chelefoot Posted August 24, 2014 Posted August 24, 2014 Unknown primate DNA from a reliable source would be fantastic start. Though,I ask you the same chelefoot, what would it take to shake your conviction? I can actually see both sides in this debate. I question why/how they can exist with so little evidence, but I also feel that there is a possibility that they are out there. I think there's no way that every single sighting can be explained away. But I also feel like a large amount of the sighting reports can be explained. There's a handful of people who have told me their stories who have nothing to gain, wished it never happened, could not have been mistaken, are not on drugs or mentally unstable - and I believe they are telling the truth. For me to go to "zero possibility"? I guess all those people would have to come to me and say they were lying. But there's no chance of that happening because they aren't.
indiefoot Posted August 24, 2014 Posted August 24, 2014 LOL, never I suspect. But I do enjoy trying You enjoy trying to straighten out people that you believe to be delusional? The evidence that keeps pointing to the existence of an unknown primate at large in N. America, is the hair that tests forensically as being different enough to be rule out as being from a Hss, yet when tested for mtDNA, it comes back as fully Hss. This test is repeatable, with many examples of hair having been collected. If you choose you can dismiss the findings based on association with the Ketchum Project, but hers are not the only examples that support the finding.
MIB Posted August 24, 2014 Moderator Posted August 24, 2014 Unknown primate DNA from a reliable source would be fantastic start. Though,I ask you the same chelefoot, what would it take to shake your conviction? Yeah, and I just gave you one. Your behavior suggests that to you anyone who disagrees with your foregone conclusion must be deemed unreliable regardless of advanced degrees. I think you're as delusional, in a clinical sense, as you think "believers" are because you simply cannot acknowledge evidence that might prove you wrong ... exactly what you accuse others of. Ever try looking in the mirror? MIB
Guest DWA Posted August 24, 2014 Posted August 24, 2014 (edited) OK, dmaker, this isn't acceptable. Somebody needs to ground himself a little bit more in the real world. What would it take to 'shake my conviction'?????? YOU ARE THE ONLY TALKING HERE NOW WITH A CONVICTION. THE ONLY ONE. And your conviction is based on things swirling about in your own head, not on anything happening outside of it. The evidence says the proponents are right. You know the only thing that should ever change that, for a rational person grounded in reality, ever? An examination of the evidence that shows that it isn't what it appears to be. If that doesn't happen, and nothing else changes? 100 years from now, a rational person hasn't changed his mind, and you are still pulling on people's hems begging to be agreed with when you bring nothing to the table prompting a rational person to do it. There are words for that. Personally I wouldn't want to be saddled with any of them. We have thousands of people seeing an anomalous primate walking around leaving footprints, and guy's still running around Melbaville. Bring the hook on this feller, this ain't well. I never thought I'd meet - clearly - the least objective person I have ever encountered on the internet here. I mean, the bigfoot-skeptic position is the least objective position, on any scientific topic, of which I am aware, so I figured there'd be no clear contenders. You take the cake. Competition canceled. It could not get worse. 7,000 posts here, and you know no more about this than people who have never read a thing about it. Edited August 24, 2014 by DWA
dmaker Posted August 24, 2014 Posted August 24, 2014 (edited) Yeah, and I just gave you one. Your behavior suggests that to you anyone who disagrees with your foregone conclusion must be deemed unreliable regardless of advanced degrees. I think you're as delusional, in a clinical sense, as you think "believers" are because you simply cannot acknowledge evidence that might prove you wrong ... exactly what you accuse others of. Ever try looking in the mirror? MIB Could you please indicate chapter and paragraph? I have the Google Play digital edition and the page numbers are not identical to the printed edition. Though I did a search of the text for DNA and found nothing to support any result of unknown primate. In fact, I did find this comment on page 296 of the digital edition: ( my bold) " Morphologically, the hair evidence indicates some unknown animal, although the definitive DNA evidence remains elusive and must become a focus of future endeavor." p296 Also, from the forward by Schaller: " But there still is no proof. No bones, no skin, no conclusive DNA" I should remind you that I asked for examples of unknown primate DNA, not hair morphology. Edited August 24, 2014 by dmaker
Guest DWA Posted August 24, 2014 Posted August 24, 2014 (edited) It is to shake one's head. Edited August 25, 2014 by DWA removed snarky comment
WSA Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 Axiom: if your proof doesn't agree with your evidence, and your evidence stands up, some would agree that you should redefine your proof.
dmaker Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 But the evidence does not stand up. When tested, it always comes back as everything but a bigfoot.
Guest DWA Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 (edited) ^^^^Bobo Fallacy. (thanks, chele!) I'm going to say something similar. Every time somebody has tried to drag a walrus into my living room they have failed. I mean, no walrus in the living room, right? Edited August 25, 2014 by DWA
ShadowBorn Posted August 25, 2014 Moderator Posted August 25, 2014 But the evidence does not stand up. When tested, it always comes back as everything but a bigfoot. Of course the evidence is not going to stand up or stand out screaming Bigfoot. How would it when there is nothing in the DNA data base to compare with except for certain expects of the DNA. It is the unknown part of the DNA that keeps showing that should be screaming that this is Bigfoot. It is this part of the DNA that science should put all it's effort in discovering the true nature of this creature's existance.
Guest DWA Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 Folks. Harrumph, FOLKS... It is the perfect mesh of the characteristics described in thousands of encounters with thousands of tracks that directly relevant experts have shown would be made by an animal with precisely those characteristics. DNA, schmeenay. If one cannot deduce that this animal is real from ^^^that, one simply is not equipped to practice science. Or, being more generous (to some people), they simply are grossly neglecting to practice it here. Period.
chelefoot Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 Researchers have been collecting evidence for 60 years. DNA is a fairly new science. If they are out there, someone will find the needle in the haystack evidently. Unless it's true that BF has Hss mito. If that's the case, I guess the BFs get the last laugh. (Snelgrove lake comes to mind.) It might not seem probable, but it's possible, so I choose not to dismiss that possibility. (Although I think we have to dismiss anything and everything that came from the 5 year DNA study - but that's another topic). 1
WSA Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 But the evidence does not stand up. When tested, it always comes back as everything but a bigfoot.[/quoteWhy don't you reconsider what BF DNA looks like? The mitochondrial,especially. A bigfoot may not be as exotic as our visual evidence would argue. We as a species get that wrong frequently...much to the dismay of the object of our scrutiny I might add.
Guest thermalman Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 But the evidence does not stand up. When tested, it always comes back as everything but a bigfoot. Seems to be the case nowadays with the forensics proving thus.
dmaker Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 But the evidence does not stand up. When tested, it always comes back as everything but a bigfoot.[/quoteWhy don't you reconsider what BF DNA looks like? The mitochondrial,especially. A bigfoot may not be as exotic as our visual evidence would argue. We as a species get that wrong frequently...much to the dismay of the object of our scrutiny I might add. Are you suggesting that bigfoot DNA looks identical to raccoon, bear, horse, etc? With the recent Sykes study, only one of those results was human.
Recommended Posts