Bigfoot Dna

[Drew]

I would imagine it would depend on what a Judge "thinks" or on a legal "opinion".

It sounds to me like a specific allegation of wrongdoing by an individual against an individual.

Actually it would depend on the law, not on what a judge 'thinks'.

I don't think the law covers people's opinions.

[Guest]

Actually you would be suprised what a judge is capable of, no matter what the law says. You're right that they SHOULD follow the letter of the law, but this is not always the case. Heck, sometimes on vague laws it is up to a judge to set a precedent.

[Guest]

I don't intend to offend you, but I think you're completely wrong. I disagree totally with the PM counter-argument you sent. BTW, can you please post it in the thread here where it belongs? Or if you don't still have it, with your permission, I can post it for you.

I think that report will never come, and if it does, it will be hooey. Bigfoot is not human. For some species to be like those last two images I posted from California and Florida, their DNA would be easily identifiable. DNA testing can tell the difference between Jodie and Kitakaze, nevermind humming and hawing about Bigfoot and humans. It can tell wolf from dire wolf and wolf from wolf dog. They said in August that it would be about a month or a little more. I think they're stringing you and you're falling for it. Your argument is that you think it could take time. That is not what they said. Ketchum said she is very far along and enthusiastic and optimistic. Paulides is near Biscardi level in terms of reputation among Bigfooters. Did you see the thing about the David Paulides police officer that used his department and job to hoard celebrity autographs? That would be scamming, yes?

How can anyone be so credulous? You can wait for something that never comes, but I challenge anyone who thinks these people are legit to lay their avatar down on the table and accept my wager. Any updates reporting trouble with the DNA testing here?...

http://www.nabigfootsearch.com/home.html

Nope. Don't miss the section calling Ray Wallace an "original Bigfoot legend" and deeply knowledgable of Bigfoot, though. Wow.

He made a business plan, alright.

Go ahead and post it, I thought it was removed for a reason but it could be operator error (mine).

Now this is not a criticism at all, but you seem to lack a basic understanding of genetics. You have to have a pattern that matches a Bigfoot, Sasquatch, whatever name it ends up being called in order to say "This DNA belongs to Sasquatch". Now if they get a bunch of samples with a matching pattern that doesn't resemble anything in the catalog they may be able to say this MIGHT be something that warrants further investigation. I think that's the best they can hope for at this point.

You and I have only have 13 areas maximum of differentiation in the 30,000 genes we have in common. There is a pattern in the catalog that matches both of us. There is more genetic variation in a troop of chimpanzees than in the entire human race. That means they have many more than the 13 areas of differentiation that we use to ID specific humans. It still isn't 100%. There are people who have matching genetic profiles, although it is rare. I for one have never thought Bigfoot is human. I don't think you have to be human to be intelligent depending on how you define that term. I think many of the greater mammals are intelligent such as elephants and whales. I don't have an opinion about where Bigfoot might fit in with other primates since we don't know exactly what a Bigfoot is at this point.

As I said before, if Biscardi or Paulides aren't directly interpreting the research, then I don't think it matters what their involvement is in the project. I'm not into the politics of Bigfoot so I may be overlooking some kind of nuance you maybe more attune to since that is where your interests lie.

And I'll repeat this, it's not that people are buying this hook, line, and sinker, it's just that we want to wait and see what comes of it, if anything. You might be right, but you maybe disappointed yourself. Either way it won't affect my beliefs since I know Bigfoot exists. You haven't seen one or have known anyone that you trusted implicitly that has seen one so I can understand your viewpoint. I just think your judgment is a little premature and not based on anything really substantial, or at least nothing I've seen so far.

[Guest nycBig]

Biscardi looks like he is two hotdogs away from a heartattack.

Edited October 9, 2010 by nycBig

[Guest River]

Something that one might consider when approaching "evidence" of this nature is that bigfoot is a business. It has become more and more that way. It may have started to bloom with Patterson and his film but now its bloomed into much more. More believers = more dollars. More skpetics = less believers. These "pro" bigfoooters have a direct interest in keeping people hanging on. Thats why in this arena you have a lot of marketing ploys that lead to the same expected (at this point) results. How many times have we heard about "possible" DNA or "possible" footage, or "possible" habituations? How many of them have panned out?

It is important to keep this in mind (imho) when claims come in of this nature.

Edited October 9, 2010 by River

[Guest]

No, I can't argue with that, but most of us who believe have a very good reason. I think I can speak for most of us who are witnesses or are experiencing or have experienced something unexplainable by saying it's not going to make any difference one way or the other what the results will be from this project. If it pans out, that's just icing on the cake, if not, it's just another dead end as usual.

To me, the expenditure for a project like this is far greater than any benefit financially that could be gained. I don't know anyone who has gotten wealthy from studying or hunting Bigfoot, or any anthropologist or archeologist that got wealthy from discovering an unknown hominid. Whoever manages to definitively establish Bigfoot as existing might get a mention in a text book, news, National Geographic, something like that if they are a lay person. If they are affiliated with a university, the university will claim ownership more than likely.

[Guest parnassus]

Go ahead and post it, I thought it was removed for a reason but it could be operator error (mine).

Now this is not a criticism at all, but you seem to lack a basic understanding of genetics. You have to have a pattern that matches a Bigfoot, Sasquatch, whatever name it ends up being called in order to say "This DNA belongs to Sasquatch". Now if they get a bunch of samples with a matching pattern that doesn't resemble anything in the catalog they may be able to say this MIGHT be something that warrants further investigation. I think that's the best they can hope for at this point.

You and I have only have 13 areas maximum of differentiation in the 30,000 genes we have in common. There is a pattern in the catalog that matches both of us. There is more genetic variation in a troop of chimpanzees than in the entire human race. That means they have many more than the 13 areas of differentiation that we use to ID specific humans. It still isn't 100%. There are people who have matching genetic profiles, although it is rare. I for one have never thought Bigfoot is human. I don't think you have to be human to be intelligent depending on how you define that term. I think many of the greater mammals are intelligent such as elephants and whales. I don't have an opinion about where Bigfoot might fit in with other primates since we don't know exactly what a Bigfoot is at this point.

Jodie, with all due respect, this is completely wrong. You have an idea of human genetic variation which is apparently based on systems of forensic DNA testing. But it is completely wrong as regards human genetic variation. Your attempted criticism of another member's knowledge of this subject is ?????????

But interestingly, I think that this misunderstanding is what lies at the heart of the current kerfuffle about the samples that Dr. Ketchum has. I expect that Paulides has the same misunderstanding. I am not sure about Dr. Ketchum. I am now hearing something about doing sequencing on the DNA. I expect that means that we are moving away from the forensic concepts and into a more meaningful analysis.

Unless I miss my guess, this is when Emily Litella will take center stage.

Edited October 9, 2010 by parnassus

[Guest]

Now this is not a criticism at all, but you seem to lack a basic understanding of genetics. You have to have a pattern that matches a Bigfoot, Sasquatch, whatever name it ends up being called in order to say "This DNA belongs to Sasquatch". Now if they get a bunch of samples with a matching pattern that doesn't resemble anything in the catalog they may be able to say this MIGHT be something that warrants further investigation. I think that's the best they can hope for at this point.

what part of "this is not a criticism" didn't you understand Parn?

[Guest vilnoori]

Something that one might consider when approaching "evidence" of this nature is that bigfoot is a business. It has become more and more that way. It may have started to bloom with Patterson and his film but now its bloomed into much more. More believers = more dollars. More skpetics = less believers. These "pro" bigfoooters have a direct interest in keeping people hanging on. Thats why in this arena you have a lot of marketing ploys that lead to the same expected (at this point) results. How many times have we heard about "possible" DNA or "possible" footage, or "possible" habituations? How many of them have panned out?

It is important to keep this in mind (imho) when claims come in of this nature.

That's a good point, River. I can agree with you there. Still, Dr. Ketchum does have a lot to lose if she publishes something on the matter that is weak. HER money and reputation are directly linked with her expertise and credibility. If she publishes bumkum that is not well supported she's essentially shooting herself in the foot. Why would she do that? I doubt that she would make enough money out of her Bigfoot project to cover her losses if she failed. Dr. Meldrum is in a similar situation, though the sales from his book are no doubt helping a lot.

[Guest]

Jodie, with all due respect, this is completely wrong. You have an idea of human genetic variation which is apparently based on systems of forensic DNA testing. But it is completely wrong as regards human genetic variation. Your attempted criticism of another member's knowledge of this subject is ?????????

But interestingly, I think that this misunderstanding is what lies at the heart of the current kerfuffle about the samples that Dr. Ketchum has. I expect that Paulides has the same misunderstanding. I am not sure about Dr. Ketchum. I am now hearing something about doing sequencing on the DNA. I expect that means that we are moving away from the forensic concepts and into a more meaningful analysis.

Unless I miss my guess, this is when Emily Litella will take center stage.

I see what you are talking about but what was I wrong about? I was responding to Kitakaze talking about a lab being able to distinguish between me and him, how that is done, and distinguishing between human and otherwise.

I said earlier that finding a pattern to build upon was what was needed. So evidently they have come up with something if they are trying to do sequencing. I don't think I'm misunderstanding the monumental task this is going to be and the amount of time it is going to take to do it.

I still don't think Kitakaze understands the basics. In any case, it seems he has a severe misunderstanding of the subject and using his misconceptions to demonstrate some kind of evidence of fraud is kind of like propaganda at this point. We need to wait to see what the results are from the analysis.

[Guest parnassus]

what part of "this is not a criticism" didn't you understand Parn?

drift, yes, I love that "what part of....don't you understand" rejoinder too. However, the next words were these: "you seem to lack a basic understanding of genetics."

It is what it is.

[Guest parnassus]

I see what you are talking about but what was I wrong about? I was responding to Kitakaze talking about a lab being able to distinguish between me and him, how that is done, and distinguishing between human and otherwise.

I said earlier that finding a pattern to build upon was what was needed. So evidently they have come up with something if they are trying to do sequencing. I don't think I'm misunderstanding the monumental task this is going to be and the amount of time it is going to take to do it.

I still don't think Kitakaze understands the basics. In any case, it seems he has a severe misunderstanding of the subject and using his misconceptions to demonstrate some kind of evidence of fraud is kind of like propaganda at this point. We need to wait to see what the results are from the analysis.

Well, Jodie, you are completely wrong on the scale of DNA variations. I tried to direct you; the 11 or 13 or 6 markers (various states, etc) used in forensic testing are only a tiny fraction of the variations in DNA. You should find a good book on the subject.

As far as kitakaze:

is this it?

Bigfoot is not human. For some species to be like those last two images I posted from California and Florida, their DNA would be easily identifiable. DNA testing can tell the difference between Jodie and Kitakaze, nevermind humming and hawing about Bigfoot and humans. It can tell wolf from dire wolf and wolf from wolf dog.

He is absolutely correct. For a non-scientist, I think he manifests a good grasp of what this is about. What "basics" do you think he doesn't understand? sincerely, I don't think you are in a position to judge kitakaze; your knowledge base is not adequate, imho. But of course you can do whatever you wish.

As far as sequencing is concerned, here is the deal: if she sent this to Todd Disotell or John Hawks, and asked him whether or not this is human, he could tell in 72 hours or so whether this was human or not. I think it is. In which case, sequencing the entire genome would be unnecessary.

[southernyahoo]

As far as sequencing is concerned, here is the deal: if she sent this to Todd Disotell or John Hawks, and asked him whether or not this is human, he could tell in 72 hours or so whether this was human or not. I think it is. In which case, sequencing the entire genome would be unnecessary.

Unless the morphology of hair says "not Human". You would then think "contamination" if there wasn't sufficient deviation from human, but contamination of what? Where is the donor DNA? Disotell hasn't demonstrated he could or would answer that question.

[Guest nycBig]

would be good to hear from someone that knows for sure of a scheme to make money off believers. someone that can tell us if there really is intentful deception out there. It is hard to know sometimes.

[indiefoot]

Kitekaze has made a very strong allegation of criminal wrongdoing against Dr. Ketchum and to my knowledge has shown no evidence to support his charge. One of the few scientist who have agreed to help Bigfoot researchers, which is what all have been asking for, comes forward and gets greeted with this sort of thing.