news/204-the-echo-incident

Using his Remington 1100 Tac-4 12 gauge auto-loading shotgun, loaded with 000 buckshot followed by slugs, he attempted to collect the animal for scientific analysis, firing all the rounds in rapid succession. Colyer then approached the spot where the animal had been, reloading as he walked, but found no body. Within a few seconds he heard the faint sound of an automobile engine starting. When Diaz arrived at the location of the encounter, Colyer directed him to investigate the automobile sound. Diaz found a container of iced tea on the ground approximately 50 yards down the path, but he could not determine a source for the engine noise.
Click to expand...

Does anyone else think this would qualify as Reckless Endangerment?
I can't find specific info online for Oklahoma, however,

Jury instructions for Reckless Endangerment in Connecticut
http://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/part6/6.3-2.htm

Element 1 - Acted recklessly
The first element is that the defendant acted recklessly. A person acts "recklessly" with respect to a result or circumstances when (he/she) is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstances exist. <See Recklessness, Instruction 2.3-4>

Element 2 - Created risk of physical injury
The second element is that the defendant's recklessness created a risk of causing physical injury to another person.1 "Physical injury" means impairment of physical condition or pain.

Conclusion

In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) the defendant acted recklessly, and 2) created a risk of causing physical injury to another person.

If you unanimously find that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime of reckless endangerment in the second degree, then you shall find the defendant guilty. On the other hand, if you unanimously find that the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any of the elements, you shall then find the defendant not guilty.
Click to expand...

Definition of Recklessness in Connecticut?
A person acts "recklessly" with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when the defendant is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregarding it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. The standard of conduct of a reasonable person in the same situation as the defendant is the doing of something that a reasonably prudent person would do under the circumstances or omitting to do what a reasonably prudent person would not do under the circumstances.

A gross deviation is a great or substantial deviation, not just a slight or moderate deviation. There must be a great or substantial difference between, on the one hand, the defendant's conduct in disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk, and, on the other hand, what a reasonable person would have done under the circumstances. Whether a risk is substantial and unjustifiable is a question of fact for you to determine under all the circumstances.
Click to expand...

Here is the same statute in Tennessee
http://www.tncrimlaw.com/TPI_Crim/06_03.htm

We have again, a reference to 'What a reasonably prudent person would do.'

Would any of you unload a 10 shot shotgun at a Bigfoot? On 10 acres?
It doesn't matter if they knew the kid was there, a reasonably prudent person would know, that a 12 gauge shotgun has a distinct chance of hurting a bystander.
 
Also, ancestry.com does DNA for $100. Although I don't think they would take poop for a sample.
 
The Shrike said:
Blindly firing off rounds like that into the woods, surrounded by public land? Yep, that's what I'd call it.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. We know he wasn't shooting at a BF. He may have fired into the ground or a dirt bank which would have been perfectly safe.

We do not know that he was firing blindly into the woods.
 
NorthernLights,

Has your belief that scat is a poor source for DNA been corrected?

I had no ideas either way about scat being a source for DNA, except that it was much better than nothing.

But now, I know that poo gives all kinds of amazing information to those who collect it!

First, Resume reminds us (with this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Meyer) that the real gross animal in the woods is us!

Second, Correa Neto said that
DNA has been recovered from human poop produced thousands of years ago.
Click to expand...

Third, Spektator brought in another amazing link about how great poo is,
Here's a link to an article about DNA testing of panda scat...so it CAN be done.
Click to expand...

Finally, it looks like LTC brings it down to the masses. Those who do not
clean up after their dog. It can be proven which dog has the thoughtless owner.

I started this post yesterday, and after some thought,
I wonder if this is not the death knell for Bigfoot.

What would be any good investigator's excuse be for not finding and collecting poo?

Area X, where all the apes be swinging from the trees?
If they are eating, they are excreting.:p

If there are habituation sites where there are families of these
creatures, where is their poo?

Sure, the excuses will come.

NorthernLights,

Real animals poo.
If Bigfoot is real, there is poo.
You said "its out there trust me."

If you believe it is Bigfoot poo, then what would be the reason not to collect it?

Because it's gross? :covereyes
I hope that would not be the excuse.
:)
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
wicked_ways said:
Sure, the excuses will come.
Click to expand...

Bigfoot doesn't poo, obviously. A bit like the Queen.
Considering it doesn't seem to lose any hair, even thought it lives in a forest...even climbs trees... and is seriously furry, the idea it doesn't take a dump isn't going to be much of a stretch.
 
Nope.
Here are the REAL answers:
1. Bigfoot bury their poo.
2. Coprophagia.
I know this because I've seen them doing so. I have this secrete research area of untouched pristine wilderness where we can observe and interact with them. Soon we'll provide evidence. You can help and speed up the process by donating money to our NGO dedicated to study and preserve these magnificient creatures, powerful but fragile.
 
Here is what I'm was referring to:

One expert has observed that yields from human stool retain approximately 2% human DNA. In contrast, other types of samples, like vaginal swabs, may contain up to 80% human DNA post-isolation. http://www.secondgenome.com/2011/09/the-inside-scoop-on-poop/
Click to expand...

In my original post regarding this subject, I mistakenly said mitochondria cells and what I meant to say was epithelial cells.

This particular site does confirm what I original believed to be true that scat is a poor source for DNA.
 
If its such a poor DNA source, why is it being used - and producing results?

Nothing can explain the absence of reliable evidence other than bigfoots not being real. Stop accepting bigfootery lame excuses, face reality: You've been fooled, you are being fooled. Unless, of course, you are part of the game.
 
One expert has observed that yields from human stool retain approximately 2% human DNA.
Click to expand...

That would probably also mean that "yields from Bigfoot stool retain approximately 2% Bigfoot DNA."

That's just perfect for Bigfooters and so the poop will make you a millionaire.
 
^^ Exactly. Even if it only yields 2% that would still be enough to prove the case. 2% of Bigfoot DNA is still 100% of proof. Would enthusiasts not like to have a shot at 100% proof vs the current 0% proof? All you have to do is handle a little crap.
 
dmaker said:
^^ Exactly. Even if it only yields 2% that would still be enough to prove the case. 2% of Bigfoot DNA is still 100% of proof. Would enthusiasts not like to have a shot at 100% proof vs the current 0% proof? All you have to do is handle a little crap.
Click to expand...

Front me the money or offer to pay for the testing and I will bring you lots of it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom