Unknown Primate Dna

[Guest DWA]

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

 

Utterly and completely beside the point, as I pointed out then.

 

Do those kouprey videos satisfy you?  Me neither.  It's only the suite of evidence that barely convinces me kouprey's real.  (Remember Jacko?  The kouprey in the Paris zoo does about as much for me, personally.)  A bunch of scientists saying it is has nothing to do with good solid photographic evidence of kouprey.  What there is is, to anyone who really wants to know what a kouprey IS, about as satisfying as my Social Security number and high school photo are to anyone who really wants to know what I am.

 

There's more sasquatch evidence than there is for kouprey, if one only counts its volume nature and consistency.  The sole difference is that the scientists who won't look at sasquatch evidence accept kouprey evidence.

 

If I really want to know what something is, the grand total of, well, kouprey evidence doesn't convince me that I know.  In fact, it and sasquatch are just about equal.  Except that you and I are taking some people's word about kouprey,  that's it, regardless what you think.

 

And sasquatch is more than enough reason for people who really pay attention to evidence not to put too much stock in what scientists think.

 

I mean, other than the scientists with directly - could not be more directly - relevant expertise who vouch for sasquatch.

That's it:  the depth to which people talking has convinced some people vs. the depth to which some of us would rather rely on evidence.  And know what that is.

 

The case for sasquatch, from a scientific standpoint, is virtually a slam dunk.

 

But that's not really telling those of us without up close experience of one what one is.  And to some of us that's the whole point.

 

I mean, unless your idea of accepting stuff has utterly to do with what other people certify for you.  And sasquatch is strong enough evidence that this is generally not the best idea.

Edited February 4, 2014 by DWA

[the parkie]

Its a short boat ride over to the fjords of scandinavia Parkie so thoused can bag a genuine Troll

I'll leave tonight.

[Guest thermalman]

Do those kouprey videos satisfy you? There's more sasquatch evidence than there is for kouprey, if one only counts its volume nature and consistency. The sole difference is that the scientists who won't look at sasquatch evidence accept kouprey evidence. In fact, it and sasquatch are just about equal. And sasquatch is more than enough reason for people who really pay attention to evidence not to put too much stock in what scientists think. The case for sasquatch, from a scientific standpoint, is virtually a slam dunk.

What, in the blazes, are you talking about? In the link mentioned http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/274/1627/2849.short

Clearing a DNA profile of the kouprey is real. It mentions "Here we analyse eight DNA markers—three mitochondrial regions and five nuclear fragments—representing an alignment of 4582 nucleotides for the holotype of the kouprey and all related species. Our results demonstrate that the kouprey is a real and naturally occurring species, and show that Cambodian populations of banteng acquired a mitochondrial genome of kouprey by natural introgressive hybridization during the Pleistocene epoch"

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071005-kouprey.html

Edited February 4, 2014 by thermalman

[Guest DWA]

Even though I put folks up to it - what's life without a good snipe hunt now and then? - the bottom line on this thread, for many of us, is what WSA and I were talking about, right up there. 

 

Unless it's another thread, never mind.

 

What is "unknown primate DNA" without the primate?

 

The only thing the allegations of same do for those of us paying attention to the evidence is to build the case that there's something out there for science to resolve.  It fits right in with everything else.  For any phenomenon of this nature, to which public reaction is what it is for this, one would expect that people would try to convince the world with samples from it...and run smack dab into people who, surprise! aren't so easily convinced.  Why?  This isn't hard:  whatever is under this microscope, it's not an ape.

 

So who cares?

 

Snipe hunts aside, I don't.  The case for existence has been made, and only requires the proof.  A DNA sample will not be my proof; I'll always ask, really?  What did it come from, and how do we know it's legit?

 

There is only one answer.  Point to that big guy right over there that we can all see.

 

As I see it, problem is that this has become a debate between people who just want to be right, rather than between people who just want to find out.  DNA will satisfy one of those factions; absence of it - though not exactly a scientific stance - will satisfy the other.

 

Then there are those of us who say:  where's the animal?

[Guest thermalman]

Yet..... You're convinced the Olympic thermal is a real BF, based on a blurry whiten out image? Wow!

[Guest DWA]

^^^And that's what I mean by "a debate between people who just want to be right."  Can't even get what you said read back at you straight.

What, in the blazes, are you talking about? In the link mentioned http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/274/1627/2849.short

Clearing it mentions a DNA profile of the kouprey is real. It mentions "Here we analyse eight DNA markers—three mitochondrial regions and five nuclear fragments—representing an alignment of 4582 nucleotides for the holotype of the kouprey and all related species. Our results demonstrate that the kouprey is a real and naturally occurring species, and show that Cambodian populations of banteng acquired a mitochondrial genome of kouprey by natural introgressive hybridization during the Pleistocene epoch"

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071005-kouprey.html

What that is, is a scientist saying something that you just buy.

 

If you think that's the same thing as seeing a kouprey in the wild - or even a halfway-decent film of one, the only one ever being from 1957 and none too good - well more power to you.

 

But that's why you're doing 80 pages of posts on a headless cow. 

[Guest thermalman]

I'm using facts that are introduced to everyone, while others seem to only use their baseless imaginations? That's the difference. Btw, you're the one who opened the discussion on the kouprey, so you can stop backtracking any time now. My cow is more real than any blurry thermal image of an imaginary BF. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Edited February 4, 2014 by thermalman

[Guest DWA]

If they were facts we'd know what that thermal image is.

 

And sasquatch isn't the result of baseless imaginations, as the evidence makes clear.

 

As I like to say:  It is a shallow stance indeed not to judge by appearances.

 

Oh.  That was Oscar Wilde.  Never mind.  Now don't hijack the thread.

[Guest thermalman]

No need to. You already did hijack it. I only expounded on the DNA criterium, and how useless it is to some people.

Edited February 4, 2014 by thermalman

[dmaker]

^

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!

Such an organized setup? Does the ongoing study by Sykes not qualify as such?

[southernyahoo]

Sykes normally charges around 600 bucks for people to find out where their maternal and paternal lineages come from. Yet he is charging 2K for bigfoot sample identification. Either something is different in the tests or the price is steepened for footers who only need a little mito test to find out it is a bear, horse, cow etc. 

 

http://www.oxfordancestors.com/component/page,shop.product_details/flypage,flypage/product_id,20/category_id,6/option,com_virtuemart/Itemid,67/

[Guest DWA]

Television jacks the price of everything.  I forget who said that.

 

It could also be:  you want me to tell you bigfoot's real?  That'll be extra.

[Guest]

And this sounds much more like the money making scheme I feel he is on and how he will continue to deny or try to debunk anything he finds by selective avoiding samples previously screened ..basically the anti-ketchum ... sorta like Disotell.

Sykes normally charges around 600 bucks for people to find out where their maternal and paternal lineages come from. Yet he is charging 2K for bigfoot sample identification. Either something is different in the tests or the price is steepened for footers who only need a little mito test to find out it is a bear, horse, cow etc. 

 

http://www.oxfordancestors.com/component/page,shop.product_details/flypage,flypage/product_id,20/category_id,6/option,com_virtuemart/Itemid,67/

 

So this is why I say a fresh new person not yet tainted like MK or the others mentioned above seeking money and fame but a new one currently off the radar that is unbiased and curious that can check for a reasonable fee

Edited February 4, 2014 by GEARMAN

[dmaker]

So now Sykes is tainted and a fame and fortune seeker?  

[Guest]

Not now thats how I have felt for quite a while ..... the final verdict is out though officially to all his goods (proejcts,papers) are shown hopefully this year but I am sticking with that.