Guest DWA Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 ^^^Not too bad for me at all. If one knows what the evidence says, one lets the critical mass build, and doesn't care about it way too much (except to tweak noses and box ears every now and then which is just good clean fun).
Guest Posted February 22, 2014 Posted February 22, 2014 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. Most of us here have been looking at this evidence for some time and are coming up with conflicting answers to this puzzle that is Bigfoot. Anecdotal evidence is the biggest part of evidence for BF but anecdotes are poor evidence and eye witnesses are much less reliable than forensic evidence. The forensic evidence is scarce and much of what we have seen is controversial at best. The biggest forensic evidence we had was Smeja's meat tissue sample. We've had nothing else like it since. Unfortunate about that one :blackeye: 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. A Wildman could still be a human. Doesn't have to be Neandertal, Australopithecus, Gigantopithecus, or a giant lemur.
Branco Posted February 22, 2014 Posted February 22, 2014 This may have been posted elsewhere on the forum. If so, ignore it. I just had not seen this opinion piece before. http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/another-human-hybrid-controversy-continues-one-year-later-001340#.Uv3j6mLPjII.facebook
bfriendly Posted February 22, 2014 Posted February 22, 2014 This may have been posted elsewhere on the forum. If so, ignore it. I just had not seen this opinion piece before. http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/another-human-hybrid-controversy-continues-one-year-later-001340#.Uv3j6mLPjII.facebook I most certainly have Not........Thanks. Still not sure I can trust Anything coming from the web....................... And When the Home Page's sig line says Reconstructing the Story of Humanity's Past, its like Bon Jour, ya know?
Branco Posted February 23, 2014 Posted February 23, 2014 (edited) I most certainly have Not........Thanks. Still not sure I can trust Anything coming from the web....................... And When the Home Page's sig line says Reconstructing the Story of Humanity's Past, its like Bon Jour, ya know? The real kicker for me was what the GenBank didn't do. They could not accept Dr. K's samples because Sasquatch - a human-like primate - had not signed a document giving Dr. K permission to do that DNA work. Sounds stupid as hxxx, doesn't it. It is both stupid, and a result of a Presidential Memo on Scientific Integrity which was issued March 9, 2009. The DOI took it, and wrote an initial 38 page set of standards, then some addendum's. Other U.S. agencies and private organizations from over the world jumped on the band wagon. Anyone in ANY WAY connected with a scientific project / organization / university or agency would be banned if they tried to publish any scientific paper based on actual samples from a LIVE or KILLED sasquatch. Bottom line: Anyone that believes they are going to get a sasquatch classified by science by shooting one, or by obtaining his DNA are in for a double shock. No scientist will touch it, but the feds will. All they have to say is that the body is that of a human. That's all it would take for some folks to be sitting at the defense attorney's table. Anyone who does not believe it; follow the paper trail, and read closely. Edited February 23, 2014 by Branco
Incorrigible1 Posted February 23, 2014 Posted February 23, 2014 If the rest of your information is as accurate as the link to ancient-origins, I'll consider the source and express profound doubts. The link was far more supportive of Dr Ketchum than I am. Her work is a shambles, and it's no wonder it has been dismissed by any serious scientists. 1
Guest Crowlogic Posted February 23, 2014 Posted February 23, 2014 One of the problems with stories of unknown primate DNA is that none of them ever say where that DNA fits in the puzzle. And this is assuming DNA was actually found and lab tested. At the present time we're no better off then we were 30 years ago with this.
Guest DWA Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 ^^^We won't get any better off until a DNA test is done on something that scientists can all agree is unique and indicative of a new species. People invent excuses why judge-sober individuals that they would trust on anything else didn't see a bigfoot, they had to have seen [x]. Why would we think scientists would treat a DNA test any differently, if no one can point to the animal the sample came from, and no one has a specimen of same anywhere?
dmaker Posted February 24, 2014 Author Posted February 24, 2014 "Why would we think scientists would treat a DNA test any differently, if no one can point to the animal the sample came from, and no one has a specimen of same anywhere?" DWA Because we have both Sykes and Disotell analyzing samples recently. Sykes study is on-going. How many scientists must there be analyzing alleged bigfoot samples before you will drop this fantasy that no one will look at the samples?
Guest Crowlogic Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 (edited) "Why would we think scientists would treat a DNA test any differently, if no one can point to the animal the sample came from, and no one has a specimen of same anywhere?" DWA Because we have both Sykes and Disotell analyzing samples recently. Sykes study is on-going. How many scientists must there be analyzing alleged bigfoot samples before you will drop this fantasy that no one will look at the samples? The only scientists to be trusted would have to be scientists with no agenda concerning Bigfoot. I think Ketchum was up to the neck with agenda. But if a truly good sample would need to be sent to Cornell from the west coast or something to that effect. Edited February 24, 2014 by Crowlogic
Guest DWA Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 "Why would we think scientists would treat a DNA test any differently, if no one can point to the animal the sample came from, and no one has a specimen of same anywhere?" DWA Because we have both Sykes and Disotell analyzing samples recently. Sykes study is on-going. How many scientists must there be analyzing alleged bigfoot samples before you will drop this fantasy that no one will look at the samples? As soon as you drop this fantasy that I'm having that fantasy, we're all good here. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO LOOKS AT WHAT, if it cannot be connected to something scientists recognize as proof of a new species. DNA testing to prove a new species - except in the case of separating known, affirmed animals into separate species - is putting cart before horse. Not the way it's done.
dmaker Posted February 24, 2014 Author Posted February 24, 2014 ^^ So I can assume then, DWA, that you will stop listing " unknown primate dna" when you talk about compelling evidence for bigfoot? As you have most certainly pointed to it in the past. But since we have all now been instructed by you as to how it doesn't matter, then I look forward to you no longer mentioning it.
Guest DWA Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 Matter of fact, the only truly serious question on this thread is this one: Has there ever been a case of an animal identified solely on the basis of its DNA signature, with no other evidence in scientific custody, and no, for reasons we all should know, hair doesn't count...and what the heck, has any animal been ID'd solely on hair?
WSA Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 As to Branco's point: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/memorandum-heads-executive-departments-and-agencies-3-9-09 I plan on giving this a good read later in the week, and see what regs in the CFR have been promulgated in response to the enabling memo. If anyone has already done that, please let us know, and what your opinions are. I say, DNA evidence is only one item in the rather large body of evidence. I agree with DWA that it is almost impossible that it, and it alone, would result in a confirmation of the species. That said, does it justify our attention? Oh yeah. Should you look closer when and where you find unidentified DNA? Yeah, again.
dmaker Posted February 24, 2014 Author Posted February 24, 2014 Matter of fact, the only truly serious question on this thread is this one: Has there ever been a case of an animal identified solely on the basis of its DNA signature, with no other evidence in scientific custody, and no, for reasons we all should know, hair doesn't count...and what the heck, has any animal been ID'd solely on hair? No, DWA the question of this thread is specifically to challenge the claim that there has been findings of "unknown primate dna". This was an opportunity for proponents to provide some substantiation of that claim. Now, in light of that failure you wish to point out how irrelevant it would be anyway if we even had such a finding. That seems to be a very transparent tactic on your part to shift focus away from the OP. So far after 12 pages I have seen nothing that verifies the claim that there are reliable published findings of "unknown primate dna" anywhere.
Recommended Posts