The Sasquatch Thread

Xanatic*

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 10, 2015
Messages
3,312
Likes
2,713
Points
154
#62
5 of them, according to that article. I read another interview with Jane Goodall, where she phrased her hope that bigfoot exists more as wishful thinking. It was more about her being a romantic than about the evidence she said.
 

Tribble

Killjoy Boffin
Joined
Apr 21, 2015
Messages
2,309
Likes
4,505
Points
154
#68
The perfect stocking-filler for Xmas!

Sixteen hundred hours, or nine and a half weeks, or three and a half months: this is how long it took the Robotics Unit at ISU to perform the 3-D printing of a full-scale model of a Sasquatch, more popularly known as Bigfoot.



“All we’re doing is creating a hypothetical facsimile of what it might look like to convey a notion of the dimensions,” Meldrum said. “First and foremost, it turns out there were other things that we can start to work with on that scale. Instead of starting from scratch we took an existing hominid skeleton, the most complete being a Neanderthal.”


The printing started after Dr. Meldrum agreed to make an appearance on the History Channel, talking about Bigfoot. While studying the Patterson-Gimlin film, researchers took the remains they were permitted to use by the archaeological corporation, Bone Clones, which collects natural history artifacts, and proportioned them to the exact specifications a Sasquatch ought to be.


“They gave us permission to do a 3-D scan on a Neanderthal skeleton they found,” Meldrum said. “We compared that to the Patterson-Gimlin film. We had to widen the shoulders and increase the thickness in the torso. The hips are as wide as the shoulders; the body was built like a tank.”


http://isubengal.com/sixteen-hundred-hours-of-sasquatch-skeleton/
 

Swifty

doesn't negotiate with terriers
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
25,603
Likes
31,546
Points
284
#75
This new documentary was posted online a few days ago .. I haven't watched it yet so sorry if it's shit ..

 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
3,945
Likes
1,361
Points
169
#76
For those who are interested in assessing the quality of the research of Dr. Melba S. Ketchum's 2012 paper:
Novel North American Hominins, Next Generation Sequencing of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies
here is a link:

http://www.sasquatchgenomeproject.org/linked/novel-north-american-hominins-final-pdf-download.pdf

Regardless of the whole "Matilda" nonsense, that is irrelevant when compared to the genetic studies of the actual genetic evidence, which was sent to labs blind, to see what they could make of it. The fact that the labs were unable to return results of known genetic sequences should be regarded as being utterly telling. Ketchum is a criminologist with a solid background in the treatment of evidence who has put her professional reputation on the line, and it seems that others either lacked that courage and didn't like returning the results the did when presented with the evidence, or that there is collusion in trying to silence investigation of the topic by trying to blacken the names and credibility of those who seriously try to perform scientific investigation on the subject. Nobody likes a whistleblower, and if they make even one mistake, that is held up as evidence that none of their efforts is credible, even when they are actually very interesting.
No, it's none of that.
 

AlchoPwn

Public Service is my Motto.
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
1,824
Likes
2,524
Points
154
#77
No, it's none of that.
A refutation is not really an argument without some supporting evidence. I would really like to hear how you reached that conclusion, because apart from the Matilda issue, it seems okay to me, but I admit I haven't had time to chase down every criticism or every footnote yet.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
3,945
Likes
1,361
Points
169
#78
A refutation is not really an argument without some supporting evidence. I would really like to hear how you reached that conclusion, because apart from the Matilda issue, it seems okay to me, but I admit I haven't had time to chase down every criticism or every footnote yet.
You're quite right in your first sentence above, it isn't. But frankly Ketchum doesn't deserve a reasoned argument. No offence to you though AlchoPwn, you seem adecent sort.
 

AlchoPwn

Public Service is my Motto.
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
1,824
Likes
2,524
Points
154
#79
You're quite right in your first sentence above, it isn't. But frankly Ketchum doesn't deserve a reasoned argument. No offence to you though AlchoPwn, you seem adecent sort.
Thanks oldrover, but why the hate for Ketchum? Please clue me in if you have the time. Private message or a link to an article that formulated your opinion perhaps? Throw me a bone :doggy:
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
3,945
Likes
1,361
Points
169
#80
Thanks oldrover, but why the hate for Ketchum? Please clue me in if you have the time. Private message or a link to an article that formulated your opinion perhaps? Throw me a bone :doggy:
Let me just remind myself, I did go into this when it first came out so obviously it's a while ago now.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
3,945
Likes
1,361
Points
169
#81
AlchoPwn, I really mean no offence to you as I said earlier, but I can't read that again. Surely you must see it for what it is.
 

AlchoPwn

Public Service is my Motto.
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
1,824
Likes
2,524
Points
154
#82
AlchoPwn, I really mean no offence to you as I said earlier, but I can't read that again. Surely you must see it for what it is.
Please, utterly no offence taken, in fact I suspect your opinion is better informed than my own so I am genuinely interested in what you have to say on the matter. I am the first to admit to occasional bouts of naivety, generally brought on by reading quickly but not closely.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
3,945
Likes
1,361
Points
169
#83
Please, utterly no offence taken, in fact I suspect your opinion is better informed than my own so I am genuinely interested in what you have to say on the matter. I am the first to admit to occasional bouts of naivety, generally brought on by reading quickly but not closely.
First thing about Ketchum's piece is that it's suggested to be a scientific paper, but it's strictly not. There was no peer review prior to its publication, it was not accepted for publication either, it was in every sense of the word self published. Ketchum started her own journal 'DeNovo', and this was the only article that it carried. She's tried to format it like a paper, and to be honest I've read an almost equally lousy pre-review paper a few days ago, but in fact without the peer review, and self published it can't by definition be considered as one. Even if the content was valid the way it was produced destroyes any scientific validity, because that only comes about through the review process.
 

AlchoPwn

Public Service is my Motto.
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
1,824
Likes
2,524
Points
154
#84
First thing about Ketchum's piece is that it's suggested to be a scientific paper, but it's strictly not. There was no peer review prior to its publication, it was not accepted for publication either, it was in every sense of the word self published. Ketchum started her own journal 'DeNovo', and this was the only article that it carried. She's tried to format it like a paper, and to be honest I've read an almost equally lousy pre-review paper a few days ago, but in fact without the peer review, and self published it can't by definition be considered as one. Even if the content was valid the way it was produced destroyes any scientific validity, because that only comes about through the review process.
Yes, you're quite right oldrover. I read a bit more and discovered that the legitimacy of the paper and the backstory are not as advertised. Her efforts consistently failed peer review in other journals. I think she misrepresented her qualifications. As you say, she created the journal DeNovo out of thin air but claimed to have bought it. Given the other dishonesty it is hard to credit her claims regarding the labs that did the testing either. That is a shame. I believe there was an earlier study of squatch spoor that was identified as brown bear. I would like to hope that there would be labs who would jump at the chance to give squatches the benefit of the doubt and the genetic evidence a red hot go if anything credible was presented. Instead we get this smokescreen of obfuscation and deception. Disappointing.
 

oldrover

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
3,945
Likes
1,361
Points
169
#85
Yes, you're quite right oldrover. I read a bit more and discovered that the legitimacy of the paper and the backstory are not as advertised. Her efforts consistently failed peer review in other journals. I think she misrepresented her qualifications. As you say, she created the journal DeNovo out of thin air but claimed to have bought it. Given the other dishonesty it is hard to credit her claims regarding the labs that did the testing either. That is a shame. I believe there was an earlier study of squatch spoor that was identified as brown bear. I would like to hope that there would be labs who would jump at the chance to give squatches the benefit of the doubt and the genetic evidence a red hot go if anything credible was presented. Instead we get this smokescreen of obfuscation and deception. Disappointing.
Have you seen her Facebook page? It's a little bit, I think 'whimsical' might be the word.

There was the Sykes study recently, but Sykes comes with his own set of problems. I think that might be where the brown bear business you mention came from, certainly there was brown bear DNA in it. Did you see the series on C4?
 

Yossarian

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
95
Likes
208
Points
39
#86
I would like to hope that there would be labs who would jump at the chance to give squatches the benefit of the doubt and the genetic evidence a red hot go if anything credible was presented. Instead we get this smokescreen of obfuscation and deception. Disappointing.
There absolutely are.

Something that too many in the field of cryptozoology (and other Fortean topics) get wrong is assuming that science, academia and so on are a closed-minded enclave, reluctant to embrace new ideas. It helps them to present themselves as being holders of some kind of forbidden knowledge, because accusing the people in the position to prove you wrong of having an ulterior motive means that you've always got an excuse. The more evidence against your conspiracy theory, the more entrenched your belief in it becomes - because of course they would want you to think that, etc.

But, in my experience, there are plenty of biologists, conservationists and other such experts that would love for something like Sasquatch, or any major undiscovered species, to still exist. I worked with someone who had done a lot of work with small primates in South America, and he loved stories of Orang Pendek. Even one of my heroes, Gerald Durrell, wrote very excitedly early in his career about rumoured living Pterosaurs in the Amazon. They desperately want these things to be true, and the reason they may come across as dismissive or contemptuous to any suggestion of their existence is that such suggestions are usually backed up by junk "science", or else we've all heard it a thousand times before.

If someone could arrive at a lab with credible genetic evidence, there's barely a biologist or animal scientist in the world that wouldn't be bouncing off the walls with excitement.
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
36,877
Likes
23,654
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
#89
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
5,815
Likes
7,544
Points
294
#90
A new-ish video posted on youtube (7 June 2018) from Canada. It's not too clear what we are looking at until there's a zoomed in shot which to me looks like a large hairy ape holding one arm over it's head as if it's trying to hide.
A blinking eye and breath-vapour are mentioned in the commentary at the beginning, but I'm not seeing them.



I took this screenshot of what I think is supposed to be the face with an eye, nostril and mouth. It doesn't do it justice though, I recommend watching the vid full screen if possible.

Screen Shot 2018-06-19 at 14.14.12jpeg.jpg
 
Top