Leaderboard

I don't think anyone who has ever posted here has said there is no money to be made in publishing. I do recall your campaign to insist that camping in the woods for months at a time is jolly good fun when funded by tax cheating scams. Not sure you ever got any traction there though. And also: Not as much as there once was. I would think our intrepid author would not have resorted to fraud if he'd be paid anything substantial for his writing, but maybe he was going to be a crook either way. I'm not seeing any accounting of the source of the funds in his off-shore accounts, and possibly all could be attributed to his fraudulent receipts. As a general rule though, I try to not let the criminal acts of random individuals color my perception of any class of persons. This guy just sounds sad and I'm sorry for him and his family.

To my mind it does make a difference. If the gentleman is so strapped that he resorts to not being completely truthful to get by, then, under additional pressure, it is possible that he could well stretch the truth in other ways. He has impugned his own credibility. It's sad. Only someone who knows the gentleman well and is confident about where he draws his line regarding the truth on various topics can be fully confident about the information he provides. Some people who feel it is ok to stretch things in some areas would never consider stretching things in others, but only those close to them over the years would know this.

I fail to see where making a living from book sales on any subject is a problem. While it's unfortunate that this individual was admittedly guilty of fraud, why does that mean it's wrong to profit from the Bigfoot phenomenon? If there's an interest in the subject matter, and he authors books on the subject, why is it wrong for him to profit from it? Fraud is wrong whether you're a Bigfoot proponent, a skeptic, a plumber, or an accountant. Would you feel better if he was found to be guilty of fraud without making money on Bigfoot-related topics? He failed to report income while collecting SSI. Does this somehow invalidate what he's written, or does it make it wrong to profit from it? Failing to claim the income correctly is the issue here, not how the money he failed to report was made. Besides, it doesn't seem to me that he profited exceedingly from the topic.

Hello All, Now, Dr. Disotell is a scientist. IMO this particular DNA sample would be EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT!. So I absolutely fail to understand this; "They were, I don’t remember if it was 1 or 2 bases different from human, but again you and I might differ". Would someone please explain to me how an intelligent person in the field can possibly believe this statement is acceptable? Then there's this: "So, my interpretation of that result was, with very careful and selective editing, a 1 base difference in that region is still a human." How can he think he can continue here with any credibility. He's just steered the public's mindset away from his apparent memory loss to one of absolute conviction. SHAME on him!

Hello Drew, So then what? Known primate DNA? I was under the impression from the article that the sample tested was Human and Chimpanzee: "Nelson: Scientific evidence, at this point, is now suggesting there really is an animal there. I cut it out, I re-purified it, and amplified it again using the same primers, and I got a very strong reaction. When I did that I got rid of the inhibitory stuff by running it out that way. And I found it was identical to human DNA, except it had one nucleotide polymorphism. That nucleotide that was different was a difference that is shared with chimpanzees. I got DNA that was primate DNA, and I knew that I might be looking at the DNA of a sasquatch. Narrator: The DNA says primate, but not quite human and not quite nonhuman primate. One of the base pairs is deviated."

Dmaker and his endless quest of showing the world and anyone who will look just how poor current Sasquatch research actually is. I can't say I disagree to be honest. But make no mistake people, this has nothng to do with the existence of the animal, just more about current research practices.

Of course they are!!! If they were looking for BF, based on correct assumptions, they would be having a lot more success.

I don't see how it's beside the point. The OP asked "So... do you think it's possible?" And some of us think it's possible & explained why. And as usual, most of us don't think it's possible & are explaining why. It would be boring if everybody just said "Yes, it's possible" or "no, it is not possible."