Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Huntster]

Just get some confirmed sasquatch sightings.

...The first year of the study will cost about $50,000, Aubry said. Half of the money will come from a Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management program for sensitive species. The rest will come from other state and federal sources.....

Give the right people $50,000 per year, and maybe it will happen.

Got any figures on what Slick spent?

Patterson?

Byrne?

Meldrum?

Notice the title of the article?:

Forest Service Eager to Study Wolverine

Let's see an organization like the U.S.F.S. get "eager" to study sasquatchery, and let's see if we can just get some confirmed sasquatch sightings".

 

[LTC8K6]

Once they confirmed that wolverines were there via confirmed tracks and sightings, they decided to study them.

Just confirm that sasquatch is there. If they won't study it then, I'll be arguing on your side.

 

[Huntster]

I think I have trumped your article with more accurate info, Huntster.

You trumped me?

Or did the fresh article you found have more (or different) information than the fresh article I found?

So which journalist is lying? Or is it a lie? Is it just the sensationalism (or lack thereof) among the various writers?

Getting personal, or are we still debating the issue?

That is the goal, isn't it?

 

[LTC8K6]

You should have followed your own rule and consulted multiple sources.

I think I trumped you, yes. You made posts based on that article.

 

[LTC8K6]

Getting personal

I believe that has been your style, not mine.

 

[Huntster]

The wolverine study was not conducted to see if wolverines were there. They already accepted that the wolverines were there from the confirmed tracks and sightings over the years. The study was to determine poulations and habitats and to determine if thse wolverines were a distinct version.....

And, yet, it has been repeatedly mentioned in this thread that the reason "inconclusive" results are rendered on some hair and feces samples is because we don't have a specimen to compare them to.

We can't "confirm tracks and sightings" because the ones that survive hoax analysis, by default, are ruled "inconclusive".

Sasquatchery is denied the chicken and the egg.

Are you prepared to defend that wisdom?

 

[Huntster]

I believe that has been your style, not mine.

Of course.

Not you.

It's all my fault.

Well, I agree.

I always agree with Mrs. Huntster when she lays that line on me.

Somebody has to be the jerk. It may as well be me. It certainly can't be her or you, or certainly not anybody else on this wonderful forum.

Now, with that behind us, may we move on?........................

 

[LTC8K6]

Are you prepared to defend that wisdom?

Yes. Until you get good evidence that confirms the presence of a large bipedal primate, you are unlikely to interest science.

I have already elaborated many times how this could be done, and how opportunities to do it are thrown away time and again.

 

[LTC8K6]

You just called me a "hungry lawyer type", did you not. A quick search is informative about who has gotten personal.

I do not believe I have called you any names or personally attacked you.

If I have, I apologize and retract the statements.

 

[LTC8K6]

it has been repeatedly mentioned in this thread that the reason "inconclusive" results are rendered on some hair and feces samples is because we don't have a specimen to compare them to.

Is that really the reason the results were inconclusive?

I thought the lack of standards was the reason you couldn't say a sample was from a sasquatch, but not the reason the sample was inconclusive.

The example of hair that pops into my head is not an inconclusive result, but a result that the hairs were from a primate and indistinguishable from human.

 

[Huntster]

You should have followed your own rule and consulted multiple sources.....

Yup. Should have, would have, could have..............

Didn't.

...I think I trumped you, yes. You made posts based on that article...

Congratulations, Sherlock.

One journalist states:

...For eight decades, even scientists couldn't say for sure whether this state was home to even one member of this elusive animal species.

Until two weeks ago. Now they know all about one....

The other states:

...Some thought they also had died out in the North Cascades during the 1960s, '70s and '80s...

and

...There have been several confirmed sightings over the past 10 years in the mountains above the Methow Valley, in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness and in other areas above Leavenworth, Aubry said....

Whose right and whose wrong? I don't know. Both quote biologist Aubry, the one who claims that there were "confirmed" sightings over the past ten years.

I wonder how they got "confirmed"?

 

[Huntster]

....I thought the lack of standards was the reason you couldn't say a sample was from a sasquatch, but not the reason the sample was inconclusive......

Lack of standards?

What do you mean by that?

 

[Huntster]

Yes. Until you get good evidence that confirms the presence of a large bipedal primate, you are unlikely to interest science.....

Well, I've sure got to agree with that.

Science won't be interested until you drag a carcass before them and rub their noses in it.

They'll sure be interested then, though.

...I have already elaborated many times how this could be done, and how opportunities to do it are thrown away time and again....

Sorry. Musta' slipped my mind.

Just how would you bring science into this scientific question?

 

[LTC8K6]

A standard, meaning a known sample for comparison.

I see you continue to get personal....even as you appear to object to me getting personal.

Nevertheless, I will not stoop to that level.

 

[UrsulaV]

Of course.

Not you.

It's all my fault.

Oh, get off the cross, man, we need the wood to carve some more fake sasquatch feet.

 

[Huntster]

Is that really the reason the results were inconclusive?.....

That's what I've read. In one case, a hair sample was compared to all known possible mammalian hair in the area, and it matched none. Then, even though the hair was found in a nest woven from branches, the nest was to those seen built by African gorillas, nail marks were found on the adjacent tree where bark had been scraped off, and a louse was found on the hair that was previously unknown for the area and closely matched louse common among Asian apes, the hair sample was labeled "inconclusive" ("Raincoast Sasquatch", J. Robert Alley, pages 239-244). This nest was shown to a Forestry Division forester and a fish and game habitat biologist, and the hair and feces samples were sent in for testing to a state lab. Several other people were involved in the investigation of the nest.

 

[Huntster]

Oh, get off the cross, man, we need the wood to carve some more fake sasquatch feet.

I didn't climb up here. I was placed here.

I don't mind. I can type up here or down there.

Whichever y'all prefer.

 

[Huntster]

You just called me a "hungry lawyer type", did you not. A quick search is informative about who has gotten personal........

Well, here is the quote:

Originally Posted by LTC8K6 :
This is a lie, until you back it up, and you can't back it up.....

Well, you're close. It was a poor choice of words, and used in a courtroom full of hungry lawyer-types. Stupid on my part.

Sorry. I'll be more careful next time.

While I think you're being a little thin-skinned, I'll apologize.

I wouldn't want to be even associated with lawyers.

(Now are there any lawyers out there who want to demand an apology? I've got lots of lawyer jokes over here.......)

 

[LTC8K6]

There were many more examples of personal attacks that I chose not to post huntster.

Not just to me, either.

"Sherlock", for example. While it was personal, I am not sure if I should be offended.

 

[LTC8K6]

Huntster, earlier you mentioned hair samples from Alaska that were supposedly tested and found to be closest to an "asian primate". From Raincoast Sasquatch???

Is there any more info on these tests? An asian primate could mean a human, after all.