It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by 4stral4pprentice
I posted this in a different thread but feel i should put it here as well. =)
Read this quote from: The Law of One, Book I, Session 9
January 27, 1981
Originally posted by vance
Originally posted by 4stral4pprentice
I posted this in a different thread but feel i should put it here as well. =)
Read this quote from: The Law of One, Book I, Session 9
January 27, 1981
As soon as I see from the "enlightened ones" qoutes like "What you refer to as", "what you would call", and "What you know as", my BS meter goes off the scale.
Back on topic,
I live in Florida and we have our own little version of the big guy called amongst other names, "Skunk Ape". I don't believe it myself as I have been in the woods, swamps and waterways and wetlands my whole life and never seen track or hide of such a creature.
Vance
One of the two samples of DNA said to prove the existence of the Bigfoot came from a human and the other was 96 percent from an opossum, according to Curt Nelson, a scientist at the University of Minnesota who performed the DNA analysis.
Perhaps he is still stomping around somewhere, but a DNA test has confirmed that it was not Bigfoot roaming the Yukon earlier this month — it was just a bison.
...lack of a comprehensive collection of hair samples from known species of animals with which to compare the strand in question.
Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by heffo7
Actually in the reports that I've read, typically the DNA has tested positive for human contamination. Or positive as possum, bison, etc.
Actually, I don't believe this means that it is a sasquatch or other unknown species. It just means that the lab could not match the DNA sequence in the strand to another similar sequence. This could be due to the quantity of samples of DNA from identified species. That's what is being suggested, I see no reason to believe otherwise.
It doesn't mean that it was possum or bison either.
Maybe you should just read the book. I don't think it's appropriate to quote the whole thing chapter and verse to illustrate Dr Meldrum's point. But his conclusion is that genuine or strongly suspected sasquatch hair can not currently be classified as such, but other species CAN be ruled out.