Leaderboard

Homo Denisova. There's one. And you still have to back up your opinion with fact for it to mean anything. Tim B.

As an academic and professor myself it is easy to become frustrated with the slow process of scientific peer review. For those that say that Dr. K has not produced any evidence, well, if she has submitted her findings to a blind peer review facilitated by a science journal, then she has provided evidence. Although we like to pretend that the blind scienfiic review process is unbiased, there are plenty of studies that show that it can be biased. My research has encountered editorial bias particularly for studies that find things that are not popular with the established scientific community. I will render judgement once the published journal article is released. We are all understandably excited, but the peer review process has to run its course.

Perhaps he doesn't care for the taste of crow.....

I have always liked Dr M...however there has always been something that just hasn't sat right with me about him. I believe it was watching him on a video with some folks in the town he was doing research and people were asking him questions in a town hall/backyard setting.This was quite a while ago and I cant recall the place I saw this. He seemed especially disinterested and was acting very condescending towards the folks who were the reason he was there in the first place. When he realized he was on camera his demeanor changed significantly, and then there is your comment which I have always felt. That doesn't mean its correct but that's been my discernment. It is no surprise that so called scientists can in fact become too married to their allegiances with their own theories or someone elses agendas to become very closed off to the science. Lest we forget the climate change, oh how should I put it nicely..massaging of the science.

Concerning DWA's: "That's just your opinion". You should be called on this back and forth stuff by a moderator. Of course all this debate is "opinion". If it was fact then The Bigfoot Forum would not exist. You sound like someone that has to have their way, or else.

Funny how easily some people miss the fact that she is a geneticist, but notice right off that she's a veterinarian. Looks like she's a pretty intelligent lady....

They are allowed in the pay area of the forum PMP and are ongoing and insightful, $20 a year and you have almost met the post criterion of 75.

Anybody want to guess what you are looking at in the image below? Reason I ask is that I’ve been following this discussion for the last few days and I think a lot of people have lost their perspective on the matter. I see people microscopically picking apart every word of the news announcements, and every word written by other posters here (and “thereâ€, the snake pit) and I’d simply like to offer a comment of how it looks to me. Now I’ve been in the bull’s eye myself from time to time, for my work on the PGF, and I’ve seen people both enthused and supportive of my effort, and people bitterly and insultingly critical of my work put every word I’ve posted under a microscope and taken things way out of context, and lose sight of what I really meant by my remarks. When I review what others were saying, both pro and con, and referencing back to what I really meant, I see how easily it is for people to lose sight of the real essence of a discussion by microscopically examining words and phrases. Plus the fact that behind the scenes, there were often issues or factors I couldn’t disclose publicly when I wanted to (for any number of legitimate reasons), and those things the public forum wasn’t privy to, those things did in fact impact significantly on my own actions, words and choices. I also saw people trying to second guess my intentions and being so wildly off target that their guesses were hilarious if not absurd. So this is a comment from somebody who’s “been there, done thatâ€, been under that microscope. What I’ve learned over the last five years is that nothing related to the analysis of the PGF or the mystery of bigfoot goes smoothly. Doesn’t matter if we try to make it goes smoothly, doesn’t matter if our intentions are really pure and doesn’t matter how qualified we may be in some endeavor, things just don’t go smoothly. I’ve had more curveballs thrown at me than I could have ever imagined or anticipated in my own work, and had to take some long and convoluted detours away from my chosen path just to try and make progress, and so I can easily see or envision that this DNA project has similarly been a rocky road for the people involved. I don’t know the principles personally, Burtsev, Ketchum, Paulides, Carpenter, etc. so this is not an appraisal of anyone’s character, neither an endorsement nor a criticism. But there seems to be quite a few players in this matter and simple odds are somebody among them actually has a sense of personal integrity and isn’t looking to rush into a self-destructive reputation-ruining fiasco, especially where there doesn’t seem to be any big cash cow on the horizon worth selling out for. But these people have collectively gone out on quite a limb, with what’s been released, and if it is all just a big con, then it’s a real personal integrity crusher when the jig is up. So while I watch and wonder how it’ll all play out, I just can’t see this many people committing integrity suicide in a collective effort. One, maybe, two maybe, but this many, I just doubt it. So maybe it really is just a matter that things just aren’t going according to plan, and people are improvising (maybe some with good intent, maybe some without) and it just plain isn’t going smoothly toward the apparent goal. Maybe words are chosen poorly, or chosen with misunderstanding of the semantic implications of those chosen words. So if I may offer my suggestion, maybe we need to kind of step back and try to see the big picture, and not the microscopic bits and pieces like that image I posted above. To me, the most impressive thing so far is the screen print offered by member Obsi Post 8891 page 297, showing that apparently some kind of media/press embargo is in fact in effect, and that to me means the matter is potentially both serious and has some merit of legitimacy. But it’s obviously not going smoothly for the principles and (having been there and done that) I would think that we should cut them some slack and see what happens when that embargo is lifted on Tuesday. Then let the real serious discussions begin. Let’s take a few steps back and try to see the big picture, instead of this microscopic examination of words or phrases or mini-facts. The big picture is worth discussing. The microscopic examination is just a bunch of lines and spaces, and not really worth much, because the final release will likely reveal something far different than what is being contemplated now, making most of this discussion a moot point. My suggestion. Just wanted to offer it up for consideration. Bill

There's no evidence? Huh? That can't be an honest question.

Good post. There is a lot to think about......and what if it's more human than ape? It's very possible that a person will suffer from guilt and anxiety for doing the deed. Although I'm not much of a subscriber to the "bigfoot army" theories, it's very possible that the person who shoots one in the name of science will receive death threats from his fellow man for sure. I can only advise that if a person has reservations about doing it? Then don't do it. Take the experience for what it is and let the animal walk. Sometimes I talk a bit roughly about Patterson and Gimlin not shooting Patty and solving this mystery before I was born. I'm talking out of frustration....... The bottom line is is that those two men made their decision from day one and stuck to it, and I respect that even though I personally don't agree with it. I would shoot, and my reason for shooting I have explained numerous times in this forum. I don't want to eat a primate...........I don't want it mounted on my wall and I don't want the notoriety. But I would do it in the name of science and I would do it for the good of the species as a whole.

I heard about this news and I'll have to admit it has caused me to change my belief in bigfoot. I hope people can be a little understanding that a while back I came on with a pretty skeptical view - so much so that I just didn't think there was any point of interacting with what I thought was an absurd group. But this changes things. A lot. One of the things it forced me to do was go back through all the years in the outdoors where I saw things I couldn't quite explain. Before, I just figured if you can't explain them then that's where you have to leave it. Like the noises outside the tent. The knockings. The calls. The prints I could not identify. The food getting stolen out of my caches. The dark, upright walking figures at dusk in the brush. Wolf snares downed, pole sets triggered but empty. "Nests" too big for any other animals. The more I thought about it the more I realized how much evidence I had dismissed out of my contempt for the whole idea. I'll never again be so one-sided with my skepticism. You need to be skeptical on both sides of this: Skeptical if there is no evidence, and skeptical of no evidence ever being enough. And one of the sobering things about this is to think how much more might be out there. I see that it actually takes some courage to consider because small minds want to stick with the comfort of the status quo. Change is discomforting. I look forward to interacting here a lot more, even if this DNA isn't accepted in a peer review journal just yet. Just the possibility made me go through and re-examine all my experience with an open mind - and that is actually enough. I can see it, yeah. Especially one experience I will describe later but for now keeping on top of this is exciting enough.

Jreff is about as full of crap as any other board I have been to, just a bunch of rabid Skeptic wannabes cussing and scoffing everything under the sun with a few very well educated and reasonable minds going to and fro tbh. And you are exactly on, the results will stand for themselves, if Ketchum is a crack pot and did a poor job she will be torn apart, ruined, and bigfootery will take its biggest blow yet. If she nails it, it will be the biggest discovery in decades or centuries depending on the field of study. No in between, she either nails it or makes a fool of it all.

Having seen one, I don't buy they Hybrid-Human line. But even if it IS just an animal as I believe it is, I'm still not for killing one. Let's use our brains to understand them, not our muscle or weapons.

So we have hair, blood, saliva, a toenail, and the "steak" from the Smeja shooting as samples nearly all coming back with these same results? Yeah, skeptics will always want the dead body on a slab (and no, it wouldn't be homicide seeing as they aren't 100% human. It's not considered homicide when we kill an ape or a monkey, right? Why would sasquatch be treated any differently?) Hell, I'd take the life of criticism and haters to bring in the dead body of a bigfoot just to get this garbage over with. Put up or shut up. But how can "you" deny the results of so many samples from multiple sources coming back with the same exact result? I understand the current standing of this press release and the study, but if it truly turns out to be what they say it is (including other independent studies), dead specimen or not, you have to be completely ignorant to still deny the existence of the beast. In my experience, the majority of skeptics are armchair squatchers who like to instigate arguments online. BFE comments show this. If you are a skeptic and are actively in the woods searching to prove or disprove the thing then you will be bound to change your mind at some point. It's like riding motorcycles...it's not if you're going to be in an accident, it's when. It could be 3 months, 3 years, or 30 years but you will be involved in an accident.

Do you suppose there is a skeptic out there trying to figure out a way to hoax DNA to show how easy it is?

I would think the "skeptics" have put their head too far up their descending colon. Bill

No. To your last sentence, simply no.