tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13641190.post5722312953311675931..comments2023-10-08T04:08:41.418-06:00Comments on Sporadic Maunderings: Bigfoot on DiscoveryQalmleahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17131154882107531113noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13641190.post-81625671531604644892007-06-06T11:41:00.000-06:002007-06-06T11:41:00.000-06:00Not necessarily:"When a definite conclusion has be...Not <A HREF="http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/bigfoot.html" REL="nofollow">necessarily</A>:<BR/><BR/>"When a definite conclusion has been reached, the samples have invariably turned out to have prosaic sources— “Bigfoot hair” turns out to be elk or bear or cow hair, for example, or “Bigfoot blood” is revealed to be transmission fluid"<BR/><BR/>With regard to hair samples, "unknown" means it didn't match anything they compared it to. Could be Bigfoot; could be anything else they didn't test. When there's been usable DNA, it's always turned out to be something known. Unknown DNA with similarities to known primates would definitely get scientists interested. (Oh, and you don't need blood to get DNA, but it helps)Qalmleahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17131154882107531113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13641190.post-5118109278752329842007-06-06T11:31:00.000-06:002007-06-06T11:31:00.000-06:00My understanding about hair samples is that some o...My understanding about hair samples is that some of them have failed to be identified as anything, but no one has ever thought to take a blood sample, even when they said there was blood with the hair.Fibonaccihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18143234313836153368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13641190.post-50316348154928406842007-05-27T17:05:00.000-06:002007-05-27T17:05:00.000-06:00And the same goes for Nessie, which I ahve filmed ...And the same goes for Nessie, which I ahve filmed in 1983<BR/><BR/>BeckjordJonErikBeckjordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09348085837247439764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13641190.post-6124059919798165332007-05-27T17:04:00.000-06:002007-05-27T17:04:00.000-06:00What Dr Jeff and you both ignore is that Bigfoot m...What Dr Jeff and you both ignore is that Bigfoot may be a space-=time being, that appears real <BR/>but then can vanish as I and others have witnessed.<BR/><BR/>See http://www.bigfoot.org<BR/><BR/>Jon-Erik Beckjord<BR/>National Cryptozological SocietyJonErikBeckjordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09348085837247439764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13641190.post-46097355843359709432007-05-21T08:15:00.000-06:002007-05-21T08:15:00.000-06:00Actually, I'd consider Bigfoot more likely than Ne...Actually, I'd consider Bigfoot more likely than Nessie. *shrugs* Both are certainly possible (based on my limited understanding), but the really big question/problem in both cases is the lack of physical evidence.Qalmleahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17131154882107531113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13641190.post-62439077769587489682007-05-17T20:52:00.000-06:002007-05-17T20:52:00.000-06:00Ahem. *blushes* That would be existence with an E....Ahem. *blushes* That would be <I>existence</I> with an<I> E</I>.katehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11096778050669482030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13641190.post-4746407901598509832007-05-17T20:50:00.000-06:002007-05-17T20:50:00.000-06:00I consider Bigfoot's existence to be possible, but...I consider Bigfoot's existence to be possible, but unlikely. Not "very, very unlikely," but unlikely nonetheless. (:<BR/><BR/>Despite several programs I've seen attempting to disprove its existance, I'm more prone to believe in the likelihood of the Loch Ness Monster.katehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11096778050669482030noreply@blogger.com