Guest Carl Posted June 18, 2011 Posted June 18, 2011 (edited) My (paranoid) question is, if the DNA results come back 98-99% human (correct me if I'm wrong), won't this generate less scientific and sociological ripples than if the results were actually "Unknown Great Ape"? My reasoning (and worry) is that non-scientists (normal people), might assume these 98-99% human results are attributed to contamination, or hoax - or the cultural perception of Bigfoot will dictate to them that Bigfoot cannot be mostly-fully-human, because that conclusion is inharmonious with the preconception, "Great Ape". The scientific community might take a superficial, surface-level glance at the results and largely dismiss them. That leaves us with a handful of scientists like Bindernagel and Meldrum (and presumably a minority of new scientists) to stake their reputations on it. Some think the 98-99% human thing is going to blow the lid off everyone, but I think it might be the opposite. A tremendous discovery that goes ignored, leaving us stranded again. Man, society moves very slowly sometimes, eh? (Correct me if the human percentage thing is incorrect) Edited June 18, 2011 by Carl
Guest Carl Posted June 18, 2011 Posted June 18, 2011 (edited) Dr. Ketchums DNA results proving Sasquatch are humans like us will only come as a surprise to North American researchers and the general public. The people who won't be surprised about the human DNA revelation will be the North American Indians, the Russians and the numerous face to face eyewitnesses. What if the general public doesn't buy that explanation (having little grasp on the conclusiveness of DNA)? In turn, what if the mainstream scientific world is unmoved, or dismissive of these results? Bigfoot = humans is an inordinately tough pill to swallow. Bigfoot = "giant ape creature" is an easier one. Perfect example of, "Seeing what we want to see". Harmony over truth = Discovery Ignored. PS. I'm not cynical, I'm just a bit worried. Edited June 18, 2011 by Carl
BobbyO Posted June 18, 2011 SSR Team Posted June 18, 2011 DNA results proving that these beings are in fact humans like us will emphasize what has been a very significant discovery back in 2008, namely Scott R. Nelsons work. His research that they have a spoken structured language has been very much overlooked, but was an important clue to many elements of the mystery. As I understand it he is now mapping meanings to the words and phrases with new information he has been given. A language which enables them to co-ordinate their behaviours, and that they likely regard us humans, in general, as enemies to be avoided at all costs. You know, something that hit me the most about the alleged tall tale from Florida was the references to Language & more specifically, teh reference & subsequent description by the subject of teh Book of a scenario that happened down there & what a specific " word " meant, prior to being told what happened 3,000 miles away in the Sierra Nevada's, & a situation that wasn't publically disclosed anywhere, so we're led to believe. Being a Witness to one of these Animals & in the same State as the " tall tale ", i've never personally seen it as as much of a " tall tale " as many others seem to think, because basically i know that they're there, or at least one was nearly 20 Years ago. When those two elements of Sasquatch, language and DNA, is proven to average man in street it wont be such a hard sell telling him that Neanderthal like beings have survived from the stone age and are still living amongst us. What has been a curve ball for everyone is that there is not a single species of squatch, that much I got out of the younger Erickson at the Harrison conference. They all don't look the same and share the exact same physical conformations. This has caused a lot of problems and conflict in the bigfoot research community. This would make sense though when we think about it..I have used this comparison before & will use it again now. Shaquille O' Neill >> 90 Year Old Chinese Lady. They are the same, but they're vastly different on the outside. Post discovery let the anthropologists and the environmentalists run with the ball from here. They are going to have a lot of fun with it, especially if the environmentalists thought the spotted owl was a big deal. Next the anthropologists have a new conundrum to contend with, humans that don't need tools or fire, but share the characteristic of speech, with us, mappable by a crypto-linguist. I think that to move forward, post discovery, in the most effective way, references to these beings using the words Sasquatch and Bigfoot have to be discontinued. There is simply too much baggage attached to those terms. I am sure Melba has spent considerable time devising a new naming convention which will give us a healthy and fresh start into the post discovery world. The name " Bigfoot ", i agree, i started a Thread on teh old BFF kind of tip toeing through my belief that the word isn't any good for the Subject at all, seeing where the Land would lay..General concensus was that a few agreed, most didn't really care though as we were nowhere near anything like discovery then, publically anyway. But Sasquatch i'm cool with, it has Native roots & is an abreviation of many different Native words to English, i think it has enough depth to be able to be used by the general public as a name for thiss subject, much mor ethan " Bigfoot " anyway. Human DNA .... Human language characteristics. Sure explains a lot of the mystery in my opinion. Congratulations to Adrian Erickson and his crew. And a big thank you to Dr. Ketchum. Kudos to the Olympic Pennisula team and all the others whom have made contributions of physical evidence to her lab, including myself. Absolutely, i'm all for not counting my Chickens but thsi whole thing, that i & many others, have been following really closely for the best part of 2 Years now i guess, is really looking positive to me. Thank you, whoever you are ( i'll say thank you to everyone else at the approppriate time ). I am very excited about the future and the adventures it will provide. I am too, although i am a bit worried as i generally think that they don't need our " help " at all & i get the feelign they're gonna get it after this, no matter what..I just hope that they stay ahead of us in teh same way over the next however many Years, as they have done over the past however many Years.
BobbyO Posted June 18, 2011 SSR Team Posted June 18, 2011 My (paranoid) question is, if the DNA results come back 98-99% human (correct me if I'm wrong), won't this generate less scientific and sociological ripples than if the results were actually "Unknown Great Ape"? I doubt it, i don't know for sure but i doubt it.. Primitive Man goign undetected on North America >> Animal goign undetected in North America ?? Both are equally pretty much mindblowing, but i think the Primitve Man would just about shave it..
Guest Cervelo Posted June 18, 2011 Posted June 18, 2011 IMO there will be an initial splash, a couple hundred pages here of "discussion" and maybe some sort of "expedition" to find Bigfoot! But guess what the "they" will find the same thing that's been found over the past fifty years. Bigfoot will remain as he has always been!
Guest Posted June 18, 2011 Posted June 18, 2011 You had to, no one else was going to (unless you went "over there", and you could probably find someone). You haven't even seen the results, and already you are trying to diminish, demean, and dismiss the results...is it any wonder why Skeptics get accused of being uninterested in honest debate and/or unreasoning bias? You're People's Exhibit #1 (of many) in that case. Please do your best, such as it is, not to confuse the probable outcome I have predicted for the Erickson Project/DNA results, which is based on numerous similar past scenarios, with being close minded or biased. If you want to call attention to posts that shout and tout what the end results of "evidence" or "studies" will be before they are actually published, then you need look no further than your very own writings. Peoples Exhibit indeed. The EP/DNA results will amount to just enough confusion to cause the BF community to argue about for less than a year - probably only months. It will not result in a scientific revelation, or the classification of a new sub-species or even a real scientific field study. This is based on history. There, now I've gone and sprained my other shoulder patting myself on the back. The irony in all of this is that if the exact opposite of what I predict happened, I would be happier about it than Mulder and Huntster combined.
Guest Posted June 18, 2011 Posted June 18, 2011 Alpinist said: very significant discovery back in 2008, namely Scott R. Nelsons work. His research that they have a spoken structured language has been very much overlooked, but was an important clue to many elements of the mystery. Susi says: Last week I accepted that BF may have telepathic abilities. Now they speak and use telepathic methods to communicate along with tree knocking and howls? The tree knocking may be their long distant form of communication since they don't have phones. (yet). Do they have a written language, or is everything oral and mind to mind? They may have added a *spoken* language so they could communicate with *us* since most human type's don't handle sudden words or thoughts appearing in our brains w/o us thinking them. I'm really trying, but HTG, I'm thinking that I've joined Dorothy and Toto over the rainbow....*way* over the rainbow.. I sincerely once thought that they were animals living freely in the forest around the world. Will all of this be revealed in the news? I'm a believer in BF, but even I am shocked at the abilities of BF, and I have been told by members here *whom* I *trust*. How in the world will the general public respond to all of this?
Guest Cervelo Posted June 18, 2011 Posted June 18, 2011 Has DNA evidence been used before to document any unknown/undiscovered species in the way that's being discussed here? This is not a fishing/baiting expedition on my part just so ya know before some of you launch with your multi page tirade. Just a simple yes or no and if yes please give an example for my enlightenment Thanks in advance!
Guest Posted June 18, 2011 Posted June 18, 2011 Going by some historical references, it would seem that live capture is actually rather easy, especially when it is a female, and you manage to surround her. Yeah, That will work until her hubby/boyfriend/son/daughter shows up and takes out the capture team. Remember they can communicate mentally to each other, so I would *never* ever think that capturing a creature of this size and with such amazing abilities as easy. I'd be afraid that the capture team would be taken out, or at least (hopefully),just scared away..
Guest Posted June 18, 2011 Posted June 18, 2011 Double blind testing is only applicable to statistical sampling of different populations, relative to the introduction of an externally applied influence. It's purpose is to remove subjective influences from possibly subjective measurements. While some of the Erickson analyses may be of a subjective nature, the data is a set of singular observations, made without any externally applied influence. Wow, Okay, That is good to hear. Thank you, my friend, for this information..
Guest Posted June 18, 2011 Posted June 18, 2011 Will there be a press conference? I think it will be similar to the "Ardi" discovery: Press conference first, followed by the documentary on a major channel. Susi says: That is good to hear, CNN, Fox, and MSNBC will cover it live and hopefully along with CBS, NBC, and ABC. It may be hard to miss, and I so hope so,because I fear missing the event. Will our forums hear about the event *before*it occurs?
indiefoot Posted June 18, 2011 Posted June 18, 2011 Please do your best, such as it is, not to confuse the probable outcome I have predicted for the Erickson Project/DNA results, which is based on numerous similar past scenarios, with being close minded or biased. If you want to call attention to posts that shout and tout what the end results of "evidence" or "studies" will be before they are actually published, then you need look no further than your very own writings. Peoples Exhibit indeed. The EP/DNA results will amount to just enough confusion to cause the BF community to argue about for less than a year - probably only months. It will not result in a scientific revelation, or the classification of a new sub-species or even a real scientific field study. This is based on history. There, now I've gone and sprained my other shoulder patting myself on the back. The irony in all of this is that if the exact opposite of what I predict happened, I would be happier about it than Mulder and Huntster combined. How many successes were preceded by failures?
Guest Posted June 18, 2011 Posted June 18, 2011 Bff Members- In all this and IMHO I sense a bit of legal "getting their ducks in a row" kind of status and keeping it as incognito as possible. Could be wrong but business is business and legalities are all part of the pie. Just my guess ptangier
Guest Posted June 18, 2011 Posted June 18, 2011 Will there be a press conference? I think it will be similar to the "Ardi" discovery: Press conference first, followed by the documentary on a major channel. Susi says: That is good to hear, CNN, Fox, and MSNBC will cover it live and hopefully along with CBS, NBC, and ABC. It may be hard to miss, and I so hope so,because I fear missing the event. Will our forums hear about the event *before*it occurs?
Guest vilnoori Posted June 18, 2011 Posted June 18, 2011 Folks, lets wait for their physical presence on this planet to be verified before we start discussing language and telepathy as a foregone conclusion. Language is maybe a logical premise for this proposed species but can only be verified after an anthropological/habituation team has done some extensively documented work, and for gosh sakes we haven't even proven telepathy in humans, which are much easier to come by for experimentation than sasquatches. One thing at a time before so many assumptions are made, please. I for one would be very happy just to see some proof of the first item. This fence-sitting is darn uncomfortable.
Recommended Posts