Ralph-Wiggum wrote:Yeah, 96% opossum is not very much opossum at all. Hell, we're 50% banana.Sectoid wrote:What's the other 4%?WYBaugh wrote:First DNA sample was human, the second was 96% opossum.
Wrong. You're part eggplant.
Moderators: Bakhtosh, EvilHomer3k
Ralph-Wiggum wrote:Yeah, 96% opossum is not very much opossum at all. Hell, we're 50% banana.Sectoid wrote:What's the other 4%?WYBaugh wrote:First DNA sample was human, the second was 96% opossum.
At the bottom of that page:Octavious230 wrote:You know I was wondering what the hell the point of this was and now we have a answer. Apparently they took a bunch of money and ran. How stupid do you have to be to give them money up front? Cripes..
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,406101,00.html" target="_blank
• Click here to read the sad story in its entirety on SearchingforBigfoot.com.
• Click here to start your own Bigfoot hoax.
"He was a real go-getter," Turner said, citing Whitton's wounding in the line of duty earlier this summer while apprehending a suspect who had allegedly shot a woman in the head. "For someone to do a complete three-sixty like that, I can't explain it."flycatcher wrote:Cost one of the idiots his job
http://www.11alive.com/news/local/story ... 5&catid=40" target="_blank
It began, as it so often does, with a glimpse. Something tall. Something hairy. Something that left footprints too big to be human.
Whatever it was, the spotting was more than enough to get Peter Byrne on the scene. It was the mid-1970s and Byrne had already made a name for himself as one of the world’s most prominent researchers of Bigfoot.
...
When Byrne arrived, he noticed the trees stood close together — far too narrow a space for something with broad shoulders and big feet to make a clean egress. And there, between three and five feet off the ground, snagged in the bark, he spotted the tuft of hair and piece of skin he hoped would bring him one step closer to his idée fixe, the sasquatch itself, a towering hominid of North American lore.
Byrne bagged the sample and had it delivered to the FBI. In one letter to the bureau, he asked if an agent could “arrange for a comparative analysis of some hairs that we have here which we are unable to identify.” In another, he stressed the urgency of the inquiry: “Please understand that our research here is serious. That this is a serious question that needs answering.”
He never heard back. Until Wednesday, when the bureau released its four-decade-old Bigfoot files.
...
“Occasionally, on a case-by-case basis, in the interest of research and scientific inquiry, we make exceptions to this general policy,” Cochran wrote in a Dec. 15, 1976, letter that was addressed to Byrne, but apparently never reached him. “With this understanding, we will examine the hairs and tissue mentioned in your letter.”
Just a few months later, Cochran sent another letter. He had the results.
On Feb. 24, 1977, he wrote that the FBI had examined the sample “by transmitted and incident light microscopy,” which included “a study of morphological characteristics such as root structure, medullary structure and cuticle thickness in addition to scale casts.”
And, after all that: “It was concluded as a result of these examinations that the hairs are of deer family origin.” Deer family origin.
With those three words, delivered 40 years late, Cochran tied a few hopeful loose ends into a disheartening bow.
“We’re just finding this out,” Byrne, who is now 93 years old, said. “It’s disappointing.”
My battery was dead! There was no service! I locked my phone in the car! There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! IT WASN’T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD!
My brother and I were actually discussing this exact topic on a road trip this past weekend. IE - how it seemed that cryptid sightings were decreasing as cameras got better. I've been listening to a humongous 5-part discussion of the Patterson-Gimlin film on the Astonishing Legends podcast, so we were debating that.Holman wrote:I assume we're at the end of Bigfoot, Nessie, etc sightings now that literally everyone goes everywhere with a high-quality movie camera in their pocket.
So Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura had it right. Technology ruins magic.YellowKing wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:30 pmit seemed that cryptid sightings were decreasing as cameras got better... The Loch Ness Monster, in particular, seems to be a "dead" cryptid. That big scan they did of the entire loch which turned up nothing essentially put a nail in that coffin.
It's OK, Champy is still real! Why else would we name our sports team after him?Holman wrote:
The Loch Ness Monster, in particular, seems to be a "dead" cryptid. That big scan they did of the entire loch which turned up nothing essentially put a nail in that coffin.