Comments on: Searching for Sasquatch – Using Ideas from Law Enforcement Part III

By: joe levit

joe levit — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:34:17 +0000

Mikew, which questions did you ask?

Also, if one is to believe the reports about bigfoot regarding Edwards Air Force Base, then it appears that agencies are often instructed to ignore, not harm, and/or not discuss any strange creatures that are not causing security problems.

By: VoiceOfReason

VoiceOfReason — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 01:47:17 +0000

I don’t think bigfoot exists.

By: joppa

joppa — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:51:14 +0000

I would expect that any government would be interested in a creature that is more elusive than the best special ops soldier and has the speed and ability to avoid detection. We strap warheads on dolphins, think what you could strap on ol’ Squatch and send him wandering toward Seattle or Greenbriar, West Virginia or North Korea.

By: mikew

mikew — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:17:00 +0000

“Anyone’s got any theories as to why most governments, including the US, aren’t interrested in people knowing about these creatures?”

You have it the wrong way around.

Govts are not interested in monster cryptids reports.

If you think about it, why would they?

If it doesn’t involve trade/money/terrorism why would any govt give a toss about the existence or otherwise of odd creatures.

If results are “kept secret” how do you know.

Some people would consider no results = “top secret”.

The hair analysis problem= no decent bulb amounts mean no useable dna.

Simple.

One dna result has come back so far.

That came back unknown, which was interesting, but what most wide eyed believers “forget” to mention was that 3 toed prints were found nearby, the hair was taken from a small space in a tree hollow.

That means it was from a 3 toed midget? that lived in a tree.

The reference for all this is in a previous post and it was from Bhutan.

The world govts are also stopping millions of people from videotaping/photographing/shooting/finding monster ape like forms as well no doubt.

That keep popping up on multiple continents.

“less credible scientists” would not be as relevent as the simplistic ideas on the phenomena by people that ignore the major problems and stick to their narrow “viewpoint” regarding this whole phenomena.

I pointed out the major problems regarding monster ape like forms in 2 posts under the first part of this present topic series.

And no one could answer my queries about this.

Because, they are narrow minded and scared to face hard facts.

Its easier to live in a tv induced fantasy world.

The profound attracts the inane..

By: lastensugle

lastensugle — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:12:26 +0000

In my opinion, the problem’s the fact that hair analysis being performed in places where “wildmen” are generally found/reported, China, Russia, etc., are either government sponsored, therefore the results, for some reason, are beeing kept secret from the public, or carried out by private finances, which normally means either amateurish or, as someone pointed out, by less credible scientists. Anyone’s got any theories as to why most governments, including the US, aren’t interrested in people knowing about these creatures? I’m not sure this is the case, but that`s the impression I normally get.

By: joe levit

joe levit — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:40:00 +0000

Well said, shovethenos

By: shovethenos

shovethenos — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 16:49:22 +0000

Well, I think those responses are because scientists incompetently ignore the results. They could be saving them, cataloging them, etc. They will pay for it – when a breakthrough eventually points out how incompetent they’ve been.

By: joe levit

joe levit — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 16:45:05 +0000

Nothing comes of those reports, I feel, because there is nothing to compare them to. Scientists need either a body or definitive pictures of an animal, preferably both, to present such data. Think of how difficult it is for ornithologists right now who have impressive data for the Ivory-billed woodpecker to convince many other experts that the animal, (which unlike bigfoot is recognized formally in the past) is indeed extant.

Separately, I think the “unknown primate” and “unknown animal” returns on a lot of these samples is quite a positive sign. That is EXACTLY what one would expect for an unknown species. This is especially the case with “unknown primate” or better yet “unknown ape”, when the other known primates in the area have all been compared against.

By: joppa

joppa — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 16:03:23 +0000

That’s whats so frustrating about this field. You see a report like those listed above and then nothing, no follow up reports , no journal findings, nada, zippo, zilch. That’s why I was happy to come across this site sometime ago and applaud your efforts.

By: shovethenos

shovethenos — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:38:06 +0000

What’s your opinion on the DNA allegedly gathered from other cryptids?

Yeti

Orang-pendek

Also, there was a show on one of the cable channels – Discovery, History, Sci-Fi, etc. that – about a Chinese university doing metal content analysis on an alleged Yeren hair sample and determining that it was from an unknown primate. Are you aware of this? How scientifically valid are hair metal content analyses?