Big Foot

[magsnubby]

"I was in Romania recently.They are plagued with vampires at the moment,is there a firearm out there that kills vampires ?"


Vampires are pretty simple. All you need is some garlic bullets.


"....lonely ole' guy, in need of some really good smelling shampoo...."


Maybe some Head & Shoulders?

 

[che_70b]

It was the same researcher who did the hair morphology, which also came back as no known north american creature, that did the second DNA test.

They also explained that the reason the first sample tested badly was beacouse the sample had coating off the nail mixed in with the blood.

 

[dwave]

Hey, there are two myths in this thread.

1. Bigfoot.

2. Guns can be Evil.

evil black guns

 

[magsnubby]

But what if Bigfoot has an evil black gun? What caliber do you suppose it would be?

 

[sailortoo]

Bigfoot

I may be out of date on this, but the state of Oregon at one time in the past, passed a law - yes, a real law by their legislators - that placed Bigfoot on a "protected" list. Supposed to be illegal to shoot one, so keep that in mind with those "hi-power imaginary guns". And no, I don't have documentation for that, just a dim memory (getting old, you know).
sailortoo
Semper Paratus (also)

 

[eliphalet]

Bigfoot's gone, ran off with the Easter Bunny, and is now considered a bunny hugger.

Any gun works on Vampires just use silver bullets

 

[Tokugawa]

Probem is, ya'all thinking about hardware intread of tactics. Now what 'cha gotta do is this- first thing out in the woods, look around for one of them meth operations, and shanghai the guy. Now with the doper securely trussed up, you can go about your desired activities.. If ya happen to run into the Big One, just leave the doper as a handy protein snack and leave. Now on the other hand, if ya don't see a Bigfoot, just bring the druggie back for the sherriff. Or you could chain him to a tree for next time!

 

[Double Naught Spy]

They also explained that the reason the first sample tested badly was beacouse the sample had coating off the nail mixed in with the blood.

Yes, but they did the second test, not the original independent lab. Also, they seem to be the only ones who have the supposed data. On top of that, it was alledged blood left to weather for two years. Sorry, but that is just plain hokey. I don't seem to recall the information being presented in any scientific journals or passing any peer review. What you have is some sensationalized research done by a group of people who want to prove bigfoot exists (even though he is so magical as to know where all the cameras are and not appear on any of them why at the same time attacking a cabin full of researchers) and who have claimed to have proof of a unique creature. In cryptozoological circles, that should be very research that is readily published.

Come on, if you are going to watch TV, at least think critically about what you are being fed. Just because it is on the history channel doesn't mean it is science.

Heck, there is another nut in Canada who claims to have definitive bigfoot evidence (12 seconds of footage) that he won't release until Canada produces a law that protects the animals. His name is Todd Standing. It is a great catch-22. He won't produce the evidence until there is a law and legislatures there won't pass a law about an imaginary animal until they have real proof it exists. Canada failed to act to protect the imaginary animal.

FYI, Todd standing has taken his 12 seconds of "proof" and made a 30 minute movie called "Sylvanic" or "Shadow Guardians of the Mountains." Does this sound like the work of serious biologists or of people wanting to make money? The legislature balked and Sylvanic went on sale. It was crap like the other supposed documentaries....
http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/review-of-sylvanic/

 

[che_70b]

It should also be noted that the people doing DNA test did state there was further testing to be done. I would think you would want to do that before you published your full findings for peer review. I also thought, though am not certain, that it was not one of the researcher who was in field that did the test, but the same lab that did the hair morphology.