Red Eyes?

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

1 minute ago, JDL said:

I'll take it under consideration.

 

I've seen claims, but haven't had the expertise or time to validate them to my satisfaction, that our DNA shows markers consistent with genetic engineering. 

 

Yes, there indeed has been and since then there has been an ongoing controversy over whether or not it's right to change an entire species and use subjugation Vs observe them while they develop on their own. 

[MIB]

8 hours ago, JDL said:

I'll take it under consideration.

 

I've seen claims, but haven't had the expertise or time to validate them to my satisfaction, that our DNA shows markers consistent with genetic engineering

 

That, and exactly for that reason.   The claim is that the markers are ONLY consistent with genetic tampering, that there are no known naturally occurring instances of the specific sort of fusion that leaves us with 23 instead of 24 pairs.    How do people without the expertise determine whether those who made the claim have the expertise to make it?   Just like bigfoot, there's scofticism on one hand and faith on the other, and people in both camps claiming middle ground they don't hold.  Ironic, huh?

 

MIB

[Guest DWA]

12 hours ago, MIB said:

 

Possibly, give or take.   Which might be those larger than today's size people you mentioned earlier today.

 

It is no wilder than any of the other explanations offered for the weird combinations of individually unlike (for a great ape) characteristics.     It costs nothing to set that answer slightly aside but leave it on the table in case more supporting evidence comes along.   Doing so is a more valid process for real science than cherry picking data to make the things we don't like go away .. particularly when there's a chance our expectations are what's wrong and the data is right. 

 

MIB

Rupert Sheldrake is one of the scientists coming on stronger with insistence that we research things that appear to exist but are largely labeled 'paranormal.' One of the ones on which he spends time is the feeling of being watched, which we've all had, and which there is apparently some evidence can be felt by people under electronic surveillance.  And, you know, sasquatch encounters.  I put a couple of his videos in the Paranormal area of the forum.

 

An essential scientific skill is 'setting this aside for now.' Tossing what appears a legit sasquatch report because one doesn't like a couple of the tag-ons isn't strictly kosher from a scientific perspective.  There is mind-so-open-brains-fall-out...then there is, compile evidence and direct research in productive channels.  One can always double back, but not when the data got dumped, back there a ways.

 

 

 

[hiflier]

A couple of years ago I made the decision to NOT focus on the perceived malaise of a system that won't review the evidence. Instead I chose to focus more on ways to get past that. I would be easy to just sit back and point fingers and do nothing but......well.......point fingers, but working on avenues to break into mainstream is not more fun but also may have a better potential of getting a response. There are a lot of different aspects to the Sasquatch subject and no one disciplinary field will look at all of them. For instance animal studies has many different specialized fields under the heading of zoology. If there wasn't there wouldn't be room in the field for all of the zoologists that higher education pumps out. It is those sub-categories of the various specialties that hold the most promise.

 

Breaking down the different reported aspects of Sasquatch and then taking each one and blind testing academia may be the way to go. But, whatever is targeted, the evidence needs to be solid. Evidence stemming from anecdotes- to include footprint casts-  will never serve as being that solid evidence. Period.  The trick of course then would be just zeroing in on solid evidence and then presenting it as objectively as possible. Few if any people have the time and patience to take on such a task. It's too easy to say take some solid evidence, find a specialized field that deals with that kind of evidence, and then go knock on that door. In truth? It's not so easy to do.

Edited June 24, 2017 by hiflier

[JDL]

MIB, the source that made the claim was briefing a group with geneticists in the crowd, he showed the interrupted sequence in a slide, and then said something to the effect of, and here's the thing "everybody" knows, nobody can explain, and nobody's talking about publicly.

 

The reaction from the crowd was an amused "Yeah, you're right".  It was the crowd's reaction, and the sequence depicted on the slide that prevented me from dismissing it.