Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for December, 2011

And it is bigfootery gold.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

They are.  But evidently, they are tough, darn tough.

Matt Moneymaker
MattMoneymaker1Matt Moneymaker

Our scout Tyler Bounds (WA-BFRO) hit a bigfoot last night (round 2AM) while driving near High Knob VA.  Vehicle damaged but no blood, hair.
________________________________________________________________________________
We’re conjecturing it went something like this:
Matty:  Tyler, WTF dude, you damaged the rental SUV.
Tyler:  Well dad, you know there are squatches in those woods.
Matty:  Oh absolutely, is it time to say that again?
Tyler:  No, the fourteenth take was perfect.  But, ummm, I hit a bigfoot last night while out dutifully scouting for squatchy places.
Matty:  So those big dents are from a squatch, although there is no blood or hair?
Tyler: Yep.
Matty:  And that one big half circle dent means the squatch had a thigh that was over four feet tall and 40″ round?
Tyler: Uhh, Yep.
Matty:  Ok, I can buy that.
Tyler:  Thanks dad, you’re the biggest and best.
Matty: (ruffles Tyler’s hair) – I know.  Now fetch me a cold drink and make it snappy.

Read Full Post »

Frisch’s Big Boy is reporting that the DNA study paper by Ketchup has been kicked back for the lack of a testable hypothesis.  This is one of the few times when we think Ol’Mathew might be correct and not blowing smoke.  There’s definitely some conflict between some of the principles purportedly involved in the study and Big Boy so it could be wishful desire for a fail but we think not.  The paper had an uphill battle, penned by a DVM and attempting to prove a biological entity with no specimen and lacking other clear evidence.  The only glimmer of hope is that the study would be peer-reviewed outside the realm of bigfootery.

As we talked about this development around the BFE virtual water cooler we attempted to come up with an idea for a hypothesis that might be testable.  One must understand the underpinnings of most of the staff around here, engineers deal with testable hypothesis that are practical and a bit mundane.  Questions like will this fail under the following environmental factors?,  can this design attain __X__ levels of performance, things like that.  We are certainly not the best suited to deal with DNA, pure academic science or biology.  But those factors rarely inhibit greater bigfootery, so here goes.

Hypothesis:

A sample of DNA collected from contemporary primates across the United States (the submitted samples) will exhibit greater variation than DNA from historical native americans.

The reason we thought this would be a good null hypothesis is that intuitively one would think it provable.  If it was not provable, then one has to consider the sample and how variation is similar or less than those of native americans, especially with a wide geographic representation.  What we are getting at is the idea that if there are sasquatch their mobility, shall we say their mating range,  is far less than modern humans and closer to historical native americans.

And that’s that.  We admit a lack of biological and academic science, so shoot us down if you wish.  Maybe there is a thread that someone could tease into something better than what we put forth.  If you want to build something, we can probably be of more  help.

Read Full Post »