Jump to content

Unknown Primate Dna


dmaker

Recommended Posts

Admin

April Fools gag, I believe, read the last sentence.

 ^ Bingo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, where is this unknown primate DNA?

Why, it's with the unknown primate of course!

Sheesh Darrell!  Where else would it be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, where is this unknown primate DNA?

That's odd. DWA seems to be posting in every thread but this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Darrell,

Post #263 could be the straw so to speak. There will be no "numerous" links but if we're lucky not too much damage was done to the newcomers. That's what worries me the most. When statements are made hoping that they'll get passed around long enough to be taken as fact. Not good.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello ItsAsquatch,

 

DWA has a lot of good things to bring to the table as a staunch proponent for the existence of Sasquatch. I think sometimes his zeal gets ahead of him though. The Bigfoot sibject has it's own set of problems that in discussion can be compounded unecessarily by sweeping statements that have no scientific or factual support. There should as much as possible ALWAYS be links to studies or articles that support any critical point used in a debate. Opinion as fact never works in a landscape where members want solid backup to verify the content of a pointed dialogue.

 

"numerous" examples of tests that came back non-Primate-DNA will alays raise a red flag on this subject whose requirement is nothing short of solid PROOF. That kind of DNA would be proof. But alas, so far at least, it has been elusive. WRT to DWA, there are good qualities there but there are missteps too. We're all capable of those and if it were me I would fully expect to be called out on misleading anyone into thinking in error on such a matter as DNA- one of the cornerstones of Sasquatch proof. 

Edited by hiflier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello ItsAsquatch,

 

DWA has a lot of good things to bring to the table as a staunch proponent for the existence of Sasquatch. I think sometimes his zeal gets ahead of him though. The Bigfoot sibject has it's own set of problems that in discussion can be compounded unecessarily by sweeping statements that have no scientific or factual support. There should as much as possible ALWAYS be links to studies or articles that support any critical point used in a debate. Opinion as fact never works in a landscape where members want solid backup to verify the content of a pointed dialogue.

 

"numerous" examples of tests that came back non-Primate-DNA will alays raise a red flag on this subject whose requirement is nothing short of solid PROOF. That kind of DNA would be proof. But alas, so far at least, it has been elusive. WRT to DWA, there are good qualities there but there are missteps too. We're all capable of those and if it were me I would fully expect to be called out on misleading anyone into thinking in error on such a matter as DNA- one of the cornerstones of Sasquatch proof. 

 

 

It seems that when it comes to providing evidence for his claims made here that DWA is a bit of a Slacksquatch    :)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello dmaker,

OH, I am THERE! "slacksquatch" indeed. LMAO at the newest and best description in some time. Wish I thought of it.

Edited by hiflier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...