Operation Persistence

[Guest]

With all of that said, I can see and understand your frustration.

I understand it, too.

[Guest]

Actually, it IS that easy ... but only IF a study is conducted properly, IF the resulting paper is written properly, IF the paper appears in a real journal, IF the data is openly provided for scrutiny by other scientists, and IF there is appropriate transparency (at which times the peer review process permits public discussion). However, that was not the case with the Ketchum study. And I'm not even getting into the credibility issues.

DNA is very much a viable way to prove existence of a species, body or no body. Don't lose your confidence in the science because one person muffed it up so badly. The phrase, "don't toss the baby out with the bath water," comes to mind. Let's look at the Ketchum study as a major lesson in what NOT to do, but let's not give up on DNA.

One positive thing that has resulted from this debacle is that several other DNA scientists have surfaced who are willing to get involved. Of course, that's the way this is SUPPOSED to work when you publish in a journal ... other scientists see your assertions and want to test your findings. The problem here is that the data is being held back instead of being provided openly to anyone who wants to test it, which is what would have been required had she published in a real journal.

Let's see what Sykes, an actual geneticist, can do before we lose confidence in DNA as a viable way to prove this species' existence.

[Martin]

No you don't.

.

I really do.......

[Guest]

Actually, it IS that easy ... but only IF...

Yes. If, if, if. To be clear, nobody in the NAWAC is arguing that point. If we find ourselves with a sample to be tested, it will be tested. But, our experience thus far has been that either we find a very small sample (such as the hair that's been/being analyzed by Sykes) or the difficulties of the environment lead to degradation of the sample and its worthless (such as the blood we've had analyzed).

Our primary mission is to get the animal listed so we they and their environment can be conserved. We will do whatever we can to meet that goal. It may be that DNA does that. Our efforts are focused on collecting equally if not more incontrovertible evidence. In fact, we want proof. That's what we're working toward.

[dmaker]

"Again. (AGAIN.) Known species. So what? "Look mommy I blowed up a balloon!" Cool! She's three. But it's sort of expected that when one blows in a balloon that's gonna happen."

I think the point Drew was trying to make ( and I don't for a second think it escaped you, but let's float some confusing balloon response instead, right?), is that when you go to where an animal is reported to be, then finding reliable, physical evidence of that animals' presence is really not that hard. Except for Bigfoot of course. Real animals leave poop and hair behind. BF leaves bear hair and dog hair behind and sometimes even bits of carpet somehow. Odd.

[dmaker]

"Again. (AGAIN.) Known species. So what? "Look mommy I blowed up a balloon!" Cool! She's three. But it's sort of expected that when one blows in a balloon that's gonna happen."

I think the point Drew was trying to make ( and I don't for a second think it escaped you, but let's float some confusing balloon response instead, right?), is that when you go to where an animal is reported to be, then finding reliable, physical evidence of that animals' presence is really not that hard. Except for Bigfoot of course. Real animals leave poop and hair behind. BF leaves bear hair and dog hair behind and sometimes even bits of carpet somehow. Odd.

[Guest]

...when you go to where an animal is reported to be, then finding reliable, physical evidence of that animals' presence is really not that hard. Except for Bigfoot of course. Real animals leave poop and hair behind. BF leaves bear hair and dog hair behind and sometimes even bits of carpet somehow. Odd.

I find that comment to be entirely disingenuous. Setting aside the silly "not that hard" comment, there have been many hair samples found that match one another and all suggest a primate origin but are not from a known species. Just because, in the course of trying to ascertain the existence of this creature, other hairs are, from time to time, brought forward that match other known animals does not in any way detract from the existing body of hair evidence that's doesn't. I mean, how is one to determine if a hair is from an ape if one doesn't examine it? And should the person who tries be ridiculed when it comes up as being from a raccoon? And who's the one being more "scientific" in this equation: the person collecting and examining the hair or the one who dismisses their results?

Your attitude seems in no way constructive or reasonably open-minded. Actually, it's just another flippant comment made by someone who's apparently ignorant of the actual body of circumstantial evidence that exists. Of course, since none of this proves anything (a point I've repeatedly made and willingly do so again), you're right and I'm the cray-cray bigfoot believer.

[dmaker]

^^ You're right about the "not that hard" comment. I was typing quickly and should have put more thought into that. I should change it to possible. Is that better?

"I mean, how is one to determine if a hair is from an ape if one doesn't examine it? And should the person who tries be ridiculed when it comes up as being from a raccoon? " Uhm, yes actually. If one claims this came from a giant, hairy ape that I saw with my own eyes ( I swearz!), and it comes back as raccoon, then yeah that is pretty laughable actually. The person hunting Bigfoot cannot tell a raccoon from a giant ape? You don't find that amusing in the least? I do.

My comment was only meant to show that a wolverine, unlike Bigfoot, actually leaves traces behind that can be gathered, tested and proven.

[dmaker]

I think you mentioned your group has some samples currently being analyzed? That's great. I'm eager to see what the results are when the study is finished. I'm sorry if my comments seem to undermine or disrespect your efforts. I am sure you have a thick skin ( or you wouldn't be doing this) so my opinion, in the end, is of little importance to you. And that is how I would feel, were I you. I do probably come across a little jaded as I'm tired of all the excuses and failed promises in Bigfootery. Nothing has been proven, ever, in the history of Bigfoot. Everything is either faked, something else, man made or just pure fantasy. It gets very tiring after awhile. The wizard behind the curtain has been exposed time after time, yet people keep plugging away and trying to will Bigfoot into existence. Anyway, I'm repeating things I've said many times in a different thread. This may seem disingenuous to you, but I don't think you're full of it, or deliberately deceiving. I'm going to bow out of this thread. I don't enjoy feeling like the big jerk raining on your parade.

[Guest]

If one claims this came from a giant, hairy ape that I saw with my own eyes ( I swearz!), and it comes back as raccoon, then yeah that is pretty laughable actually.

Yet neither I nor anyone in my group have made that claim. On the contrary, we have published or made public the results of all our efforts to date, including our findings with regard to hair evidence in particular.

What I read is yet another reductionist approach that puts all those researching this phenomenon at the lowest possible denominator by someone harboring a preconceived and prejudiced opinion of us.

[Guest DWA]

I think the point Drew was trying to make ( and I don't for a second think it escaped you, but let's float some confusing balloon response instead, right?), is that when you go to where an animal is reported to be, then finding reliable, physical evidence of that animals' presence is really not that hard. Except for Bigfoot of course. Real animals leave poop and hair behind. BF leaves bear hair and dog hair behind and sometimes even bits of carpet somehow. Odd.

Well, bipto took care of this.

So all I have to add is that he and I have pretty much two alternatives when it comes to some folks:

(1) Repeat the same explanations over and over and over, and get the same responses that talk past the explanations (like yours once again did); or

(2) Have some **** fun with you.

Sometimes I choose combination of the two.

I'm not here to debate but to educate all the young future biologists out there who won't grow up with their brains full of spoonfed bigfoot skepticism, like the current crop.

But as I'm not getting paid to do that, I'll indulge myself sometimes, because in the end this is just fun for me. Both (1) and (2).

So. Young future Bigfooters? Blame him. And let him know, OK? ;-)

[Drew]

I'm not here to debate but to educate all the young future biologists out there who won't grow up with their brains full of spoonfed bigfoot skepticism, like the current crop.

That's great, I'm telling future biologists to concentrate on animals that we have evidence showing that they exist, or even strong evidence that they might exist. Do not focus on animals that are proven to be hoaxes time and again. If the evidence shows you that Bigfoot might indeed exist, then by all means focus on that. But until that time comes:

Do not spend time on Giant creatures, somehow surviving in trailer park septic field right of ways, which lie prostrate in highways, and howl like Coyotes, in all 49 continental United States. There are perfectly valid existing animals which will require your time.

[Guest]

Do not spend time on Giant creatures, somehow surviving in trailer park septic field right of ways, which lie prostrate in highways, and howl like Coyotes, in all 49 continental United States. There are perfectly valid existing animals which will require your time.

Your head is so deeply buried in the sand. Or something. Your attitude is distinctly unscientific.

[Drew]

How is 'follow the evidence' an unscientific attitude?

[dmaker]

It's very unscientific in the Bigfoot world to not be impressed or massively swayed by anecdotal and circumstantial evidence. In other words, non scientific evidence. You are not very scientific if you insist upon scientific evidence in the bizarro world of Bigfoot.