Guest DWA Posted February 4, 2014 Posted February 4, 2014 No surprises thus far. I mean, think about it. You've been given something to test by somebody who thinks it's a bigfoot. This isn' t any big mainstream research institution or university. It's some guy who, basically, wants you to tell him bigfoot's real. You don't exactly get paid for that, and your career might suffer from "the wrong answer." There are a number of ways this could turn out. None of them are surprising.
norseman Posted February 4, 2014 Admin Posted February 4, 2014 Drew, Do you know if Curt made a rebuttal? Or did he go along with Todd's assessment of his sample?
WSA Posted February 4, 2014 Posted February 4, 2014 Yeah, I see DNA testing as somewhat intriguing, and I have my own theories of what this animal is, but until somebody pulls a hair off of a type specimen and then publishes the results, DNA testing will remain a giant bolus of doubt, confusion and misplaced ambition. It could lead to something more, but in and of itself, it has so far proved a dissapointing distraction to other field work, I believe. If somebody who spots a BF wants independent confirmation of their subjective experience, it might provide that. But, as far as I can tell, those who have had such an encounter don't need anything but their five senses to validate what they experienced. If I could have retrieved from the bottom of the Potomac the rock I believe was hurled at me from out of the 3 A.M. darkness and tested it, I might have done that. But then again, maybe I didn't need to.
hiflier Posted February 4, 2014 Posted February 4, 2014 Hello All, One more thing and I'll move on: "So the Canadian example of, I mean, we were very careful with it, I honestly don’t think that 1 base different sequence which falls completely in the realm of modern humans, and that was what was edited out " I wonder what he almost said......Here's a guy who's now on TV. Go figure.
Guest DWA Posted February 4, 2014 Posted February 4, 2014 ^^^Please say "translation available on request"! Ecce bigfoot skeptic.
norseman Posted February 4, 2014 Admin Posted February 4, 2014 Here it is boiled down to brass tacks for me..... I put very little faith in DNA solving this mystery. Scientists can debate sample tests but they cannot debate body parts. I like Todd Disotell, but it would seem he and a fellow scientist (Curt Nelson) are at logger heads. Which scientist is the more qualified? I dunno. It doesn't look good for Todd to not pull a sample and then attack the scientist who did. Sour grapes and all...... But it could be contamination as well because the sample is basically human. Which opens up another debate. I noticed Meldrum did not comment on the sample findings. I would suspect he would agree with Disotell because he is convinced Sasquatch is not apart of the genius Homo. Ultimately in my opinion we do have examples of unknown primate DNA samples as well as hair samples. Obviously just like the larger question itself there is much strife and contention concerning these samples among scientists, as well as laymen. A curious observation on my part is that on the 10 million dollar bounty show, despite Todd's state of the art mobile lab? He cannot identify every sample that is presented to him either. Is that because there is nothing there? Or is it because he doesn't have a bag of trucks like Curt has? I don't know enough about the science to say.
Guest DWA Posted February 4, 2014 Posted February 4, 2014 (edited) As long as the only stuff science will look at goes under a microscope, forget consensus on what it represents. This wrangle isn't interesting beyond a point to the society at large. I understand why. You're not telling me much if I can't even look at a good picture of the animal you are telling me exists based on this hair sample or this track. Patterson-Gimlin we've all been carefully coached, down to our genetic material, could have been faked. It's poisoned, even to those of us who think it is what it looks like. We want to see more than that. Look at any suite of photos and video on www.arkive.org and you have more - usually much more - than the Patterson film. (For an exception - an example of something no clearer than P-G - look up "kouprey" on that site. It's as frustrating and truncated and incomplete as P-G, although one can see bulls and cows and major distinguishing features, just like with P-G. The main difference: science accepts kouprey.) We can go on and on about this, but to the larger question, it's pointless. It only means anything at all to those of us who are pretty well steeped in the evidence, and know that if something like this has been alleged...the evidence gives it added weight. To one not well acquainted with the evidence...well, there's no point really talking about it. They're just looking for proof, which this can't be. Edited February 4, 2014 by DWA
southernyahoo Posted February 4, 2014 Posted February 4, 2014 (edited) Here it is boiled down to brass tacks for me..... I put very little faith in DNA solving this mystery. Scientists can debate sample tests but they cannot debate body parts. I like Todd Disotell, but it would seem he and a fellow scientist (Curt Nelson) are at logger heads. Which scientist is the more qualified? I dunno. It doesn't look good for Todd to not pull a sample and then attack the scientist who did. Sour grapes and all...... But it could be contamination as well because the sample is basically human. Which opens up another debate. I noticed Meldrum did not comment on the sample findings. I would suspect he would agree with Disotell because he is convinced Sasquatch is not apart of the genius Homo. Ultimately in my opinion we do have examples of unknown primate DNA samples as well as hair samples. Obviously just like the larger question itself there is much strife and contention concerning these samples among scientists, as well as laymen. A curious observation on my part is that on the 10 million dollar bounty show, despite Todd's state of the art mobile lab? He cannot identify every sample that is presented to him either. Is that because there is nothing there? Or is it because he doesn't have a bag of trucks like Curt has? I don't know enough about the science to say. I think Todd and Curt may have tested different samples. There was a hair retrieved from the board, and there was some scrapings from the screws of possible flesh / tissue, so not sure who tested what. It's possible Todd did not receive the same materials that Curt worked on which were very small in quantity to start with. I do wonder if Todd had something to say about cutting out inhibitors but refrained. If Todd got a piece of the hair with no root, then his results were consistent with what Ketchum was saying in that the hair shafts were not productive. ETA: I still think if Todd took the time to look at a hair under a microscope, he would know it was a biological sample, and he simply failed to get DNA from it. Edited February 4, 2014 by southernyahoo
Guest Posted February 4, 2014 Posted February 4, 2014 So is anyone searching for a new unbiased quality but affordable DNA expert to have a go of it ?
the parkie Posted February 4, 2014 Posted February 4, 2014 ^ This is what I'm not sure on from what's described on this thread, too. If testing destroys the sample then what did they both actually test and how are we sure it was exactly the same thing from exactly the same sample? Ultimately though, the Snellgrove Lake sample(s) did not show anything conclusive. In the same way that Norseman and NAWAC have plans in place to obtain a body, I guess there needs to be a concerted effort aimed at obtaining something in between, be it blood, a piece of tissue or a body part such as a finger, but probably not bother with hair. Does anyone know of such an organised setup? I'm in the UK before someone just tells me to do it!
Guest Posted February 4, 2014 Posted February 4, 2014 (edited) Its a short boat ride over to the fjords of scandinavia Parkie so thoused can bag a genuine Troll Edited February 4, 2014 by GEARMAN
Guest zenmonkey Posted February 4, 2014 Posted February 4, 2014 http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/3626-destination-truth-yeti-hair-sample/ Well I had hope!
Guest Urkelbot Posted February 4, 2014 Posted February 4, 2014 (For an exception - an example of something no clearer than P-G - look up "kouprey" on that site. It's as frustrating and truncated and incomplete as P-G, although one can see bulls and cows and major distinguishing features, just like with P-G. The main difference: science accepts kouprey.) Look up kouprey on google scholar. Scientists have Kouprey DNA and have done the phylogeny. There was a Kouprey at a zoo in Paris in the 30s along with several clear photos. I even pointed this out to you in another thread when you attempted to use this as an example of scientists bias against bigfoot. http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/274/1627/2849.short
salubrious Posted February 4, 2014 Moderator Posted February 4, 2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisova_hominin The link refers to an unknown "as yet unidentified ancient human lineage", in the context of DNA analysis. Does that qualify as 'unknown primate DNA'?
norseman Posted February 4, 2014 Admin Posted February 4, 2014 ^^^^^ I would say yes, but not a direct correlation to Bigfoot which I believe Dmaker was after.
Recommended Posts