Guest parnassus Posted October 16, 2010 Share Posted October 16, 2010 Disotell looses points with me when he pontificates about peoples credibility he doesn't even know, and then claims "good science" when he hasn't given his methods or actual results pertaining to his "alleged" debunking of evidence. He might be on the level, but he's not doing anyone a service when people are trying to learn something about the evidence they have and want proof that they can have independently verified. The standards of "good science" don't change just because you're dealing with laymen. Well, yahoo, it was you, not him, that emphasized the "credible", so I'm not so sure you can make a case for "pontificating" and he was referring to data, not to people, right? I think you misinterpret his statement about "good science." I think he means he will either show that the DNA is a known animal, or have the find of a lifetime, but will use good science either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 Well, yahoo, it was you, not him, that emphasized the "credible", so I'm not so sure you can make a case for "pontificating" and he was referring to data, not to people, right? I think you misinterpret his statement about "good science." I think he means he will either show that the DNA is a known animal, or have the find of a lifetime, but will use good science either way. Credibility actually doesn't play any part in it does it? The samples are either bilogical or they are not, and you get DNA or you don't. So why throw that in there, unless he want's to stand in judgment of people? It gives him that little "out" , when he does get something remarkably close to human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rockinkt Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 Why would a scientist who is by training, position, and reputation, so far above the petty squabbling that is bigfootery worry about having a "little out"??? Like it has been said - but ignored by the petty squabblers - it's either nothing or the biggest find of the last 200 years that he gets to have a part in. Do you honestly think that he is going to let something like that slip through his fingers??? Why??? Jeez - CSN&Y had it right...paranoia runs deep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kerchak Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 Jeez - CSN&Y had it right...paranoia runs deep. I thought we weren't supposed to go around suggesting folks here have paranoia? That's how a thread here recently ended up getting locked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rockinkt Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 I will apologize if necessary. But, there is no other word to describe what is being tossed about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 Credibility actually doesn't play any part in it does it? The samples are either bilogical or they are not, and you get DNA or you don't. So why throw that in there, unless he want's to stand in judgment of people? It gives him that little "out" , when he does get something remarkably close to human. Yep. Why would a scientist who is by training, position, and reputation, so far above the petty squabbling that is bigfootery worry about having a "little out"??? Like it has been said - but ignored by the petty squabblers - it's either nothing or the biggest find of the last 200 years that he gets to have a part in. Do you honestly think that he is going to let something like that slip through his fingers??? Why??? Jeez - CSN&Y had it right...paranoia runs deep. Not paranoia...long experience with weasel words from weasel-y "skeptics"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 Not paranoia...long experience with weasel words from weasel-y "skeptics"... term it as you wish, but in the long run, the results are still........weasel squat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 ^Perfect description of the "skeptic" case if I ever heard one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 ^Perfect description of the "skeptic" case if I ever heard one! This is true, but also reality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 Why would a scientist who is by training, position, and reputation, so far above the petty squabbling that is bigfootery worry about having a "little out"??? Like it has been said - but ignored by the petty squabblers - it's either nothing or the biggest find of the last 200 years that he gets to have a part in. Do you honestly think that he is going to let something like that slip through his fingers??? Why??? Jeez - CSN&Y had it right...paranoia runs deep. It will start with people willing to send their samples to him. Some have, but not all of them. He does'nt document anything about the evidence before he destroys it during the testing, atleast he hasn't shown us that he does. Thats not how any evidence I have will be tested, or studied. This is why I ask what he is offering for free, because even if he did have a huge find, he wouldn't have the other parts documented to back up the find. Besides, just one sample isn't going to really do it by istself either. People want to send samples to someone having some success in amplification from hairs, and there are reports of inhibitors with certain animal hairs where additional processes have to be done, Disotell makes no mention that he is knowledgable about this. So, you'll have to forgive my lack of confidence in him at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 It will start with people willing to send their samples to him. Some have, but not all of them. He does'nt document anything about the evidence before he destroys it during the testing, atleast he hasn't shown us that he does. Thats not how any evidence I have will be tested, or studied. This is why I ask what he is offering for free, because even if he did have a huge find, he wouldn't have the other parts documented to back up the find. Besides, just one sample isn't going to really do it by istself either. People want to send samples to someone having some success in amplification from hairs, and there are reports of inhibitors with certain animal hairs where additional processes have to be done, Disotell makes no mention that he is knowledgable about this. So, you'll have to forgive my lack of confidence in him at the moment. Seems like a lot of science today is half arse. I don't trust very much that they (scientist) do. Its really a terrible way to feel but science has decieved us so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 Why would a scientist who is by training, position, and reputation, so far above the petty squabbling that is bigfootery worry about having a "little out"??? Like it has been said - but ignored by the petty squabblers - it's either nothing or the biggest find of the last 200 years that he gets to have a part in. Do you honestly think that he is going to let something like that slip through his fingers??? Why??? Jeez - CSN&Y had it right...paranoia runs deep. Rock lets say he found some Bigfoot dna and came out with it. How do you think his colleagues would react to him. What would his reputation be when the discovery first comes out. Lets say the first 3-4 years. Don't you think they would run him through the ringer. Look what they do to Global Warming skeptics To me thats one reason why science is not serious about investigating this phenomenon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 Jeez - CSN&Y had it right...paranoia runs deep. Actually, that was Buffalo Springfield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 Rock lets say he found some Bigfoot dna and came out with it. How do you think his colleagues would react to him. What would his reputation be when the discovery first comes out. Lets say the first 3-4 years. Don't you think they would run him through the ringer. Look what they do to Global Warming skeptics To me thats one reason why science is not serious about investigating this phenomenon. But if it's going to be the "smoking gun" on this mystery, who cares what others think/say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 What they say is relevent. The reason why is, the wildlife officials have ignored it for years and they are going to be held accountable. Who cares what the skeptics say, but the officials charged with this responsibilty are going to look like fools when larry the truck driver hauls this animal in. They also may be held responsible by losing there jobs and/or lawsuits that come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts