southernyahoo Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 My point was more that I think that all supposedly bigfoot DNA samples that have come back as human have indeed come up as sapiens because everything else surely would have been described differently, because homo finds other than sapiens are always exciting. By which I mean that I don't think any DNA evidence that came back as human was bigfoot DNA (or was contaminated). Shake, we need to ask this question. Do the current labs that would do a species ID test, actually run a test that would discern the difference between say Homo sapiens and a Neanderthal, and what specific markers are cheked for that could discern this difference. If Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal are identical on those markers then Neanderthals would test positive for Sapiens. Since Neanderthals are considered extinct, I doubt the quick marker tests are designed to eliminate them as a potential source. This is something we need to understand when a test is run on suspect BF samples.
Guest DWA Posted June 7, 2017 Posted June 7, 2017 On 2/8/2011 at 8:07 PM, gigantor said: It seems that researchers today are successfully avoiding the "Ivory Towers" (i.e. universities and academia) by using commercial enterprises to fund research. Witness all of the BF shows paid for by the History channel, the Discovery channel, the National Geographic channel, etc. All of these companies are vying to produce the best documentary about BF (which draw great ratings) every year. I offer "Paranormal BF" as the latest. They funded a state of the art, science based documentary with plenty of qualified scientists (who want/need the exposure) to spend considerable time and effort on the subject. No way traditional academia would provide funds for such a lavish examination of the matter. Competition is a great thing. I might say that is what is being bypassed here is peer review, which is useless on a topic on which most of the peers appear to be in flat denial. On another site a few years back, I went over a number of prominent skeptics (why are bigfoot skeptics 'prominent?') in their critiques of Meldrum's Legend Meets Science. The oddest thing happened: none of the skeptics talked about the book! They started with the same old scoffing and at least one of them had the temerity to ask why Meldrum wasn't doing a detailed analysis of the man-in-suit theorem! Of course to any serious proponent the answer to that is obvious: the evidence makes it clear that that's a silly place to start, because there is no way that could account for a significant fragment of the evidence, never mind all of it. I could add: if that's your silly theorem...you do the work! When the mainstream is totally intolerant of any effort to resolve a scientific question...well thank God for one thing at least about the internet, and television. Bypass the people who can't handle the truth.
Recommended Posts