Unknown Primate Dna

[WSA]

Hello WSA.

 

Everything you said is soooo NOT correct. This the way things get skewed when passing the information on to others.

1) Sagittarius A IS the black hole. It is the supermassive black hole theorized to exist at the center of our Milky Way Galaxy.

2)There is a gas cloud (G2) thats heading toward the galactic center in a month or two. If there is a star embedded it is thought that ome of the cloud will fall into Sagitarius A but the embedded star, if there is one will continue past. If G2 is all cloud it will mostly fall into the center.

3)The center of our Galaxy is 26 THOUSAND light years away not 26 hundred.

A good thing to remember, a lot about survival is being correct

Thanks Hiflier...I was going from rather overtaxed memory of an article I read yesterday...thanks for correcting that. I stand chagrined.

[Guest DWA]

^^^Hey, psssst, WSA just said "Call off the tanks, Hiflier, you are overtaxing me.  Thanks for correcting my return.  I stand richer."

 

This the way things get skewed when passing the information on to others.

 

Pretty sure Meldrum thinks they're human and vouches for Ketchum.  Just something got lost in translation.

 

Hey, goin' squatchin' in April, while we're on the bitter activities of bitter people dealing with their bitter bitterness by bitterly going outside and having fun.

 

Sorry, Urk, not workin' for me neither.

[dmaker]

Hmmmm, perhaps Meldrum would care to publish Ketchum in RHI then since he vouches for her as you claim? Why don't you ask him?

[Guest Urkelbot]

I think the whole point that we are here discussing this subject is that there is some sort of enigma to solve as indicated by the evidence. It's intriguing, yet doesn't satisfy the world as proof. DWA seems to drive at the point that science does study things that are theoretical and seeks to prove something through experimental observation and tests.  Yet it doesn't with bigfoot, and the lack of funds to do so, is like a self fulfilling prophecy. I don't agree that science is totally ignoring the subject as several geneticists do engage the biological evidence though I'm not statisfied that some look at everything they could in that regard.

 

Of coarse the idea that science or biologists are completely oblivious to the evidence is false. It is still weak on reasoning, for science to say there is nothing to study here and doesn't warrant funding. Bigfootery just scored 100k on a TV show, so maybe there is a turn in the road ahead.

DWA and yourself believe the evidence is really good and warrants further research and funding. The majority of scientists, politicians, laypersons do not. This majority is mostly satisfied with alternate explanations that exist for all the current Bigfoot evidence. To them there is nothing to solve the lack of physical evidence is too great a hurdle. I don't think this will change until evidence is put forward that allows for no other explanations, or at least some clear pictures.

Considering astronomy I'm sure there a lot of people and maybe a few scientists that reject the basic ideas like planets, moons, asteroids, speed of light, eleptical orbits. There are experiments that can be preformed in journals that anyone can do to confirm or refute the findings. Most scientists accept the findings since at the moment they are the best explanation for what is being observed and interpreted from data. If there were other likely explanations for say the moon not existing as a physical satellite of earth that follows the laws of physics there might be a scism.

[Cotter]

Hi Folks:

So, here we are, 10 pages.

Has anyone posted a link or such (credible) that demonstrates someone/some entity discovered unknown primate DNA?

[Guest DWA]

I thought I had posted it (and know I have, somewhere on BFF if not here and a quick search didn't find it) but:

 

Dr. Walter Birkbe:  http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/possible-sasquatch-anomalies/

 

If you are looking for anything more than that - how could one get more, on this topic?  Why has Birkbe not sued Mionczynski for misrepresentation or worse?  Could it be, oh, you know, Mionczynski is right? - you are looking for proof of sasquatch. 

 

Or to win a silly irrelevant debating point.

 

Glad you all are enjoying this snipe hunt.  But as I have said more than anyone else on the BFF:  "primate DNA" will do nothing to convince anyone relevant to the proof, without the primate the sample came from.

 

Period.  And everyone who has gotten such a result knows that.  They're not gonna be too thrilled about trumpeting a result they weren't expecting, with nothing else to show for the effort.

Edited February 19, 2014 by DWA

[Guest]

^^^^^Or perhaps Birkbe doesn't read bigfoot websites nor care what's on them. Sorry but Cyptomundo is not on the radar of a top anthropologist.

 

News reports and political partisans misrepresent scientific studies all the time and don't get sued.

 

I also have the feeling that if he did sue, you'll simply state that "He just doesn't want his reputation damaged by agreeing with bigfoot evidence".

 

The website also discusses hair, not DNA.

Edited February 19, 2014 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest Urkelbot]

After some searching there is no Walter birkbe primatologist. There is a Walter birkby forensic anthropologist associated with the Arizona state museum.

[dmaker]

I thought I had posted it (and know I have, somewhere on BFF if not here and a quick search didn't find it) but:

 

Dr. Walter Birkbe:  http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/possible-sasquatch-anomalies/

 

If you are looking for anything more than that - how could one get more, on this topic?  Why has Birkbe not sued Mionczynski for misrepresentation or worse?  Could it be, oh, you know, Mionczynski is right? - you are looking for proof of sasquatch. 

 

Or to win a silly irrelevant debating point.

 

Glad you all are enjoying this snipe hunt.  But as I have said more than anyone else on the BFF:  "primate DNA" will do nothing to convince anyone relevant to the proof, without the primate the sample came from.

 

Period.  And everyone who has gotten such a result knows that.  They're not gonna be too thrilled about trumpeting a result they weren't expecting, with nothing else to show for the effort.

Yet, you have on numerous occasions pointed to this fabled ( and mythical) unknown primate dna as a strong source of evidence. This is, of course, when it suits your argument. When it doesn't any longer it suddenly becomes irrelevant.

 

Handy, that. 

[Guest]

Sorry, guys.  In science it never in the long run matters what scientists say.  It matters what Science says.

 

Here's what Science says about this:

 

Sasquatch is all but proven, the weight of the evidence overwhelming (far more than we have for most celestial events we accept).  The only thing left is the cherry on top, the type specimen that certifies the pretty obvious reality.

 

Cold cup a water on yer party, but sometimes stuff is that way.

DWA, I think you should take a sip from that cup yourself:

 

"I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything I cannot explain as a fraud." - C.G.Jung

 

This is your sig line yes?

[Guest]

I thought I had posted it (and know I have, somewhere on BFF if not here and a quick search didn't find it) but:

 

Dr. Walter Birkbe:  http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/possible-sasquatch-anomalies/

 

If you are looking for anything more than that - how could one get more, on this topic?  Why has Birkbe not sued Mionczynski for misrepresentation or worse?  Could it be, oh, you know, Mionczynski is right? - you are looking for proof of sasquatch. 

 

Or to win a silly irrelevant debating point.

 

Glad you all are enjoying this snipe hunt.  But as I have said more than anyone else on the BFF:  "primate DNA" will do nothing to convince anyone relevant to the proof, without the primate the sample came from.

 

Period.  And everyone who has gotten such a result knows that.  They're not gonna be too thrilled about trumpeting a result they weren't expecting, with nothing else to show for the effort.

Humans have primate DNA, as do chimps, marmosets, orangutans, rhesus monkeys, baboons and a whole lot of etc. That primate DNA is found in samples doesn't mean anything really. Even human DNA will come up "unknown" under many circumstances. DNA decays and as it does it becomes less recognizable. If it combines with DNA from bacteria it can become even more unrecognizable. Human DNA and Bacterial DNA are extremely common in samples gathered even in the wild. The gatherers are usually human after all and even they carry bacteria. Most of us go around wearing clothing. Coats are often not washed frequently and old skin cells will decay on the coat and can fall into samples gathered giving a reading of primate-like but unknown. Gloves, hats and boots can also carry decaying cells. Unless samples are compared with the human gatherers own DNA then those gatherers can not be ruled out as contributors of DNA samples..

 

Even with a REAL bigfoot DNA sample, there will likely be a great deal of similarity with a human sample (if they are hominids) but slightly more divergent if they are gigantos. This will make parsing the DNA more difficult due to the ever present possibility of contamination. The greater the similarity, the greater the difficulty in discerning the differences between human and bigfoot DNA. Decaying bigfoot DNA will be especially difficult. 

 

None the less, Denisovans were discovered from a pinky and a tooth. The DNA CAN be parsed if done correctly. Most samples for bigfoot come from people who are not trained in sample collection techniques. As you say, coming up primate is not enough.

Edited February 20, 2014 by antfoot

[Guest]

I think the whole point that we are here discussing this subject is that there is some sort of enigma to solve as indicated by the evidence. It's intriguing, yet doesn't satisfy the world as proof. DWA seems to drive at the point that science does study things that are theoretical and seeks to prove something through experimental observation and tests.  Yet it doesn't with bigfoot, and the lack of funds to do so, is like a self fulfilling prophecy. I don't agree that science is totally ignoring the subject as several geneticists do engage the biological evidence though I'm not statisfied that some look at everything they could in that regard.

 

Of coarse the idea that science or biologists are completely oblivious to the evidence is false. It is still weak on reasoning, for science to say there is nothing to study here and doesn't warrant funding. Bigfootery just scored 100k on a TV show, so maybe there is a turn in the road ahead.

I suspect that most scientists within biology, anthropology zoology have as much knowledge about bigfoot as most enthusiasts. I don't know any who do not have some interest in the subject (and loch ness and aliens to boot). I don't think they are being unreasonable in saying there is not enough evidence to answer the question correctly. "I don't know" is a perfectly good answer. Carl Sagan said that and I believe it as well. That is the answer science gives us regarding bigfoot. Most scientists in these fields say they don't know bigfoot is real or that they think it unlikely. I have never heard any of the scientists of my acquaintance say there is no such thing as bigfoot (or aliens or the LN monster) and the subject has come up occasionally. My lay friends on the other hand are quick to say BF is fake (as I've been reckoning with quite a bit lately, thanks a lot  MK) but they're not scientists.

[Guest DWA]

DWA, I think you should take a sip from that cup yourself:

 

"I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything I cannot explain as a fraud." - C.G.Jung

 

This is your sig line yes?

you betcha.  And the way I put it is the way it is.

 

We've been waiting way too long for a rational way to otherwise explain away the evidence.  No one has succeeded.  For practically anything else the message would have been:  we need to get off the fence, examine the evidence, and determine what is causing it.

[southernyahoo]

Humans have primate DNA, as do chimps, marmosets, orangutans, rhesus monkeys, baboons and a whole lot of etc. That primate DNA is found in samples doesn't mean anything really. Even human DNA will come up "unknown" under many circumstances. DNA decays and as it does it becomes less recognizable. If it combines with DNA from bacteria it can become even more unrecognizable. Human DNA and Bacterial DNA are extremely common in samples gathered even in the wild. The gatherers are usually human after all and even they carry bacteria. Most of us go around wearing clothing. Coats are often not washed frequently and old skin cells will decay on the coat and can fall into samples gathered giving a reading of primate-like but unknown. Gloves, hats and boots can also carry decaying cells. Unless samples are compared with the human gatherers own DNA then those gatherers can not be ruled out as contributors of DNA samples..

 

Even with a REAL bigfoot DNA sample, there will likely be a great deal of similarity with a human sample (if they are hominids) but slightly more divergent if they are gigantos. This will make parsing the DNA more difficult due to the ever present possibility of contamination. The greater the similarity, the greater the difficulty in discerning the differences between human and bigfoot DNA. Decaying bigfoot DNA will be especially difficult. 

 

None the less, Denisovans were discovered from a pinky and a tooth. The DNA CAN be parsed if done correctly. Most samples for bigfoot come from people who are not trained in sample collection techniques. As you say, coming up primate is not enough.

 

I can appreciate the perspective on the DNA, however I still think it gets very interesting when you know you have a viable fresh sample collected in favorable circumstances, is adequately washed and produces enough clean purified DNA that there should be no mistaking identity, and it still gives a pure human result when it should not be, unless there be wildmen depositing it.

[Guest DWA]

^^^The problem with that is the difficulty in taking people's word that DNA testing was all jake, when there is nothing else they can show you to satisfy where the sample came from.

 

Understand now, I am going on right here about how there is more than an abundance of evidence justifiying provisional recognition of an unlisted species pending fuller taxonomic classification.  But we aren't even sure if it's only one species.  My problem is with taking samples that most of us can't judge as to provenance - in the absence of any other evidence where they came from - as proof that "Patty is human."

Edited February 20, 2014 by DWA