So; Where is all the Bigfoot road kill?

[JcR]

Here is a little contamination for ya.
Poop rocks!

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by southernyahoo

I'll bet ya that synthetic fibers don't have scale patterns, roots with skin tags, or natuarlly tapered ends showing the medulla vanishing near the tip.

Do you mean to imply your hair sample has this? That would mean you have hair, AFAIC.

Quote:

I assure you there is good reason to be skeptical about any large mammal sustaining itself in this area without being detected. Sasquatch has been purportedly seen in the area and this particular patch of woods measures only 1.7 by .75 miles across and is surounded by vast agricultural fields. Bears are said to require vast tracks of forest to sustain themselves, so I think there is good reason to be skeptical about either one being there. The more likely source would be bovine in my opinion, though we didn't see the tell tale patties either.

In any case the DNA test will tell the tale, and lend some insight on what the locals might be seeing and misidentifying.

SY.

I don't mean this to be derisive and I'm not sanguine, but if I was, I wouldn't consider that worthy of testing just for the extreme implausibility of coming from a Bigfoot.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by southernyahoo

I try to consider the implications of a scenario where several different samples are independently collected and tested, yet yeild the same unique unknown primate DNA. If it could be shown that everything was done properly, (i.e, not contaminated) published and peer reviewed, this would make the strong suggestion that there is a wild indigenous primate that we have yet to document.

SY.

I agree, that would be a great start.

Sadly, it's never happened or shows any indication of happening. Much like tracks with matching dermal ridges, there are no two genetically consistent matching "unknown" DNA samples. It's a long shot with no hope in sight.

[southernyahoo]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Do you mean to imply your hair sample has this? That would mean you have hair, AFAIC.

I don't mean this to be derisive and I'm not sanguine, but if I was, I wouldn't consider that worthy of testing just for the extreme implausibility of coming from a Bigfoot.

Why should I try to convince you that there is reason to consider it is BF? We both know that would be futile.

Under what circumstances would you believe it was BF?

I don't try to jump through invisible hoops!

Since identification through DNA analysis is becoming such a trivial matter, I think it will become increasingly easy to dispell delusions about hairs originating from BF.

SY.

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by southernyahoo

Why should I try to convince you that there is reason to consider it is BF? We both know that would be futile.

Under what circumstances would you believe it was BF?

I don't try to jump through invisible hoops!

Since identification through DNA analysis is becoming such a trivial matter, I think it will become increasingly easy to dispell delusions about hairs originating from BF.

SY.

It's not the DNA analysis that is the problem, but contamination of the specimen. A quick scan of papers on Primate DNA Fingerprinting indicates that this is the major problem that researchers |(who are trying to build a database for this purpose) have.

There is an interesting tables in the Discussion section of the paper (PDF Here), on page 6.

[desertyeti]

Originally Posted by southernyahoo

Why should I try to convince you that there is reason to consider it is BF? We both know that would be futile.

Under what circumstances would you believe it was BF?

I don't try to jump through invisible hoops!

Since identification through DNA analysis is becoming such a trivial matter, I think it will become increasingly easy to dispell delusions about hairs originating from BF.

SY.

Um...because you're submitting it to be tested to see if it's a hominid and discussing it with us.
We're (Kit, me, Drew, Xblade et al.) simply asking WHY you would think it's from a giant ape-man, since by testing it, you obviously think that's a definite possibility.
So far, you've mentioned bovine.
I've suggested bear.
So just WHY exactly would it be a legendary, gigantic, solitary hominid?
You haven't offered any reason for believeing it could be that other than to make some cryptic statement about what locals are seeing.

[southernyahoo]

Originally Posted by desertyeti

Um...because you're submitting it to be tested to see if it's a hominid and discussing it with us.
We're (Kit, me, Drew, Xblade et al.) simply asking WHY you would think it's from a giant ape-man, since by testing it, you obviously think that's a definite possibility.
So far, you've mentioned bovine.
I've suggested bear.
So just WHY exactly would it be a legendary, gigantic, solitary hominid?
You haven't offered any reason for believeing it could be that other than to make some cryptic statement about what locals are seeing.

I didn't say I was going to have it tested to see if it was a hominid. What I am doing is having it tested to find out what it is. If I were a bear researcher looking to take sanguine up on his offer, there wouldn't be an issue would there!? I'm sure bear researchers have their hair samples tested to be sure they've found sign of their presence which is mostly done by morphological exam.When in doubt they would opt for DNA, particularly when they are tracking certain blood lines, to monitor their migrations.

My intention here is to eliminate a few knowns and possibly nail what it is. It is not an inference to ask "what is it".

SY.

[desertyeti]

My mistake.
I thought you were testing this unknown mammal hair to see if it was or was not from a Bigfoot.
I didn't realize you were simply investigating the presence of large mammals in Oklahoma.

[southernyahoo]

Originally Posted by desertyeti

My mistake.
I thought you were testing this unknown mammal hair to see if it was or was not from a Bigfoot.
I didn't realize you were simply investigating the presence of large mammals in Oklahoma.

It is no mistake that I am a bigfoot researcher, but I am one that knows that there are a lot of knowns to eliminate in the process of identifying what is truely unknown.

SY.

[desertyeti]

What exactly are you researching?
What is your data set?

[GT/CS]

Originally Posted by desertyeti

What exactly are you researching?
What is your data set?

Do you two know each other and/or have a history?

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by southernyahoo

Why should I try to convince you that there is reason to consider it is BF? We both know that would be futile.

Under what circumstances would you believe it was BF?

I don't try to jump through invisible hoops!

Since identification through DNA analysis is becoming such a trivial matter, I think it will become increasingly easy to dispell delusions about hairs originating from BF.

SY.

I simply don't think testing is necessary from the way you describe it. If Bigfoot is hiding out in a little patch of trees measuring only 1.7 by .75 miles across and is surrounded by vast agricultural fields then I think we can all go home. If you think Bigfoot is hiding and surviving in such a wee place, why not just get some friends and walk through it? Why is DNA needed to dispel notions that common sense should?

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by southernyahoo

It is no mistake that I am a bigfoot researcher,

I think it is a mistake that you are a Bigfoot researcher. I think you are a Bigfoot searcher. You need Bigfoot to exist and directly observe it to research it.

[southernyahoo]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

I think it is a mistake that you are a Bigfoot researcher. I think you are a Bigfoot searcher. You need Bigfoot to exist and directly observe it to research it.

Yeah, perhaps I used that term a bit too loosely for the taste on this forum, It was meant to intimate the fact that I investigate the possibility of BF's existence by searching for and finding evidence of large hairy mammals.

I can see how the term "bigfoot researcher" qualifies as a misnomer.

SY.

[makaya325]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

I think it is a mistake that you are a Bigfoot researcher. I think you are a Bigfoot searcher. You need Bigfoot to exist and directly observe it to research it.

I think what he means is that He is a researcher referring to the the "Evidence" in question.

[southernyahoo]

Originally Posted by desertyeti

What exactly are you researching?
What is your data set?

Sorry if I misled you, You asked about my background and I haven't responded to that yet. I dont have a formal education in the life sciences, so what I call research may not be same as you would by definition. From where I'm starting from, research entails a good bit of self education about certain fields of science that would apply to various forms of evidence and it's collection. What knowledge I aquire in those efforts helps in qualifying which pieces of evidence are worthy of consideration. At times, this requires engaging specialists in certain fields of science to get solid answers about my observations.

What data I have on bigfoot would obviously be purely speculative since there are no facts about the creature given that direct observations of it are so hard to come by.

SY.

[kitakaze]

Originally Posted by southernyahoo

Yeah, perhaps I used that term a bit too loosely for the taste on this forum, It was meant to intimate the fact that I investigate the possibility of BF's existence by searching for and finding evidence of large hairy mammals.

I can see how the term "bigfoot researcher" qualifies as a misnomer.

SY.

Gotcha. Efforts to find and study other animals is a great way to find animals that weren't being looked for. It was the ongoing study of martens in Northern California that led to the discovery of what very well may be the only wolverine there. Now wildlife experts are going nuts looking for wolverines. Right now and all the while their animal detection arrays have had countless opportunities to find a breeding population of massive, relatively slow moving, upright apes. It's much easier than finding the one and only wolverine. That doesn't happen because the very likely reality is that Bigfoot is something that exists only in our minds.

I wish you luck with your efforts.

[xblade]

Originally Posted by makaya325

If Unknown Primate hair is found in North America that is not human but belonging to an Ape related to human is considered a sasquatch. What else could it belong to? Not a mouse.

Once again, not every undiscovered primate is a 9 foot tall monkey-man. Frankly, I'd be willing to bet that not a single undiscovered primate is a 9 foot tall monkey man. But that's me.

And why couldn't it be a mouse? For all you know, there's an undiscovered species of monkey-mouse running around the PNW. It's a big place, and it would be very easy for the monkey-mouse to go undetected.

[xblade]

Originally Posted by southernyahoo

If it could be shown that everything was done properly, (i.e, not contaminated) published and peer reviewed, this would make the strong suggestion that there is a wild indigenous primate that we have yet to document.

SY.

Once again...not every undiscovered primate is bigfoot. New primates are being found in yeti territory, but guess what? They aren't yeti.

[southernyahoo]

Originally Posted by xblade

Once again...not every undiscovered primate is bigfoot. New primates are being found in yeti territory, but guess what? They aren't yeti.

Umm, for the record, there is no official definition of what bigfoot is. I think discovering unique primate DNA is a start, and proving there is one that is hairy and walks upright will qualify by general description.

SY.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by southernyahoo

What data I have on bigfoot would obviously be purely speculative since there are no facts about the creature given that direct observations of it are so hard to come by.

That statement assumes a real creature. Skeptics aren't on that page yet. There actually are many accounts of direct observations. The whole of Bigfootery is filled with eyewitness accounts. But the skeptic understands that none of the reports (singularly or together) are able to establish that such a proposed creature actually does exist.

[desertyeti]

Originally Posted by southernyahoo

...
What data I have on bigfoot would obviously be purely speculative since there are no facts about the creature given that direct observations of it are so hard to come by.

SY.

That's why I asked.
Only YOU know what data you have.
Indeed, what your data set is composed of is entirely speculative at the moment, unless you chose to describe it to us.
Judging by the non-bolded portion of the above though, it appears you have no actual data though, is that correct?

[southernyahoo]

Originally Posted by desertyeti

That's why I asked.
Only YOU know what data you have.
Indeed, what your data set is composed of is entirely speculative at the moment, unless you chose to describe it to us.
Judging by the non-bolded portion of the above though, it appears you have no actual data though, is that correct?

I think I intimated my message well enough. Is there some point you are trying to make aside from the fact that no facts equals no definitive data?

SY.

[desertyeti]

Originally Posted by southernyahoo

I think I intimated my message well enough. Is there some point you are trying to make aside from the fact that no facts equals no definitive data?

SY.

Not trying to make any point.
Just trying to figure out what you research, being as you are a self-proclaimed "Bigfoot researcher."
I am still not sure how one goes about doing research with no data.

[southernyahoo]

Originally Posted by desertyeti

Not trying to make any point.
Just trying to figure out what you research, being as you are a self-proclaimed "Bigfoot researcher."
I am still not sure how one goes about doing research with no data.

I might consider some of the evidence I and others have collected over the past couple years as data, that would be relevant to my research in the study of that sort of evidence, but I could not positively attribute that to an unknown hairy hominid, even if my internal intuition screams otherwise.

My reference to "no data" refers to positive data attributable to bigfoot, while I might try to use my inconclusive data/ evidence to find the creature on a hunch, which is my perogative.

I study evidence that I collect, I decide what qualifies as unknown to me, note the circumstances in which that was collected, seek answers to wheather it belongs to a known or not through peer review and or the aid of other experts and scientists, then apply what I learn from that to my search for an unknown hominid.

Maybe this will clear things up, but if not, I give up.

SY.

[desertyeti]

Originally Posted by southernyahoo

...

I study evidence that I collect, I decide what qualifies as unknown to me, note the circumstances in which that was collected, seek answers to wheather it belongs to a known or not through peer review and or the aid of other experts and scientists, then apply what I learn from that to my search for an unknown hominid.

Maybe this will clear things up, but if not, I give up.

SY.

What exactly is the evidence you have collected that you share with "other experts and scientists"?
THAT's what I (and possibly others here) are curious about.
Not anecdotal stuff, but the data you collect.
Hair?
Footprints?
Poo?
What exactly is it?
Please don't give up.
Just provide a simple answer.
It seems you're being strangely evasive on this incredibly straight-forward question.

[southernyahoo]

Originally Posted by desertyeti

What exactly is the evidence you have collected that you share with "other experts and scientists"?
THAT's what I (and possibly others here) are curious about.
Not anecdotal stuff, but the data you collect.
Hair?
Footprints?
Poo?
What exactly is it?
Please don't give up.
Just provide a simple answer.
It seems you're being strangely evasive on this incredibly straight-forward question.

Those things are part of it, and you can include sounds but exclude poo, as I haven't found any I was interested in. I've sent some vocals to be analysed, foot print tracks to Meldrum, and this hair sample to a few labs prior to contacting sanguine. The hair sample has so far been stubborn to yeild a concensus. Some of the vocals were characterized to be simialr to human with no offering of a known animal as an alternate source.

That about covers the evidence, PM me if you would like to offer further peer review on those things.

SY.

[desertyeti]

So you DO have a data set.
You have footprints, hair, and sound recordings that you think might be from a non-human hominid for one reason or another.
That's all I was curious about.

[makaya325]

Originally Posted by southernyahoo

Those things are part of it, and you can include sounds but exclude poo, as I haven't found any I was interested in. I've sent some vocals to be analysed, foot print tracks to Meldrum, and this hair sample to a few labs prior to contacting sanguine. The hair sample has so far been stubborn to yeild a concensus. Some of the vocals were characterized to be simialr to human with no offering of a known animal as an alternate source.

That about covers the evidence, PM me if you would like to offer further peer review on those things.

SY.

Do you have any Sasquatch Feces?

[southernyahoo]

Originally Posted by kitakaze

I simply don't think testing is necessary from the way you describe it. If Bigfoot is hiding out in a little patch of trees measuring only 1.7 by .75 miles across and is surrounded by vast agricultural fields then I think we can all go home. If you think Bigfoot is hiding and surviving in such a wee place, why not just get some friends and walk through it? Why is DNA needed to dispel notions that common sense should?

You could look at it like that.

From a proponents position, who gives the reports some benefit of the doubt by bothering to look for it, they could say, would I rather hunt for the proverbial needle in the hay stack, or hunt fish in a barrel. It might be tempting to try ones luck at that atleast once.

SY.

[makaya325]

Originally Posted by southernyahoo

You could look at it like that.

From a proponents position, who gives the reports some benefit of the doubt by bothering to look for it, they could say, would I rather hunt for the proverbial needle in the hay stack, or hunt fish in a barrel. It might be tempting to try ones luck at that atleast once.

SY.

Its not that solid investigators like Kitz dont give reports weight, its that people know eyewitness testimony is VERY unreliable. Did you read a report in Florida? A man Shot his son in the head, which he mistook for a DEER! Yeah, call the man shot, but if a seasonal hunter could mistake a man for a deer, its definitely possible, if not probable, that people mistake deer, racoons, and bear for bigfoot. In fact, ALL sightings of bigfoot are either hoaxed, misidentified, or lack data.

[Vortigern99]

Anecdotal testimony may be interesting from a psychological perspective, but owing to the Rotterdam Effect*, it is essentially worthless as scientific evidence.

*in which a baby Panda, dead within hours of its escape from the Rotterdam Zoo, was reported 1000 times all over the city within two days' time.

[rockinkt]

Those were obviously sightings of another baby panda...

[xblade]

Originally Posted by southernyahoo

Umm, for the record, there is no official definition of what bigfoot is.

Yeah, it's kind of tough to have an official definition on something that no one can find.

Quote:

I think discovering unique primate DNA is a start, and proving there is one that is hairy and walks upright will qualify by general description.

SY.

Qualify as what? Not bigfoot necessarily. Unique primate DNA is a start......a start at discovering an undiscovered primate. But, once again, not every undiscovered primate is bigfoot. And official definition notwithstanding, a newly discovered 2 foot tall primate does not qualify as what is commonly referred to as bigfoot....well, unless you're a footer. Then, every unidentified hair, sighting, sound, and even DNA is automatically bigfoot by default.

[southernyahoo]

Originally Posted by xblade

Yeah, it's kind of tough to have an official definition on something that no one can find.



Qualify as what? Not bigfoot necessarily. Unique primate DNA is a start......a start at discovering an undiscovered primate. But, once again, not every undiscovered primate is bigfoot. And official definition notwithstanding, a newly discovered 2 foot tall primate does not qualify as what is commonly referred to as bigfoot....well, unless you're a footer. Then, every unidentified hair, sighting, sound, and even DNA is automatically bigfoot by default.

What is your definition of bigfoot? Are they all 8-10 foot tall?

SY.

[makaya325]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

Anecdotal testimony may be interesting from a psychological perspective, but owing to the Rotterdam Effect*, it is essentially worthless as scientific evidence.

*in which a baby Panda, dead within hours of its escape from the Rotterdam Zoo, was reported 1000 times all over the city within two days' time.

Even though i feel eye-witnesses are unreliable, you cant use the Panda analogy. The people were TOLD to keep a LOOKOUT for the Panda. I would like to see if the people werent told about it at all. Thats not to say people have not been fooled. Just look at the New Jersey ufo hoax.

[Vortigern99]

Originally Posted by makaya325

Even though i feel eye-witnesses are unreliable, you cant use the Panda analogy. The people were TOLD to keep a LOOKOUT for the Panda. I would like to see if the people werent told about it at all. Thats not to say people have not been fooled. Just look at the New Jersey ufo hoax.

It's not merely an "analogy"; it's a known psychological phenomenon that clearly applies to bigfoot sightings.

Regional expectation -- the distortion of human perception based on local/cultural memes -- is a form of persuasion more potent than merely being "TOLD to keep a LOOKOUT", precisely because regional expectation is enculturated knowledge, deeply ingrained in the psyche from childhood, and reinforced by one's peers throughout one's lifetime, as opposed to simply being instructed by a daily newspaper in a one-time event.

In short, the Rotterdam Effect describes a phenomenon of the human mind that may be considered many degrees of magnitude more potent in any instance of an American bigfoot sighting.

[makaya325]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

It's not merely an "analogy"; it's a known psychological phenomenon that clearly applies to bigfoot sightings.

Regional expectation -- the distortion of human perception based on local/cultural memes -- is a form of persuasion more potent than merely being "TOLD to keep a LOOKOUT", precisely because regional expectation is enculturated knowledge, deeply ingrained in the psyche from childhood, and reinforced by one's peers throughout one's lifetime, as opposed to simply being instructed by a daily newspaper in a one-time event.

In short, the Rotterdam Effect describes a phenomenon of the human mind that may be considered many degrees of magnitude more potent in any instance of an American bigfoot sighting.

What if the people were never told to lookout for a Panda?

[Vortigern99]

Originally Posted by makaya325

What if the people were never told to lookout for a Panda?

Then there would have been no reports of an escaped panda. What are you driving at?

[makaya325]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

Then there would have been no reports of an escaped panda. What are you driving at?

I dont believe an 8ft giant is roaming NA. However, i dont think you can use the panda analogy. The people WERE TOLD to keep a lookout for a red panda, which can be mistaken for many animals. Lets say a Red Panda escaped from the zoo, and no one was informed about it. There would be no sightings of it, due to the fact that no one told the people to keep a look out. I am not disagreeing with you Vort. I think that you and I could agree that a good number of bigfoot sightings are due to "expectant attention". One outsdoorsman tree is a Woo's sasquatch.