Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They claim the hair sample was from a sasquatch. Ok, where is this said sasquatch then? Oh, they don't have it, and there is no body. But they know it came from a sasquatch how..? So right off the bat their claim is dubious at best.
No. I listened to a interview this morning on the radio with a fellow who knows the scientist and he said that the different hair samples came from recent bigfoot sighting areas. The hairs didn't match anything on record with known animals. That's pretty telling right there.
No. I listened to a interview this morning on the radio with a fellow who knows the scientist and he said that the different hair samples came from recent bigfoot sighting areas. The hairs didn't match anything on record with known animals. That's pretty telling right there.
So... that's like what? Fourth generation hearsay? Fifth?
1. The person who allegedly "recently sighted" Bigfoot in some area.
2. The person who allegedly then collected hair samples from the area. (I guess Bigfoot must shed a lot.)
3. The "scientists" who then allegedly received those samples and tested them.
4. The "fellow who knows the scientist" and who spoke on the radio.
5. You.
No. I listened to a interview this morning on the radio with a fellow who knows the scientist and he said that the different hair samples came from recent bigfoot sighting areas. The hairs didn't match anything on record with known animals. That's pretty telling right there.
Not really because how many animal species have yet to have their DNA sequenced?
1. there is no way to prove provenance from clumps of hair found laying around.
2. the entire bonobo genome only differs from modern humans by 1.3% so to claim that this find represents a hybrid human because by that argument all great apes are hybrid humans.
I'd like to believe there's a bigfoot out there, but I've seen no evidence that would convince me there is one. I've spent a lot of time in the woods too. I see shows like Finding Bigfoot and what I see are a bunch of people who come from a largely urban background mistaking every bear and deer and moose snapping a twig with having sasquatches all around them.
There's no conspiracy by scientists here to ignore it either. If someone is convinced they have hair or tissue samples from a bigfoot, plenty of credible labs would be willing to test it for DNA if you pay them for their efforts. The lab involved in this is not very credible.
I do so agree with everything you have stated. I too love watching the show finding bigfoot. The skeptics will find fault with the show, and those believers will believe in the show.
I would love for there to be evidence of bigfoots, but credible evidence only would suffice. Some things on the show are somwhat unexplained, and not all people on the show mistake a bear or deer or moose, as a sasquatch. They seem to sincerely believe in what they saw to be a sasquatch.
I do not think there is a conspiracy on the part of credible scientists either, a suspect hair sample or tissue from a suppose bigffot, would be sent to a very credible lab, to be tested for DNA. They would be under the microscope and scrutinized.
I think we need more hard facts and evidence, however in this case to convince me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
