I Think We Are Seeing The Dawning Of A New Type Of Dishonesty In The Bigfoot World...

[Guest DWA]

Species ID cannot be done without an identifiable body part.  Hair degrades.  No one will accept a hair sample as proof for that very reason.

 

We see deer hair all the time,  and go:  deer hair.

 

Know why?  We accept deer.

 

The eyewitness reports and footprints are far more compelling evidence than any hair sample.  If they cannot be accepted...neither can DNA results from anything less than an identifiable body or part.

Edited February 21, 2014 by DWA

[Guest Urkelbot]

DNA would be incredibly hard to hoax unlike all other current evidence.

Although I have thought lately of a few clever ways one could hoax some Bigfoot DNA. It would require lots of time and access to a molecular biology lab. It couldn't fool an expert like Sykes and would fall apart under enough scrutiny.

[Guest DWA]

Actually, no, the evidence has the weight it does with relevant scientists because of the virtual impossibility of a comprehensive hoax.  (And the extreme ease of separating out the hoax material, which isn't anything at all like what's unexplained, and just like garden-variety tomfoolery.)

 

If the DNA can't be connected to something identifiable as unique...I give you 'bigfoot DNA history.' Not getting anywhere with it, are we.

[southernyahoo]

Species ID cannot be done without an identifiable body part. 

 

This is wrong as stated. While scientists might want a body, they can know the body of a unique primate exists from the DNA.

 

I use to be able to find direct access to the PDF for this paper, but it clearly states that a single gene in the mtDNA can identify species. You don't have to go look at the body. Additionally, some species aren't noticably different enough to call them a different species without DNA analysis. So DNA works better than their physical appearance in some cases. We percieve BF to be different enough from us that their DNA would surely show it with enough study. If it weren't human, the gene discussed below would show it to be so. The technology and knowledge of knowns leaves bigfoot DNA little room to hide unless they are us.

 

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/g06-025

[Guest Urkelbot]

Actually, no, the evidence has the weight it does with relevant scientists because of the virtual impossibility of a comprehensive hoax.  (And the extreme ease of separating out the hoax material, which isn't anything at all like what's unexplained, and just like garden-variety tomfoolery.)

 

If the DNA can't be connected to something identifiable as unique...I give you 'bigfoot DNA history.' Not getting anywhere with it, are we.

Blogsquatches, footprints, pgf.  All can be hoaxed.  The rest is witness reports same as ghosts, fairies, aliens.

It's why the majority doesn't believe Bigfoot existence is likely.  The evidence is weak and everyone knows it.  Doesn't mean Bigfoot can't exist but it's weak weaker than bud light.  Otherwise more people and scientists would be on board.

If you have authentic Bigfoot DNA scientists will come around.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3372434/

Look at that novel virus purely from DNA without a cultured or isolated virus.

[bipedalist]

This is wrong as stated. While scientists might want a body, they can know the body of a unique primate exists from the DNA.

 

I use to be able to find direct access to the PDF for this paper, but it clearly states that a single gene in the mtDNA can identify species. You don't have to go look at the body. Additionally, some species aren't noticably different enough to call them a different species without DNA analysis. So DNA works better than their physical appearance in some cases. We percieve BF to be different enough from us that their DNA would surely show it with enough study. If it weren't human, the gene discussed below would show it to be so. The technology and knowledge of knowns leaves bigfoot DNA little room to hide unless they are us.

 

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/g06-025

 

Magic (copyrighted, so download and use accordingly)

 

http://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/7591/1/Hickey_Genome2006.pdf

Edited February 22, 2014 by bipedalist

[Spader]

I've noticed the development of a new type of dishonest "player" in the bigfoot world since the subject entered the mainstream. It's primarily on the discussion boards but I think it can apply to the whole "community", whatever that means.

There are 3 aspects to these new hoaxers:

1) They claim an expertise, whether that be as a debunker, researcher, habituater, or inner circle member.

2) They claim to have definitive proof about the truth or falsehood of an aspect of bigfoot or it's community.

3) They refuse to share the information for a cryptic reason.

The motivation seems to be an implied authority or simply attention. A true researcher would share their knowledge.

I propose we call them "Gamers". Playing the game at the expense of everyone else.

What do you think?

Tim B.

My only opinion is if you got the goods show them, If you do have them and do not want to show them, don't bring it up in the first place and string the rest of us along. Otherwise you are a BIG FAT UGLY TROLL. You Kiiiiiiiiiiiinigits! Pthhhh. Pthhhh. Pthhhh You English Pigdogs! I blow my nose at you!

[Guest Crowlogic]

The so call new type of dishonesty is actually not so new.  The so called experts and keepers of "special  bigfoot knowledge" have been doing everything stated in the OP for years now.  Same goes for UFO's and sea monsters.

[Terry]

My only opinion is if you got the goods show them, If you do have them and do not want to show them, don't bring it up in the first place and string the rest of us along. Otherwise you are a BIG FAT UGLY TROLL. You Kiiiiiiiiiiiinigits! Pthhhh. Pthhhh. Pthhhh You English Pigdogs! I blow my nose at you!

 

In my opinion those that yammer away about habituation are the lowest.  Some even have websites dedicated to the food they put out and the dozens of bf they say they have coming around.  Not only are these foolish claims counter productive, they attract others who post claims and "information" that is so silly, they drive away the folks that used to really make sense.  

 

t.

[Guest DWA]

Gotta say, I try to live and let live with people that claim to be habituating.

 

But given the nature of the beast, I kind of wonder why they'd post on a public forum if they aren't interested in who knows, and don't want to be harrassed for evidence.  And I really frown on people who profiteer from it with books that have no evidence in them that the author is telling the truth.

[Guest thermalman]

There is no law against writing and profiting from books of fiction. Stephen King is a perfect example.

[See-Te-Cah NC]

Word up.

[Guest DWA]

Oh, not talking about legally, talking about what I, personally, think of them.  They are offering what they write as fact.  When one does that and one's facts can't be checked, well, just don't expect me to buy it or be happy about it.

[MIB]

Gotta say, I try to live and let live with people that claim to be habituating.

 

But given the nature of the beast, I kind of wonder why they'd post on a public forum if they aren't interested in who knows, and don't want to be harrassed for evidence. 

 

You make a key point then miss it.      From a practical standpoint, supposing there really are non-public forums or mailing lists, how would a habituator find them other than come to a public forum, post, and hope someone from such a group is watching, finds them, and invites them?    Suppose you were a new habituator looking for other habituators to get input from?   How would you go about finding them?

 

MIB 

[Guest DWA]

All I was saying was:  expect the territory.  Don't get upset by it.  Come here, sure; just be prepared.  (And use Ignore.  And Report.  A lot.)