Guest wudewasa Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 How could it test positive for Bigfoot, unless they have a documented specimen? The term "specimen" is a subjective term. A bigfoot specimen could be a finger, tooth, organ, skull or even an entire organism. The complete body is really what is best practice for describing a species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dr. Boogie Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Regardless of the significance or otherwise of the information provided I can't help myself from thinking how happy I am that I've never been in a position to share any of my secrets with RL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) I'm glad that there are some folks on here who are more familiar with the translation of DNA information than I am!! Or else I would've just read the data and shrugged.... I know roughly what it means, but not precisely what it means. When it comes to these sorts of things I reckon the more precise an explanation the better. So thanx bio-nerds! Edited November 23, 2011 by StankApe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Richard Stubstad gives his take on Lindsay's MC1R post here. Well to quote you Slim, I'm Gobsmacked!!! He started the whole thing and now he admonishes Lindsey for talking about it??? The irony of it all never ceases to amaze me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dr. Boogie Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Well to quote you Slim, I'm Gobsmacked!!! He started the whole thing and now he admonishes Lindsey for talking about it??? The irony of it all never ceases to amaze me. I do wonder where it's all leading? What's driving the race to divulge information from those 'in the know'? And if it's all true then is it in the best interests of the project(s)? Whatever the outcome I'm finding it a good study in human nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TooRisky Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Assuming that all of what Lindsay is leaking from the source is true, It may come to be in our inherent Human arrogance that we are taking these results in the fashion that we see them in the inverse of what they may be... Seems we tend to judge ourselves on some evolutionary chart with branches skewing from a common trunk... What if we missed a branch, what if there were mis-identification's or more probably assumptions that were made... What if the species known as Sasquatch did seem to procreate way back in time with say Neanderthals, Indians, and maybe the early Europeans... If all this comes to fruition and is fully verifiable we may have to find that branch where this species come's into play and how it effected our very own perception of ourselves... So maybe this should be looked at in an inverse in not how BF is close to us, but how we got so close to the species some how... Just sayin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bsruther Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 The term "specimen" is a subjective term. A bigfoot specimen could be a finger, tooth, organ, skull or even an entire organism. The complete body is really what is best practice for describing a species. Understood, but the statement I quoted suggests that Bigfoot is already proven to be real. "I believe that the DNA testing subsequently concluded that all three of these samples tested positive for Bigfoot on DNA." How can it test positive for Bigfoot if Bf is not an animal/being, documented and proven to exist? That's like going to the Doctor because you're sick and he takes blood, performs a test and then tells you that you have a virus that doesn't yet exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wild eyed willy Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 can some one give me a history lesson here, who is substad, who is lindsy and who is RL???????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) Interesting piece of fiction. My source tell me that the dna study has been rejected because misidentified human samples or outright hoaxing can't be ruled out. If your interested, my source is my brain. I am still trying to understand how something can be tested positive for bf dna when we never tested dna from a bf. It is like me saying I have some dna that tests positive for a Martian, and guess what, the results confirm that Martian's are human. Just read stubstad's take and it seem to me the dna could be the 1 in a million human dna or a dna of a bf. If you assume that there is 5000 bf in the world you are still more likely to have a 1 in a million human dna. 7 billion human dna and 5000 bf. How many samples are in the gen bank?. Does anyone know. Is it one million. Edited November 23, 2011 by bigfootnis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Wow. This is confusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 This statement would lead me to believe they already have one. "I believe that the DNA testing subsequently concluded that all three of these samples tested positive for Bigfoot on DNA." How could it test positive for Bigfoot, unless they have a documented specimen? Shhh. You'll ruin the rollout of the patented DNAsquatch test. (have your credit card ready...they'll include a second test at no charge--just pay separate shipping and handling!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) If you use Firefox, you can download a plugin called Greasemonkey that will allow you to change all references to "bigfoot" and "sasquatch" to "unknown primate". That will solve your problem. Unfortunately it can't stop you from drawing any inferences from the fact the samples were collected from areas of purported Bigfoot activity. Edited November 23, 2011 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 I am still trying to understand how something can be tested positive for bf dna when we never tested dna from a bf. I have been asking that questions for months and only get back some gigantic answer that didn't answer anything, BF must be the only animal with little tags on it's DNA that says. Made In America Genuine Bigfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Assuming that all of what Lindsay is leaking from the source is true, Huge assumption. Why assume such? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest COGrizzly Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Other than the wonderful people/personalities on the BFF2, it all seems like a tremendous waste of time anymore. NEED A SPECIMEN FOLKS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts