Robin Meade & CNN make a joke of journalism with sarcastic Bigfoot report
Why is Robin so sarcastic in her reporting of the alleged bigfoot remains as she asks for our comments on the topic?
There is nothing saying that a large primate could not live in modern times & still mostly remain undetected. Other lower primates have shown amazing intelligence and if something like a missing link as a bigfoot is out there it makes sense they would be possibly smart enough to hide themselves from threats to their safety that we humans would be to them.
Look at such creatures as the Coelacanth, a "lung fish" that was believed to have gone extinct many millions of years ago... until a living member of that family tree was found alive about 70 years ago. Since then many other species that were presumed extinct have been found in remote regions.
Think of a recent event in the news where over 100,000 gorillas were discovered that changed our opinion of their status as an endangered species. Almost 1/8th of a million huge creatures avoided detection for many years... so imagine what a primate more closer to human intelligence could do in remote parts of the U.S.A. that even today remain basically untouched. There are millions of square acres of wild forest areas in this country that are basically the same untouched condition as when Lewis & Clark explored the northwest after the Louisannia Purchase.
As for Robin's question of how to validate any DNA samples offered as "proof" an acceptable answer doesn't require her repeated mentionings of some sample to compare with this alleged Bigfoot - even though no "verified" bigfoot DNA sample is on file anywhere.
All that is needed is for the DNA sample of the supposed Bigfoot to not be from a human donor, while also not being a match of any known primate's DNA signature.
If the sample is in good enough condition that the technicians can get DNA from it, then it is a very simple process to get the "signature" from the DNA sequence that the sample yeilds.
Primates like gorillas, chimps, etc have a DNA signature almost exactly like us humans, but the minute differences easily tell each species from any other, and science has taken a long time to accurately detail what separates the lower primates from each other, and from humans as well.
If DNA can be pulled from whatever biological material is offered for the sample, then there will be no problem telling if the DNA signature matches any of the many lower primates, that of humans, or if it is from another animal such as a dog, wolf, or other wild hairy creature.
If the sample is fake, that will be quickly known as well. If the hair is synthetic or of other fake origin, the technicians will know without any doubt.
To finally make the long answer come to an end to let Robin (and the rest of you wondering at CNN) know how it can be determined if the sample is of a Bigfoot even though nothing is around to compare for verification.
If the sample is a fake, it will be known. That means no Bigfoot was found and a hoax was stopped from being considered truthful info.
If the sample yeilds a DNA signature of some lower primate, that means no Bigfoot was found - but that someone came by that creature's remains and attempted to defraud us with a false claim. (possible criminal charges might apply if the sample was obtained in a way that harmed the animal as the men obtained it in this ordeal)
If the remains are of some creature known to science, but not of a primate species, then the Bigfoot will not be a Bigfoot, instead it will be the remains of whatever animal it used to be. (again as above, possible criminal charges could apply depending upon how the animal's remains got into the men's possession)
If the DNA testing yeilds a signature that is human, then the men will need to explain how they came across a dead person's remains and why they chose to hold on to it and misuse the corpse in a fraudulent Bigfoot claim.
BUT...
If the test results come back as being genuine biological material that has a DNA signature not matching a himan being, any lower primate, or any other known species of animal - but instead has a DNA signature of a creature similar to primates, but not falling into any primate known catagory... then it would be something new to the science catalog, and this would be an historic event because the claim of a Bigfoot could be called true.
If the DNA is of primate origin, but not human or any known primate on record, then what the creature would be, could be called Bigfoot, Yeti, or whatever you wish... or whatever the men finding the creature decide to name it. (scientifically of course, not just the common name)
BTW...
If the creature was kept after it died, then it would begin to decompose.
That means even a 7' plus creature could be put into a space such as a 6' refridgerator.
The body goes into rigor mortis soon after death, but that doesn't last forever. After about 36 hours the body relaxes enough to be placed in a cramped space... or haven't you seen any murder cases of note in recent years??
One major murder trial that comes to mind is how Ira Einhorn put his girlfriend Holly Maddux into a traveler's trunk that reports said was small enough to fit a child half Maddux's size... yet Einhorn managed to cram her adult sized body into a space seemingly far too small to fit her body - and if he hadn't left the trunk is his closet 18 months after the murder, Einhorn might never been found out.
By the time police found the trunk, Maddux's body was only about 35 pounds from whatever it was when she was alive. (which police say she was when Einhorn stuffed her into that trunk)
The body of any living creature goes through changes after life ends. That's why we bury our deceased loved ones no more than about 3 days after death, to avoid seeing them change from how we remembered them in life to what they become as death takes its toll.
Suppose the creature is real (we can debate the bigfoot aspect later, now is just a formerly living creature) - then it depends on many factors as to whether that thing would look like some fake or if it still looked real enough.
If it was placed in a freezer, that would effect the condition of the body, as would the change from cold storage to warm... ice turns to wetness, and a body looks waxy after a few days...
It's possible that a real living creature would end up looking like some cheap costume depending on many aspects of how the men kept the body until turning it over for examination.
Bottom line is I doubt that it's some fake these guys brought out for display... that would make them more of a laughingstock than when that lady tried to cash in by suing Wendy's for an alleged finger they allowed to be in their food served to the public... science showed far too soon that she was behind the fraud and that she was directly linked to the person who used to have the finger on his body.
And if they took/found a bear or some other zoo animal, then it won't be long before it is found out & the proper criminal charges land these guys in jail...
My guess is that is is a genuine body of some creature... and that science will let us know what exactly it used to be.
If CNN had done even an hour of google searching they could have found plenty of info to use in their "story" being repeatedly reported on air by Robin in total unprofessional fashion.
Heck, any hack could have come up with the "Hogzilla" hoax that went down a few years back. A network like National Geographic Channel did an investigation, and simple junior-level journalism found many flaws in the story of the mythical hog.
They found doctored features in the "proof" photo being used as evidence, and pushed the men to show where the body was buried - and after digging it up the truth was known without much effort.
Turns out the Hogzilla was about 25% smaller than the claim and even though this was probably the biggest wild hog found & killed... it was not the huge beast the men claimed it was.
So I challenge CNN (And Robin) to get off their asses and actually do some investigating before reporting this story anymore!!!
Send someone to the scene to get first hand reports & facts, get experts on air to give credible information pro/con about what this creature might be, have some assistant google enough info for the on air staff to not look way below the quality of Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert... for once.
Take out the personal opinions & sarcastic remarks, and have Robin show us she can do more than just read a teleprompter - even a trained monkey could mimic what she is doing.
Stop the amateur hour, and show us some real journalism!!!
There is nothing saying that a large primate could not live in modern times & still mostly remain undetected. Other lower primates have shown amazing intelligence and if something like a missing link as a bigfoot is out there it makes sense they would be possibly smart enough to hide themselves from threats to their safety that we humans would be to them.
Look at such creatures as the Coelacanth, a "lung fish" that was believed to have gone extinct many millions of years ago... until a living member of that family tree was found alive about 70 years ago. Since then many other species that were presumed extinct have been found in remote regions.
Think of a recent event in the news where over 100,000 gorillas were discovered that changed our opinion of their status as an endangered species. Almost 1/8th of a million huge creatures avoided detection for many years... so imagine what a primate more closer to human intelligence could do in remote parts of the U.S.A. that even today remain basically untouched. There are millions of square acres of wild forest areas in this country that are basically the same untouched condition as when Lewis & Clark explored the northwest after the Louisannia Purchase.
As for Robin's question of how to validate any DNA samples offered as "proof" an acceptable answer doesn't require her repeated mentionings of some sample to compare with this alleged Bigfoot - even though no "verified" bigfoot DNA sample is on file anywhere.
All that is needed is for the DNA sample of the supposed Bigfoot to not be from a human donor, while also not being a match of any known primate's DNA signature.
If the sample is in good enough condition that the technicians can get DNA from it, then it is a very simple process to get the "signature" from the DNA sequence that the sample yeilds.
Primates like gorillas, chimps, etc have a DNA signature almost exactly like us humans, but the minute differences easily tell each species from any other, and science has taken a long time to accurately detail what separates the lower primates from each other, and from humans as well.
If DNA can be pulled from whatever biological material is offered for the sample, then there will be no problem telling if the DNA signature matches any of the many lower primates, that of humans, or if it is from another animal such as a dog, wolf, or other wild hairy creature.
If the sample is fake, that will be quickly known as well. If the hair is synthetic or of other fake origin, the technicians will know without any doubt.
To finally make the long answer come to an end to let Robin (and the rest of you wondering at CNN) know how it can be determined if the sample is of a Bigfoot even though nothing is around to compare for verification.
If the sample is a fake, it will be known. That means no Bigfoot was found and a hoax was stopped from being considered truthful info.
If the sample yeilds a DNA signature of some lower primate, that means no Bigfoot was found - but that someone came by that creature's remains and attempted to defraud us with a false claim. (possible criminal charges might apply if the sample was obtained in a way that harmed the animal as the men obtained it in this ordeal)
If the remains are of some creature known to science, but not of a primate species, then the Bigfoot will not be a Bigfoot, instead it will be the remains of whatever animal it used to be. (again as above, possible criminal charges could apply depending upon how the animal's remains got into the men's possession)
If the DNA testing yeilds a signature that is human, then the men will need to explain how they came across a dead person's remains and why they chose to hold on to it and misuse the corpse in a fraudulent Bigfoot claim.
BUT...
If the test results come back as being genuine biological material that has a DNA signature not matching a himan being, any lower primate, or any other known species of animal - but instead has a DNA signature of a creature similar to primates, but not falling into any primate known catagory... then it would be something new to the science catalog, and this would be an historic event because the claim of a Bigfoot could be called true.
If the DNA is of primate origin, but not human or any known primate on record, then what the creature would be, could be called Bigfoot, Yeti, or whatever you wish... or whatever the men finding the creature decide to name it. (scientifically of course, not just the common name)
BTW...
If the creature was kept after it died, then it would begin to decompose.
That means even a 7' plus creature could be put into a space such as a 6' refridgerator.
The body goes into rigor mortis soon after death, but that doesn't last forever. After about 36 hours the body relaxes enough to be placed in a cramped space... or haven't you seen any murder cases of note in recent years??
One major murder trial that comes to mind is how Ira Einhorn put his girlfriend Holly Maddux into a traveler's trunk that reports said was small enough to fit a child half Maddux's size... yet Einhorn managed to cram her adult sized body into a space seemingly far too small to fit her body - and if he hadn't left the trunk is his closet 18 months after the murder, Einhorn might never been found out.
By the time police found the trunk, Maddux's body was only about 35 pounds from whatever it was when she was alive. (which police say she was when Einhorn stuffed her into that trunk)
The body of any living creature goes through changes after life ends. That's why we bury our deceased loved ones no more than about 3 days after death, to avoid seeing them change from how we remembered them in life to what they become as death takes its toll.
Suppose the creature is real (we can debate the bigfoot aspect later, now is just a formerly living creature) - then it depends on many factors as to whether that thing would look like some fake or if it still looked real enough.
If it was placed in a freezer, that would effect the condition of the body, as would the change from cold storage to warm... ice turns to wetness, and a body looks waxy after a few days...
It's possible that a real living creature would end up looking like some cheap costume depending on many aspects of how the men kept the body until turning it over for examination.
Bottom line is I doubt that it's some fake these guys brought out for display... that would make them more of a laughingstock than when that lady tried to cash in by suing Wendy's for an alleged finger they allowed to be in their food served to the public... science showed far too soon that she was behind the fraud and that she was directly linked to the person who used to have the finger on his body.
And if they took/found a bear or some other zoo animal, then it won't be long before it is found out & the proper criminal charges land these guys in jail...
My guess is that is is a genuine body of some creature... and that science will let us know what exactly it used to be.
If CNN had done even an hour of google searching they could have found plenty of info to use in their "story" being repeatedly reported on air by Robin in total unprofessional fashion.
Heck, any hack could have come up with the "Hogzilla" hoax that went down a few years back. A network like National Geographic Channel did an investigation, and simple junior-level journalism found many flaws in the story of the mythical hog.
They found doctored features in the "proof" photo being used as evidence, and pushed the men to show where the body was buried - and after digging it up the truth was known without much effort.
Turns out the Hogzilla was about 25% smaller than the claim and even though this was probably the biggest wild hog found & killed... it was not the huge beast the men claimed it was.
So I challenge CNN (And Robin) to get off their asses and actually do some investigating before reporting this story anymore!!!
Send someone to the scene to get first hand reports & facts, get experts on air to give credible information pro/con about what this creature might be, have some assistant google enough info for the on air staff to not look way below the quality of Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert... for once.
Take out the personal opinions & sarcastic remarks, and have Robin show us she can do more than just read a teleprompter - even a trained monkey could mimic what she is doing.
Stop the amateur hour, and show us some real journalism!!!
Labels: bigfoot, CNN, hoax, joke, Robin Meade, scam, science history, unprofessional
posted by Scandal MacKenzie at 7:01 AM
