HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Science
Science A place to discuss natural, formal and applied science topics such as chemistry, physics, biology, logic, engineering, etc.

DNA study suggests Bigfoot exists?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-27-2012, 12:29 PM
  #1
Oilbleeder
Moderator
Lead us to glory.
 
Oilbleeder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Oil Country
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,738
vCash: 81
DNA study suggests Bigfoot exists?

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/arti...|topnews|text|

Quote:
That will depend on how mainstream science responds to the impending release of a five-year DNA study apparently suggesting Sasquatch exists, and is not entirely human and not entirely non-human. It is, says the study’s author, a hybrid cross of the two.

__________________
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v200/nemesis15/QuadSig-OB.gif <-- Credit goes to The Nemesis.
Oilbleeder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 12:48 PM
  #2
Hanta Yo
Bag it up
 
Hanta Yo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,088
vCash: 500
Maybe I missed it in the reading, and I get the uniqueness of the DNA, but how exactly do they know that the DNA sample they have belongs to the creature known as Big Foot?

Hanta Yo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 01:02 PM
  #3
Oilbleeder
Moderator
Lead us to glory.
 
Oilbleeder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Oil Country
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,738
vCash: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanta Yo View Post
Maybe I missed it in the reading, and I get the uniqueness of the DNA, but how exactly do they know that the DNA sample they have belongs to the creature known as Big Foot?
No I didn't catch it either but I was reading quickly so I thought I missed it.

Oilbleeder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 01:17 PM
  #4
jimmythescot
Registered User
 
jimmythescot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,224
vCash: 500
It sounds like they're re-testing 'Sasquatch' hair that had been classified as human with DNA techniques. And while it is partially human DNA, there is confusion over the male part.

It sounds like that thing where everyone has a common ancestor in one woman. They've never seen this male ancestor before. I'm not sure where the jump is that it's therefore Sasquatch.

jimmythescot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 03:19 PM
  #5
Analyzer
#WeAreBoston
 
Analyzer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Renfrew, ON.
Country: Canada
Posts: 40,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
The only species we can identify is human. The male that procreated is unidentifiable.”

Then what is it?


On a serious note, a possibility for the father could be an unknown extent species as the likely source, no ?

Analyzer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 03:50 PM
  #6
Dave
º
 
Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,438
vCash: 500
I saw a video of Les Stroud talking about sasquatch. He is convinced that it exists, and claims to have had an experience with one. While he was on one of his survival shoots he heard and animal make a ton of noise and said it was like no animal he had ever heard before. In the comments of that thread there were other videos/links posted. Both Jane Goodall (the chimp lady) and David Attenborough both believe that sasquatch exists.

I think Les Stroud is going to be doing a show about it.








Dave is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 04:21 PM
  #7
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 24,447
vCash: 50
If Bigfoot/Yeti/Nessi/[insert other cryptozoological beast here] really existed, they would've been hunted, killed, and mounted by now.

Only possible exception are deep sea beasts, as we obviously haven't explored the lion's share of the oceans yet. For a massive mammal in the Pacific Northwest or a dinosaur in a lake in a major western country? Not a chance.

No Fun Shogun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 05:57 PM
  #8
Ronnie Bass
elite pissy upside
 
Ronnie Bass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: Ireland
Posts: 19,971
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanta Yo View Post
Maybe I missed it in the reading, and I get the uniqueness of the DNA, but how exactly do they know that the DNA sample they have belongs to the creature known as Big Foot?
Its something they have not yet reveled yet, but reportedly they have 109 samples to be test from three different sources, how they got to determine what it is is kinda tricky to example. But they do believe around 15,000 years ago a male of an unknown species of ape mated with a female homo sapiens resulting in a hybrid species, which is what we know today as Sasquatch. We know this is plausible since homo sapiens have breed with Neanderthals in the past.

My guess this took place in North America and was with a Native American women. Mostly because there tales in folk lore of interbreeding between Bigfoot and Native Americans.

I am pretty much into this story for over a year so I can probably answer some questions. I am a believer in the creature and my attitude towards Ketchum's paper is cautious optimism. There are some things that do raise a red flag or two.

__________________
1995, 2000, 2003..........
Ronnie Bass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 06:08 PM
  #9
Ronnie Bass
elite pissy upside
 
Ronnie Bass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: Ireland
Posts: 19,971
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
If Bigfoot/Yeti/Nessi/[insert other cryptozoological beast here] really existed, they would've been hunted, killed, and mounted by now.
You killed yourself a Bigfoot in their territory, how much time do you think you will have to move a 8-9 foot animal that weighs at least 500 pounds out of the woods before its family or clan comes and tears your arms off? Lol, I don't know if that would happen but I sure wouldn't want to find out!

And as far as I know no one has ever hunted for one to kill, at least not out in public. But many have claimed to have shot one, just this past year I believe a California man said to have shot one but it still rambled off. In fact it's rumored that some of the DNA samples came from that shooting.


Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
Only possible exception are deep sea beasts, as we obviously haven't explored the lion's share of the oceans yet. For a massive mammal in the Pacific Northwest or a dinosaur in a lake in a major western country? Not a chance.
I fully agree with dinosaurs in lakes like Nessie, just makes no sense, but a biped ape like creature in area not frequent by man? I think there is a great possibility of them being able to be left undetected for the most part.

Ronnie Bass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 12:38 AM
  #10
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 24,447
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Bass View Post
You killed yourself a Bigfoot in their territory, how much time do you think you will have to move a 8-9 foot animal that weighs at least 500 pounds out of the woods before its family or clan comes and tears your arms off? Lol, I don't know if that would happen but I sure wouldn't want to find out!

And as far as I know no one has ever hunted for one to kill, at least not out in public. But many have claimed to have shot one, just this past year I believe a California man said to have shot one but it still rambled off. In fact it's rumored that some of the DNA samples came from that shooting.

I fully agree with dinosaurs in lakes like Nessie, just makes no sense, but a biped ape like creature in area not frequent by man? I think there is a great possibility of them being able to be left undetected for the most part.
...... we're talking about the Pacific Northwest, dude. You mean to tell me that in the centuries since the West has been there, not a single team of hunters found, killed, and brought to the rest of the world's attention a gigantic, bipedal primate's body in fairly close proximity to a number of major towns and even international cities all the while continuously killing and displaying other large game, like moose and bears, in the same area? Even if they just stumbled across one on complete accident while hunting other large animals?

Sorry, but no. Bigfoot doesn't exist. There's a reason why Bigfoot and UFOs only exist in grainy footage and backwoods hick testimonials.

No Fun Shogun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 01:14 AM
  #11
xX Hot Fuss
HFBoards Sponsor
 
xX Hot Fuss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 10,345
vCash: 500
Thanks to Rockstar games, whenever I hear Bigfoot I think of John Marston yelling at big foot "You eat babies!"

xX Hot Fuss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 02:20 AM
  #12
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 28,997
vCash: 500
I was trying to figure out how they made their female contribution vs male contribution determination. As expected, the researchers claim to have sequenced mitochondrial DNA (which can only come from the female/mother):

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2012/11/...5121354065000/

Quote:
Ketchum said her team has sequenced three complete Sasquatch nuclear genomes and concluded the species is a human hybrid.

"Our study has sequenced 20 whole mitochondrial genomes and utilized next generation sequencing to obtain three whole nuclear genomes from purported Sasquatch samples," she said in the release. "The genome sequencing shows that Sasquatch mtDNA is identical to modern Homo sapiens, but Sasquatch nuDNA is a novel, unknown hominin related to Homo sapiens and other primate species.

"Our data indicate that the North American Sasquatch is a hybrid species, the result of males of an unknown hominin species crossing with female Homo sapiens."

Genetic testing has already ruled out Homo neanderthalis and the Denisova hominin as contributors to Sasquatch mtDNA or nuDNA, she said.

"The male progenitor that contributed the unknown sequence to this hybrid is unique as its DNA is more distantly removed from humans than other recently discovered hominins like the Denisovan individual," Ketchum said.



It's very easy to propagate 'errors' in samples destined for DNA testing/sequencing because of the techniques used to deliver enough DNA with which to work (amplification through PCR). Researches attempt to isolate DNA from a specific sample, but if random cell becomes part of the mix, the sample is compromised. Amplification takes a single strand and then makes millinos of copies so that enough is available for the study. If you get contaminant DNA into the mix, you're not really looking at what you're thinking you're looking at.

Here's another article that questions the validity of the findings, thus far:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49980829.../#.ULXGzTO3LwM


Quote:
Because Ketchum has released no information at all about her findings (nor have they been examined by outside experts), it's impossible to evaluate the validity of her conclusions. But an important clue can be found in her statement that "Sasquatch mtDNA is identical to modern Homo sapiens."

If the mitochontrial DNA is identical to Homo sapiens (i.e., modern humans), then this suggests one of two options. The first, endorsed by Ketchum, is that Bigfoot ancestors had sex with women about 15,000 years ago and created a half-human hybrid species currently hiding across North America.

There is, however, another, simpler interpretation of such results: The samples were contaminated. Whatever the sample originally was — Bigfoot, bear, human or something else — it's possible that the people who collected and handled the specimens accidentally introduced their DNA into the sample, which can easily occur with something as innocent as a spit, sneeze or cough. No one outside of Ketchum's team knows how this alleged Bigfoot DNA was collected, from where or by whom. It could have been collected by the world's top forensics experts, or by a pair of amateur Bigfoot buffs with no evidence-gathering training.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 09:32 AM
  #13
Ronnie Bass
elite pissy upside
 
Ronnie Bass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: Ireland
Posts: 19,971
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
...... we're talking about the Pacific Northwest, dude. You mean to tell me that in the centuries since the West has been there, not a single team of hunters found, killed, and brought to the rest of the world's attention a gigantic, bipedal primate's body in fairly close proximity to a number of major towns and even international cities all the while continuously killing and displaying other large game, like moose and bears, in the same area? Even if they just stumbled across one on complete accident while hunting other large animals?

Sorry, but no. Bigfoot doesn't exist. There's a reason why Bigfoot and UFOs only exist in grainy footage and backwoods hick testimonials.
I just did tell you about one, here is his story:

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/...foot-kill.html


Just curious, how much of you and your "open mind" have done any kind of research on Bigfoot? I got a feeling its nil to none.

Ronnie Bass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 09:39 AM
  #14
Ronnie Bass
elite pissy upside
 
Ronnie Bass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: Ireland
Posts: 19,971
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I was trying to figure out how they made their female contribution vs male contribution determination. As expected, the researchers claim to have sequenced mitochondrial DNA (which can only come from the female/mother):

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2012/11/...5121354065000/




It's very easy to propagate 'errors' in samples destined for DNA testing/sequencing because of the techniques used to deliver enough DNA with which to work (amplification through PCR). Researches attempt to isolate DNA from a specific sample, but if random cell becomes part of the mix, the sample is compromised. Amplification takes a single strand and then makes millinos of copies so that enough is available for the study. If you get contaminant DNA into the mix, you're not really looking at what you're thinking you're looking at.

Here's another article that questions the validity of the findings, thus far:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49980829.../#.ULXGzTO3LwM


Contamination is always a possibility when it comes to collecting DNA, don't mean its the case here. Especially since its thought Ketchum samples are from different sources and location, as many as three.

But the one thing that does make me apprehensive is Ketchum herself, I'm afraid she is going to not let the evidence present itself but rather try to mold it into something she thinks it represents. A lot still can go wrong with her paper. We shall see though.


Last edited by Ronnie Bass: 11-28-2012 at 09:50 AM.
Ronnie Bass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 12:34 PM
  #15
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 24,447
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Bass View Post
I just did tell you about one, here is his story:

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/...foot-kill.html


Just curious, how much of you and your "open mind" have done any kind of research on Bigfoot? I got a feeling its nil to none.
The evidence is a blogspot specializing in Bigfoot evidence?

Well, I'm convinced now.

I'm not going to claim to have spent nearly as much time researching Bigfoot as some of the Sasquatch specialists out there, but I think that's largely because I have a job and a social life.

No Fun Shogun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 02:03 PM
  #16
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 28,997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Bass View Post
Contamination is always a possibility when it comes to collecting DNA, don't mean its the case here. Especially since its thought Ketchum samples are from different sources and location, as many as three.

But the one thing that does make me apprehensive is Ketchum herself, I'm afraid she is going to not let the evidence present itself but rather try to mold it into something she thinks it represents. A lot still can go wrong with her paper. We shall see though.

It's possible in the cases, to be honest as any point where a human handles the sample or where humans leave samples can contaminate the lot.

If they have a sample that was properly collected and isolated, then can isolate the cells further, they can be certain that they're removing the mitochondria from a unique sample. That's why her data and methodology are so important. (They could also control by comparing the mDNA of the technician running the sequencing against the sample mDNA.)

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 03:09 PM
  #17
Oscar Acosta
Bat Country
 
Oscar Acosta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 3,796
vCash: 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
...... we're talking about the Pacific Northwest, dude. You mean to tell me that in the centuries since the West has been there, not a single team of hunters found, killed, and brought to the rest of the world's attention a gigantic, bipedal primate's body in fairly close proximity to a number of major towns and even international cities all the while continuously killing and displaying other large game, like moose and bears, in the same area? Even if they just stumbled across one on complete accident while hunting other large animals?

Sorry, but no. Bigfoot doesn't exist. There's a reason why Bigfoot and UFOs only exist in grainy footage and backwoods hick testimonials.
Or nobody in a helicopter ever spotted one? There's hardly an inch of this country that hasn't been seen, where are they hiding?

Oscar Acosta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 05:20 PM
  #18
Ronnie Bass
elite pissy upside
 
Ronnie Bass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: Ireland
Posts: 19,971
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
The evidence is a blogspot specializing in Bigfoot evidence?

Well, I'm convinced now.

I'm not going to claim to have spent nearly as much time researching Bigfoot as some of the Sasquatch specialists out there, but I think that's largely because I have a job and a social life.
Holy christ, way to take what I said to the extreme with the research, I'm not talking about going out in the field. Either way I think we are done here talking because I can deal with open minded skeptics, but not cynics, their head is too much in the sand to converse with. If you want to talk with a open mind I'm all for it, otherwise cheers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oscar Acosta View Post
Or nobody in a helicopter ever spotted one? There's hardly an inch of this country that hasn't been seen, where are they hiding?
I can hide from an helicopter in the woods with ease, what makes you think its so hard? This rationale makes no sense.


Last edited by Ronnie Bass: 11-28-2012 at 05:30 PM.
Ronnie Bass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 05:25 PM
  #19
octopi
Registered User
 
octopi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 30,679
vCash: 703
Penn and Teller tackle cryptozoology (warning: Language)


octopi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 05:25 PM
  #20
Ronnie Bass
elite pissy upside
 
Ronnie Bass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: Ireland
Posts: 19,971
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
It's possible in the cases, to be honest as any point where a human handles the sample or where humans leave samples can contaminate the lot.

If they have a sample that was properly collected and isolated, then can isolate the cells further, they can be certain that they're removing the mitochondria from a unique sample. That's why her data and methodology are so important. (They could also control by comparing the mDNA of the technician running the sequencing against the sample mDNA.)
In a interview yesterday she said they took precautions to make sure that those who handle the evidence didn't contaminate it:

http://www.click2houston.com/news/Do...b/-/index.html

And someone needs to talk to her about her makeup, sheesh!

Ronnie Bass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 06:23 PM
  #21
Ronnie Bass
elite pissy upside
 
Ronnie Bass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: Ireland
Posts: 19,971
vCash: 500
Awards:
Hear is some good reports that I have read over the years:

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=9552

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=7382

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=6303

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=15721

And this one is must read:

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=12913

Things to consider in this one, both are professionals, both reported this anonymously and the husband is a pilot with 20/10 vision, and one of the reasons I love this report is how long these eyewitnesses saw the creatures, for over ten minutes. Most eyewitness accounts are brief, not this one.

Another favorite that shows how crafty these creatures at being undetected:

Quote:
He's a credible witness, and he recently served as an MP in the military. The following notes are from an interview over the phone.

When the figure apparently heard the kids coming along the opposite edge of the ball field, it suddenly spun around and crouched down, wrapping its arms around its legs, turning its back partially towards the road. He said it looked like a large stump in that position. It stayed in that position until the children had left the area. After the kids had passed, it rose up quickly, spun back around and continued in the same direction, but now at a faster pace. He described it as not running but moving very quickly, taking long steps, swinging its arms very wide as it walked into the treeline.
http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=14503

And there are thousands and thousands of eyewitness reports like these, imagine how many there are unreported. Now I'm sure that plenty of them are mistaken identities, bears, moose, even ones imagination, but how can one really explain away all of them?

But the big problem with eyewitness reports is science can't use them, it needs hard tangible proof like a body, bones or DNA. But still they are great reading and ways to learn more about them.

Ronnie Bass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 08:49 PM
  #22
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 24,447
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Bass View Post
Holy christ, way to take what I said to the extreme with the research, I'm not talking about going out in the field. Either way I think we are done here talking because I can deal with open minded skeptics, but not cynics, their head is too much in the sand to converse with. If you want to talk with a open mind I'm all for it, otherwise cheers.
..... not believing in something that doesn't exist isn't skepticism or cynicism, it's common sense.

You wanting to believe that something could be real doesn't make it so.

And claim that there have been thousands of eye witnesses all you want.... if that were really the case, though.... then we'd have actual concrete evidence here. An actual body. A good videotape. Not random folks claiming to see something and then providing no evidence to back it up other than claiming that they're credible.

If we're talking about an undiscovered species purportedly from an isolated location, like areas of Indonesia where decently large mammal species are still being discovered, then I might be able to go along and humor folks that believe this stuff. Not so much when we're talking about a giant beast living in the outskirts of Spokane.


Last edited by No Fun Shogun: 11-28-2012 at 08:57 PM.
No Fun Shogun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-28-2012, 11:13 PM
  #23
Canucks5551
Registered User
 
Canucks5551's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,157
vCash: 500
I don't think people have a very good grasp of population ecology if they think a giant undiscovered primate lives in North America. There have to be a fair number of individuals to form a breeding population, and if there were that many, we WOULD have found a living or dead specimen by now. There's absolutely nothing in the fossil record, either.

Canucks5551 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 10:01 AM
  #24
avs1dacup
Registered User
 
avs1dacup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Fort Collins, CO
Country: United States
Posts: 3,429
vCash: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Bass View Post
And there are thousands and thousands of eyewitness reports like these, imagine how many there are unreported. Now I'm sure that plenty of them are mistaken identities, bears, moose, even ones imagination, but how can one really explain away all of them?
Easy. Human observation, for the most part, can't be trusted. Humans have a very hard time accurately gauging the size of objects from a distance, especially large distances.

There was a show on tv about Nessy I believe, that did an experiment that basically proved this point. The dude built a kite that looked like a pterodactyl that was about 30 feet wide and had people tell him what they thought the wingspan was. When the kite was on the ground or flown at short heights, people were able to accurately guess the size. But when it was flown at 100 feet, people over compensated or under compensated for the distance and were widely wrong.

This is the same reason that someone will never be convicted of murder based solely on eye witness testimony. It's just not accurate.

avs1dacup is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-29-2012, 10:08 AM
  #25
AdmiralsFan24
Registered User
 
AdmiralsFan24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 4,844
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to AdmiralsFan24
Quote:
Originally Posted by avs1dacup View Post
Easy. Human observation, for the most part, can't be trusted. Humans have a very hard time accurately gauging the size of objects from a distance, especially large distances.

There was a show on tv about Nessy I believe, that did an experiment that basically proved this point. The dude built a kite that looked like a pterodactyl that was about 30 feet wide and had people tell him what they thought the wingspan was. When the kite was on the ground or flown at short heights, people were able to accurately guess the size. But when it was flown at 100 feet, people over compensated or under compensated for the distance and were widely wrong.

This is the same reason that someone will never be convicted of murder based solely on eye witness testimony. It's just not accurate.
They've done this a lot on that Monsterquest show. They took a regular log, I believe it was 6-8 feet long and stuck it in the middle of a lake and asked 3 people who saw a monster in the lake to guess how long the log was. A couple said it was 20-30 feet and the other one said it was 14 feet.

They did the same thing to measure the size of a supposed cougar in West Virginia. A guy took video of it by the tree and they analyzed it and showed it was much smaller than a cougar. Probably a bobcat or a really big domestic cat.

Canucks is exactly right. If there was big foot we would have some evidence other than the occasional grainy video of it. People hunt, people hike. You're just not going to miss an 8 foot ape walking upright if it's actually there.

AdmiralsFan24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:27 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.