The Oldest Dna Evidence Yet Of Humans With An Interesting Twist

[WSA]

Yup Darrell, I hear ya, but as rightfully proud as we can be about amateur efforts, they do call them "Professionals" for a reason. And let's not even go to the more, umm, creative folks doing, umm, research, shall we? It just seems patently obvious to me that if you want to collect an elusive terrestrial critter, you have to put a goodly number of people on the ground, and the more you put out there, the more your chances increase. What the professionals who are interested in this are left to do is try and come up with how to work around this manpower/resource disparity. So, you've got the Falcon Project, which understandably looks loony from one angle (I mean, floating Sasquatch surveillance, c'mon) but on another, more practical level, it does make perfect sense.

Edited December 12, 2013 by WSA

[Guest DWA]

To say somebody like Sykes has "done science" (so STHU) is patently silly. He made a start, but who is going to pick up that ball and advance down field with it?  Trust me, he'd be glad to have somebody pick up that challenge. Failure (if Sykes' study results are final...and we're not sure about that) to find a BF hair in a haystack does no more wipe away the body of contrary evidence than my spit raises the tide line in Fiji. I'm sure Sykes would be the first guy to admit this, given how he is a (big "S") Scientist and all.

I will never understand the basis of what seems the skeptical attitude on this which is: 

 

We will attack everything but the evidence (we can't attack the evidence) and debate everyone but the scientific proponents.  Any little glimmer of mainstream interest we will immediately cut off as there, done!  No more debate, bigfoot isn't real.  Because WE HAVE TO WIN THIS ARGUMENT.  WIN!  WIN!  WIN!!!!!!!

 

Silly, seems to me, I'm more into know, know, know.

 

Sykes himself lays down the freaking gauntlet!  Now somebody has to go find that bear.  He doesn't consider the job done with testing some dubious hair.

 

And he's a scientist, darnit!  Which means he's right.

Edited December 12, 2013 by DWA
language rule 2A

[WSA]

You and I always agree on that DWA. The process is pretty simple>>>>

 

Is this an open question? (Emphatically, yes.)

 

Do you have an answer? (Not from the view of thousands who have looked at it closely.)

 

What do you do to answer it then, if you can? (You don't stop until you reach a dead end or solve it.)

 

 

Anything less than doing this process with all we as a civilization can spare to bring to bear on it is pulling a punch and taking the easy way out. You know what they say about the path of least resistance, right?

[Guest DWA]

Plumb staggers me how paychecks kill curiosity.  Gotta be a cure for that.  Or maybe that was part of the deal we made back in the Garden.  Who knows.

[WSA]

You know, I do have some sympathy. The difference between the way we want the world to be, and how it really is. You got safe w/money on this side of things, and unsafe, risky and money only if you are right on the other. Got a family too? Well..... 

 

And I know your jabs at Science don't necessarily translate to "you,  and you, and you over there too."  It is a systemic issue, and I'm not sure where the leverage point is and who pushes that lever.  Is it an academic failing? Is the pressure point to be found in the private sector? Do the scientific media have some responsibility? 

 

(To the last one, I'm willing to say, "Oh yes they do!" My personal metric for knowing the subject has drawn the attention it needs is when Nat Geo Mag ....the print one.....does even a behind-the-fold piece.  Did they ever even give P/G some note? I don't think they ever did,but I could be wrong. Anyone with the complete CD ROM of NG out there to tell us? )

Edited December 12, 2013 by chelefoot
Language 2A

[Guest DWA]

You know, I do have some sympathy. The difference between the way we want the world to be, and how it really is. You got safe w/money on this side of things, and unsafe, risky and money only if you are right on the other. Got a family too? Well..... 

 

And I know your jabs at Science don't necessarily translate to "you,  and you, and you over there too."  It is a systemic issue, and I'm not sure where the leverage point is and who pushes that lever. 

 

Right.   I can't blame individuals who have to swallow propaganda - and fairly benign at that, sort of - to keep their tenure and their plum appointments.

 

But the entire whole shebang, and its gatekeepers especially, need to do some strictly individual now soul-searching, and decide whether all this denial is good for the old stomacho.

 

Look, gang, somebody went first.  And actually he wasn't the only one.

 

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041025/full/news041025-2.html

 

Edited December 12, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

I am not going to spout my background or education for purposes of strengthening my comments or argument. We all know evolution is a working model and theory, it is not fact. Just like The Theory of Relativity and on--on--- we go. The Scientific Model is used primarily for testing theory and hypothesis and is a guideline, but it does not bend and this we all know is flawed for some instances of testing and validation. Working with and being one, I can tell you it is an extreme model to use, practice and implement strict adherence. When there is a PhD being earned, or disproved you better have your facts straight, clear, concise and PROVE them wrong. 

 

In Mathematics when you prove a theory to be true it is called a Theorem. In science it is called "Law".  So far, I have not seen The Theory of Evolution called, Law of Evolution because there are so many prime instances against this model and provable.  So they just refer to this as evolution, drop the theory portion to make it come across as the LAW.  

 

People tend to forget and they take evolution as if it is truth and if evidence is proved against this model, it is termed inconclusive or not included at all especially if the findings are not in-line with the model. Watch some TV shows and listen to how they preach about other planets and what is on the surface. We ask to prove it, they say they do not need to, because these little initials after my name say I dod not need to prove it with physical evidence. Yet, those with physical evidence are then discarded and forced not only to give evidence, but a body. If this was about a lizard, the discussion would have been written into the page of "possibly". This has been the rule for over a hundred years and had roots into religion, financial and ego. I have stressed so many times the dogmatic view will never be broken, it may be bent, but, until something so profound is adopted and the egos' all disappear we will never get to the truth. The Theory of Evolution is a working model and theory plain and simple. Ever notice how the human tree has changed over the years? There was at one point a missing link, then they find the link, then they create another limb and move it over to the side, because there MUST be a link!… there MUST! They will add links until the end of time, because the model they believe and adopted is not true. Figures do not lie, but liars figure.   

 

We (all of us) have read countless articles stating new DNA, mDNA and nDNA have been submitted to GENBANK and thus not accepted. We read the articles that state new species are discovered and entered into GENBANK without a specimen. When it comes to and near North America the virtual line and wall begin to appear. Nobody argues about the Yeren, the Yeti existing, but, place it on the west coast of America and Canada it plainly freaks people out and they wash the hands, because they live in this separation bubble. I have been called brilliant, arrogant and the worst of all pseudo scientific during my tenor.  The term pseudo just irritates and infuriates me so bad, because I am not "in-line" with other professors… We can opine all day, the reality is this, evidence is left all over, it is up to those going against the grain to make others take a hard look at what they have learned and preach. 

 

Let me ask you this question, what is the easier out of all of the evidence to date? Saying It does not exist or proving it does not exist are the opposite ends of the lazy spectrum. Those with the hard evidence are on the defensive because they are scared to push back and say… "Prove me wrong by going out and gathering your own physical evidence against this in my hand".. we are all quacks, names, anti-god, antiestablishment if we breath or hint at the fact of what you are being sold is wrong.. Let this sink into your minds. 

[Guest Darrell]

Why is it when nobody outside this phenomina doesnt take it seriously or in most cases thinks its hookum, do you cry "propaganda, conspiricy, scientific denial, and all the other excuses you use. Really, want the world to believe you then produce one. Actually go out and find one, film it, photograph it. But as a whole those in this phenomena cant do that. You want "science" to find one, but you all cant find one either. But when science goes out and looks they dont find anything to support your position. But then you put blame on them because they dont look hard enough. Then you cry that the poor amature cant find them either because, unlike big science, you dont have the resources or time. Moneymaker with is TV show, huge organization, and money out the kaazu cant even get one.  Im not saying that scientists are perfect, but just because they cant find your 7-15 ft, 1 ton, bipedal, hairy giant doesnt mean they are incompetent or in some type of conspiricy. It means they just cant do what you cant do, and thats find your monkey.

[WSA]

Tell it BadVooDoo, tell it.

 

Because, Darrell, you are in this. There is no "them" and "us" in this enterprise. You think you can opt out that easily, but you can't. Our responsibility to try to answer this question is yours too. That is, if you wish to retain your credibility to be taken seriously. I would imagine and hope that you do.  Relinquish that if you want, but it comes with a steep price to be paid.

 

(Really too, nobody is insisting that science take this over. The idea that "science" has made anything but a cursory pass at this is very untruthful. How do we know? Because the evidence has not been explained under the strictures science itself imposes. By definition, the effort has not been good enough and it has been demonstrably feeble to boot) 

Edited December 12, 2013 by WSA

[WSA]

One more point Darrell. Those who take the whole FB circus as anything approaching a serious effort are, by my definition, branding themselves as a non-serious player in this enterprise. I'm glad we agree on that!

[Guest Darrell]

What type of serious explaination "under the strictures science itself imposes" needs to be done on what evidence? Besides sighting reports what do you want examined? DNA samples were tested and footprints were examined. What else is there?

[WSA]

Darrell, there is just too much incomprehension contained in that question for me to be able to address it here, sorry. We'll talk again? Hope so. Until then...

[Guest Darrell]

Now i cant comprehend? Really? It was an easy question wasnt it? What type of serious explaination "under the strictures science itself imposes" needs to be done on what evidence?

[Guest]

Now i cant comprehend? Really? It was an easy question wasnt it? What type of serious explaination "under the strictures science itself imposes" needs to be done on what evidence?

The entire premise of this discussion is ripe with assumptions. In addition, your question is a bit loaded and is not a simple yes or no, the answer would require a long background primer and then into the answer.  We all know science wants a body, this is the only way they will entertain such a "unicorn in the woods". But, only a few will actually submit for grants, get accredited Universities and Colleges on-board. Why, as I mentioned, to them it is either "in the evolutionary hominid tree", or " we create a new limb" then create a new link then continue the search. The best part of this "we need a body" is how many scientists will then erase the PhD, Masters or MD behind the names once there is one? 99.9% of these in the entire world will not touch this subject, because the model they will only follow is evolutionary and I have clearly stated the problem with this approach.  They are more out to believe, planet DF6362 in the Omega system has H2o and has Acid Rain.. But ask them to prove it, they say we do not need to, it is now part of the "assumption model" and will therefore become part of the curriculum and then test students. But ask them about Yeren in China? Probably, about Sasquatch in North America? You are out of your mind!.. It is a selective approach carefully orchestrated to follow.. 1.) The funding 2.) The current belief system 3). The current working theory.  Everything else is flat out not being funded.  You think these people that have spent entire lives and money on this "unicorn in the woods" are crazy! I can understand, but when you are sitting on a hill Mule Deer hunting and something walks out of a bush you walk by, grunts at you while staring you in the face you will then become one of the crazies.  I do not judge people for beliefs, If they want to marry a lamp post more power to them. But never take away the fire in the eyes, the turning for the truth and to put hands up to stop the boulder of BS coming out of the scientific community.  

[Guest LarryP]

They are more out to believe, planet DF6362 in the Omega system has H2o and has Acid Rain.. But ask them to prove it, they say we do not need to, it is now part of the "assumption model" and will therefore become part of the curriculum and then test students. But ask them about Yeren in China? Probably, about Sasquatch in North America? You are out of your mind!.. It is a selective approach carefully orchestrated to follow.. 1.) The funding 2.) The current belief system 3). The current working theory. Everything else is flat out not being funded.

 

 

 

That pretty much nails it!