Quake3World

http://cbs5.com/localwire/22.0.html?typ ... ENCE-bagm-

"Three "Bigfoot'' seekers, including a Redwood City man who released a documentary titled "Bigfoot Lives,'' claim they may have the body of one and plan to release a photo and what they claim is DNA evidence at a news conference in Palo Alto on Friday."


Do you believe??????

I'll believe it when I see it

Ya, I read about this earlier today and thought about making a topic about it, but I figured it's bogus...

DNA evidence? What are they comparing the DNA to...another bigfoot? If you compare the DNA to a normal human all you'll find is another mutant hillbilly wandering the bush of the Ozarks with a musket-loader.

I'm sure they'll release the photo once all copyright details have been ironed out.

Ask me again Friday afternoon.

GFY, all the DNA of primates have been categorized. So it wouldn't be that difficult to determine if it was a new species.

I don't think that was the point he was getting at.

I'm going out on a limb before Friday and saying it's not going to be anything new.

Like the various forms of species moonshineus chuggerisis:

no such thing. next.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:DNA evidence? What are they comparing the DNA to...another bigfoot?

they can check it with other known species and see what matches up... if it dosnt match with anything, then it could actually have some truth to it.

AmIdYfReAk wrote:

GONNAFISTYA wrote:DNA evidence? What are they comparing the DNA to...another bigfoot?

they can check it with other known species and see what matches up... if it dosnt match with anything, then it could actually have some truth to it.

It won't (have any truth).

Did I not pretty much say that already? (refering to Amidy's post)

yes, yes you did..

sorry about that.

Why wait till friday?-->.... http://www.liquidgeneration.com/Media/P ... _Prove_It/

AmIdYfReAk wrote:yes, yes you did..

sorry about that.

No apology necessary. Just makin sure we're on the same page.

BTW, one more day until the truth is revealed...

Just because you've determined that the DNA is not human or primate doesn't automatically mean it's "bigfoot".

Looks like a costume with some offal thrown on top of it.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:Just because you've determined that the DNA is not human or primate doesn't automatically mean it's "bigfoot".

No, GFY, it doesn't. But when you collect DNA and make an analysis, you can easily tell which species its most closely related to. And in the case of a sasquatch, the DNA would obviously be similar to that of a primate. And we already have all the primate DNA mapped. So I doubt there would be much mistaking it for anything else, especially if they have a body.

And don't get me wrong. I'm sure this story is all bogus, but I had to prove my point.

you just responded to something he wasn't arguing against. He was just saying that if it doesn't match up to human or any other primate it doesn't mean it IS bigfoot...

I know. I agreed with him. That's why I said "No, GFY, it doesn't."

Was just wondering what point you were proving since nobody really had disagreed with your point....wait I'm going crosseyed following this....

Sorta like this?

Sorry, I just feel the need to elaborate when it seems as if someone doesn't fully understand my thoughts. Forgive me.

im going with a gorilla

"thawed creature in FREEZER'