• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

hominids

Correct. You can't know if it came from an unknown form of rat, or Jesus' hairy back.
 
Lol ty. So what your saying that while it may have came from bf, there is no way of knowing, so hairs useless? What about blood samples or tissue samples? Could they be more promising?
 
If you can get DNA you can narrow down what kind of creature it could be. The hair isn't useless, just not useful until you get something more.

Until then, it could be an unknown mouse.
 
Miss_Kitt said:
Kitakaze -- Thanks for the link to the Mid-America group, I'll be using that to get a bit more "up to speed" on current events (ie, the last decade).

Thank you for your educational posts on this thread.

yours, MK
Click to expand...

Thank you, Miss_Kitt. :) I have a thread on the MABRC here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124961

There was some fantastic videos there but alas, when the MABRC realized that putting youtube videos out for everyone to see meant skeptics would see and comment, they quickly put them away.
 
makaya325 said:
Rayg, i have never claimed to be an expert, however, i did say that i had western lowland gorilla hair, and that hair is very similiar to the alleged sasquatch hair
Click to expand...

You're not an expert yet you keep talking as though you want us to believe you are. Like these zingers, for example:

makaya325 said:
Hitch, i have compared them to many many native mammals, and i conclude the hair is similiar to a western lowland gorilla.
Click to expand...

makaya325 said:
Hitch, not at all. Bison hair is totally ruled out, however, non-human primates cant be ruled out
Click to expand...

Since you're not an expert (have no formal training in hair analysis), it doesn't matter what you conclude or rule out

makaya325 said:
So ty, until we have a bona fide bf hair, we cant say for sure what the hair is, only that it came from something unknown?
Click to expand...

Until you have attempted to match it against samples from all known animals in North America, you can't even say that it came from something unknown, only that it came from something unknown to you.

RayG
 
No, rayg, Have you read tom moore's analysis of the hair? Have you examined the snelgrove hair ( the dna might have been contaminated, most likely) lynn rogers looked at?
 
Makaya, do the following:

Tell us the chain of custody of the samples (alleged bigfoot and gorilla).
Tell us the equipment and methodology you used.
Show us the data you obtained.
Show us your conclusion and expose the reasonings you used to reach it (make sure to write why you did not reached other alternate conclusions).
Don't forget to add bibliographic citations.

As soon as you get this text ready, send it to a peer-reviewed jornal.

Seriously, ever considered why nothing about bigfoot hair never managed to make it at a major (or even mid-tier) peer-reviewed journal?

Actually ever considered why nothing about bigfoot ever made it?
 
Correa neto, Its due to the fact that more studies need to be undertaken. I thought hair analysis was unreliable, according to ty?
 
makaya325 said:
Correa neto, Its due to the fact that more studies need to be undertaken. I thought hair analysis was unreliable, according to ty?
Click to expand...

Its reliable ( or not) depending on what is trying to be determined from it as well as the quality of the sample,methods and care used to perform said test.

The problem really is that all examinations so far have been conducted by people not fully qualified to do it, older technology, people with agendas and the results are biasedly "wordsmithed" to give a pro result.
 
makaya325 said:
Long, Exactly, people with a skeptical bias will give their own result, same with believers
Click to expand...

Dude, facts are facts and they speak for themselves. Belief ( either way) has no say in the process.

I dont deny there is such a thing as skeptical bias but the force is stronger with the woo.
 
makaya325 said:
Long, what about ben radford, daegling, nickell? They are far worse than any woo's
Click to expand...

Substantiate the statement. I gave you links to Radford and Daegling's review of Meldrum's book and asked that you show the flaws in there criticism of the bad science in the book. You turtled from either laziness or the inability to do so.
 
Long, you argue your a PROPONENT, yet you come across as unsatisfied. I find it hard to believe you think most tracks are fake, but your confident 80% on your so called encounter with an ambigious blur of fur
 
Last edited:
makaya325 said:
Long, you argue your a PROPONENT, yet you come across as unsatisfied. I find it hard to believe you think most tracks are fake, but your confident 80% on your so called encounter with an ambigious blur of fur
Click to expand...

Thats correct. I'm a BF proponent and have never deviated from that stance based on my 2 experiences.

I have never said most tracks are faked- what i HAVE said is that most tracks are NOT PROPERLY evaluated by capable and qualified people using reliable methods rendering their claims as USELESS.

My personal confidence level stems from my personal knowledge of my education and experience and the facts at hand during the incidents.

However, I cant put my "memory" out for review. When I speak as a scientist and PhD, I have to have cold hard "facts and data" to throw on the table for the masses to pour their acid on and review my findings.

Therefore, "my" account ( REGARDLESS of my personal opinion) has no more scientific validity than any other. The rules dont change because its "me".
 
makaya325 said:
So, long, in your opinion, what is the best evidence?
Click to expand...

So far- there are only 2 concrete pieces of evidence that are irrefutable in the pro BF camp.

1) Its possible they CAN exist

2) Its impossible to "prove" they dont/cant or never did

Other than the above- theres not a single shred of validated evidence that shows they do
 
makaya325 said:
No, rayg, Have you read tom moore's analysis of the hair? Have you examined the snelgrove hair ( the dna might have been contaminated, most likely) lynn rogers looked at?
Click to expand...

Ho-hum....

Yes, I'm aware of the examples you have provided, none of which was shown to come from a bigfoot. I'm also aware that Snelgrove Lake is NOT located 250 miles north of Ottawa as claimed in the Monsterquest episode.

Mak, you're very active on this forum for someone so young. How many years have you actually been following the bigfoot phenomenon?

RayG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom