Full Version: This would be the best evidence
My opinion the best evidence anyone could produce short of a body is a video of a female bigfoot giving birth and then collecting the placenta. You would have more than enough material to do any number of DNA tests. IF you were REALLY lucky the mother would keel over after giving birth and then you get to keep the baby and raise it as one of your own. He or she would get a sports scholarship at a PAC 10 school and then go on to play in the NBA and then buy their Dad a big house and a new SUV to show their thanks .
Edited out of common decency.
ok me too......
Excellent idea- let us know how it goes. 
Is there a freakin full moon or something tonight?
Must be... 
Yup, I agree, Spikedog.
The idea in the first line is reasonable, and has been suggested in a more general way by others: that a video of a BF that performed extraordinary (for a human) feats would be fairly convincing, like walking across a highway in very few steps, or ascending a steep hill, or just being seven or eight feet tall and moving gracefully. Even a photo of a tall BF that looked realer than a costume (e.g., with some of the features on my Walk Scorecard) would have an impact, especially if the photographer were a solid citizen.
My copy-editor's red pencil would strike "female" as redundant.
The remainder is full-moonish, but what the heck--it makes a change.
My copy-editor's red pencil would strike "female" as redundant.
The remainder is full-moonish, but what the heck--it makes a change.
Seems to me I read a report years ago of an Oregon woman who claimed a sasquatch bore her baby near her home.
The woman didn't witness the birth, but (I think) she saw the sasquatch when it was heavy with young, then later with a baby-bigfoot. This all happened around her home.
No DNA, no supporting evidence, no nothing but a claim.
The woman didn't witness the birth, but (I think) she saw the sasquatch when it was heavy with young, then later with a baby-bigfoot. This all happened around her home.
No DNA, no supporting evidence, no nothing but a claim.
QUOTE(Doctor Moreau @ Feb 17 2005, 09:01 PM)
Excellent idea- let us know how it goes.
I nedded that. Thanks!
the gal would probably eat the placenta. supposed to be high in nutrients
why why WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Huntster, I remember that report, it was on Bobbie Short's site.
Liebling, excellent thought.
As for the beginning of the thread, well let us know how it goes. I won't hold my breath though.
If you got a male bigfoot giving birth that would be worth something.
(Sorry, everyone, my bad)
Liebling, excellent thought.
As for the beginning of the thread, well let us know how it goes. I won't hold my breath though.
If you got a male bigfoot giving birth that would be worth something.
(Sorry, everyone, my bad)
COCO B: is this that Bobbie Short report-lette you were referring to?
www.bigfootencounters.com/sightings.htm
"Summer, 1962 Bonnie Feldman reports watching a female Bigfoot give birth in the heat of the afternoon by pine tree at the base of it's upturned roots. She watched from the porch of her trailer while camping on the Eastern most side of Mt. Shasta."
www.bigfootencounters.com/sightings.htm
"Summer, 1962 Bonnie Feldman reports watching a female Bigfoot give birth in the heat of the afternoon by pine tree at the base of it's upturned roots. She watched from the porch of her trailer while camping on the Eastern most side of Mt. Shasta."
COCO B's last post was on: Oct 6 2005, I think you may want to get a bag of popcorn and something to drink while you wait for her reply... 
I remember a very credible report years back from the National Inquirer, "I had Bigfoot's Baby!".
Does anyone know where this "child" is currently being raised? We could run some DNA tests on it.
Does anyone know where this "child" is currently being raised? We could run some DNA tests on it.
QUOTE(Hitechhunter @ May 10 2008, 10:29 AM) 
I remember a very credible report years back from the National Inquirer, "I had Bigfoot's Baby!".
Does anyone know where this "child" is currently being raised? We could run some DNA tests on it.
Does anyone know where this "child" is currently being raised? We could run some DNA tests on it.
In Tennessee LOL
I'm not so sure that's true. Here's why. If the film-maker by pure luck comes upon a female BF giving birth and captures it on tape or film and then takes the placenta, it would really be no different than someone who took a blurry picture of a BF at a distance and brought in some hair from and an amimal of no known species. The film would be suspected of being a clever recreation or hoax, and while the DNA might be shown to be some unknown species with genetic affinities to humans and great apes, it still would not be a certainty as to what it was in the film. As a matter of fact I rather suspect that the "better the quality" the more suspect it would be.
Now, if you eliminate the concept of "luck" and the film-maker was able, by dint of their understanding of their research subject's behavior and research area, to get even some blurry distant images, but do it reliably, dependably and predictably as a result of their using their understanding of the creature's behavior in a way that another researcher could also follow those instructions and get similar results you'd have scientifically supportable evidence and something on which more reasonable research could be modelled and conducted. I maintain that the reason BF's existence is not accepted is not because the images aren't clear enough, or the DNA isn't gorey enough, but because no researcher has exhibitied the kind of understanding of the subject to allow the researcher to be able to reliably and predictably collect any evidence (photographic or otherwise) and be able to direct other to do the same to get similar results.
From my perspective I can't think of a research effort that has taken into account the capabilities and behaviors as well as range and scale of territory that I suspect these creature naturally possess in combination with the kind of instinctual shyness the likes of which few other creatures exhibit. So while they are not that infrequently seen, it is never on account of our ability but on account of lapses in both or either of learned or naturally directed stealthy behaviors, and are unlikely to be revealed again once they've learned that they've been seen.
Now, if you eliminate the concept of "luck" and the film-maker was able, by dint of their understanding of their research subject's behavior and research area, to get even some blurry distant images, but do it reliably, dependably and predictably as a result of their using their understanding of the creature's behavior in a way that another researcher could also follow those instructions and get similar results you'd have scientifically supportable evidence and something on which more reasonable research could be modelled and conducted. I maintain that the reason BF's existence is not accepted is not because the images aren't clear enough, or the DNA isn't gorey enough, but because no researcher has exhibitied the kind of understanding of the subject to allow the researcher to be able to reliably and predictably collect any evidence (photographic or otherwise) and be able to direct other to do the same to get similar results.
From my perspective I can't think of a research effort that has taken into account the capabilities and behaviors as well as range and scale of territory that I suspect these creature naturally possess in combination with the kind of instinctual shyness the likes of which few other creatures exhibit. So while they are not that infrequently seen, it is never on account of our ability but on account of lapses in both or either of learned or naturally directed stealthy behaviors, and are unlikely to be revealed again once they've learned that they've been seen.
OK.
QUOTE(dogu4 @ May 10 2008, 01:20 PM)
I'm not so sure that's true. Here's why. If the film-maker by pure luck comes upon a female BF giving birth and captures it on tape or film and then takes the placenta, it would really be no different than someone who took a blurry picture of a BF at a distance and brought in some hair from and an amimal of no known species. The film would be suspected of being a clever recreation or hoax, and while the DNA might be shown to be some unknown species with genetic affinities to humans and great apes, it still would not be a certainty as to what it was in the film. As a matter of fact I rather suspect that the "better the quality" the more suspect it would be.
Now, if you eliminate the concept of "luck" and the film-maker was able, by dint of their understanding of their research subject's behavior and research area, to get even some blurry distant images, but do it reliably, dependably and predictably as a result of their using their understanding of the creature's behavior in a way that another researcher could also follow those instructions and get similar results you'd have scientifically supportable evidence and something on which more reasonable research could be modelled and conducted. I maintain that the reason BF's existence is not accepted is not because the images aren't clear enough, or the DNA isn't gorey enough, but because no researcher has exhibitied the kind of understanding of the subject to allow the researcher to be able to reliably and predictably collect any evidence (photographic or otherwise) and be able to direct other to do the same to get similar results.
From my perspective I can't think of a research effort that has taken into account the capabilities and behaviors as well as range and scale of territory that I suspect these creature naturally possess in combination with the kind of instinctual shyness the likes of which few other creatures exhibit. So while they are not that infrequently seen, it is never on account of our ability but on account of lapses in both or either of learned or naturally directed stealthy behaviors, and are unlikely to be revealed again once they've learned that they've been seen.
Now, if you eliminate the concept of "luck" and the film-maker was able, by dint of their understanding of their research subject's behavior and research area, to get even some blurry distant images, but do it reliably, dependably and predictably as a result of their using their understanding of the creature's behavior in a way that another researcher could also follow those instructions and get similar results you'd have scientifically supportable evidence and something on which more reasonable research could be modelled and conducted. I maintain that the reason BF's existence is not accepted is not because the images aren't clear enough, or the DNA isn't gorey enough, but because no researcher has exhibitied the kind of understanding of the subject to allow the researcher to be able to reliably and predictably collect any evidence (photographic or otherwise) and be able to direct other to do the same to get similar results.
From my perspective I can't think of a research effort that has taken into account the capabilities and behaviors as well as range and scale of territory that I suspect these creature naturally possess in combination with the kind of instinctual shyness the likes of which few other creatures exhibit. So while they are not that infrequently seen, it is never on account of our ability but on account of lapses in both or either of learned or naturally directed stealthy behaviors, and are unlikely to be revealed again once they've learned that they've been seen.
Hi
reverse psychology sarcasm
Peace
Tim
QUOTE(dogu4 @ May 10 2008, 09:20 AM)
no researcher has exhibitied the kind of understanding of the subject to allow the researcher to be able to reliably and predictably collect any evidence (photographic or otherwise) and be able to direct other to do the same to get similar results.
(bold emphasis mine) demonstrates a fair understanding of what the scientific method IS. Specifically (in this case) experiment repeatability, whatever the results are. And yes, I realize that my punctuation in this post bites cotton candy.
edit to add: "(in this case)"
QUOTE(ThisIsJack @ May 16 2008, 01:03 AM)
(bold emphasis mine) demonstrates a fair understanding of what the scientific method IS. Specifically (in this case) experiment repeatability, whatever the results are. And yes, I realize that my punctuation in this post bites cotton candy.
edit to add: "(in this case)"
edit to add: "(in this case)"
Absolutely Jack!!!!!!!!!! Work with what results are repeatable......... build on those successes.........Teach others to perform those experiments and independently varify the results.
and dogu4
SY
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.