WSA Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 While this might be more appropriate to broach in the Sykes or Ketchum threads, I do think it touches on the OP. We have two DNA studies that produced results that typed the mDNA as human. In fact, mitochondrial DNA was ALL Sykes examined, am I right? So, I'm just sayin', you can draw two conclusions from those results: 1. The mother of the sample donor was merely/only H.Sapien, and of course the donor's father is presumed to be too, or; 2. BF is a race of H.Sapien (and I put aside the nuDNA analysis Ketchum did as not confirmed by Sykes). This is what I mean by redefining your proof. And look, it opens up the whole monkey v. man debate, I know. At some point though, you are forced to reexamine your preconceptions, one of which you may be avoiding. One thing that is hard to get over is the idea that something as bizarre as a BF could be closer to us than we know. When you put that aside though, and accept recent Neanderthal DNA interbreeding evidence especially, it comes up a very plausible explanation. Everything in this world that can mate and produce viable/fertile offspring, WILL mate and produce those offspring. Can anyone seriously doubt that as a universal truth? Only once is required, but how often does nature call "once" success?. Behavior? I've seen everything a BF is alleged to do, done by humans. In fact, we very easily mimic them in so many ways. So, who's the monkey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted August 25, 2014 BFF Patron Share Posted August 25, 2014 Since the topic of this thread is "It will not make any difference" What difference will it make to you DMaker, and others like you, when your DNA proof comes along? Will you accept that? Or is your belief system so strong (and wrong) that you will become like a flat earther and continue to claim that everyone including genetic science is wrong? What will you say to all the witnesses that you claim have been mistaken? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 (edited) While this might be more appropriate to broach in the Sykes or Ketchum threads, I do think it touches on the OP. We have two DNA studies that produced results that typed the mDNA as human. In fact, mitochondrial DNA was ALL Sykes examined, am I right? So, I'm just sayin', you can draw two conclusions from those results: 1. The mother of the sample donor was merely/only H.Sapien, and of course the donor's father is presumed to be too, or; 2. BF is a race of H.Sapien (and I put aside the nuDNA analysis Ketchum did as not confirmed by Sykes). This is what I mean by redefining your proof. And look, it opens up the whole monkey v. man debate, I know. At some point though, you are forced to reexamine your preconceptions, one of which you may be avoiding. One thing that is hard to get over is the idea that something as bizarre as a BF could be closer to us than we know. When you put that aside though, and accept recent Neanderthal DNA interbreeding evidence especially, it comes up a very plausible explanation. Everything in this world that can mate and produce viable/fertile offspring, WILL mate and produce those offspring. Can anyone seriously doubt that as a universal truth? Only once is required, but how often does nature call "once" success?. Behavior? I've seen everything a BF is alleged to do, done by humans. In fact, we very easily mimic them in so many ways. So, who's the monkey? Be careful with the everything. I have yet to see a human with glowing eyes, or the ability to go invisible and teleport. Just sayin.... Since the topic of this thread is "It will not make any difference" What difference will it make to you DMaker, and others like you, when your DNA proof comes along? Will you accept that? Or is your belief system so strong (and wrong) that you will become like a flat earther and continue to claim that everyone including genetic science is wrong? What will you say to all the witnesses that you claim have been mistaken? I would happily adjust my position in the face of confirmed evidence from a reliable source. Absolutely I would. I would even begin to rethink my position on the strength of clear, HD photos or video footage. Again, from a reliable source and that has undergone some analysis. I am not holding my breath since bigfoot does not exist. There is no reason to think it does, there is no evidence to support the notion. But if some better evidence were to be brought forward, of course it would make a difference. Edited August 25, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 (edited) dmaker: It is only that I am a percentage player. Of the hundreds of first hand accounts I've read and had described to me, the percentage of those that contain something like that is minute. Yes, science is owed an explanation for those, but I decline to do that work or care much about what is driving that. There is plenty of other behaviors to investigate that will last one a lifetime of investigaton, and as DWA often correctly reminds us, the vast, vast majority of reported behavior traits are no more exotic than those found in hundreds of other (but known) animals. My thesis is only: And one of them is Man. Edited August 25, 2014 by WSA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 What I keep coming back to, time and again is not just the results of these two DNA studies, but the experiences of others I've been digesting over the years. Those who claim to have had frequent visual contact with these animals almost universally come down on the human side of the debate. Why is that? What are they seeing? Can it really be articulated, or is it just a "feel" for us recognizing our own...something every H.Sapien inherits by birthright? Undeniably, there is a level of self-awareness that is transmitted to those who claim to be in a position to see it. Can we say why? Does anthropomorphization explain it completely? This is something I've weighed for quite some time and it currently is my thesis, although I've resisted voicing it, but if you want to reconcile a great deal of the evidence, there it is...from the Sierra sounds, right down to the shoot/shovel/shut up behavior of the serendipitous kill experience. The observations of the NAWAC in Area X no doubt carry great weight with me....but I think they would be the first to admit they don't know for sure. It is all theory at this point, for those who don't claim to have that degree of contact some claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 As long as people continue to invoke the straw man fallacy they'll be able to go comfortably to sleep insulated from information. Here's dmaker, 8000 posts in, and he's still throwing stuff into the hopper that the scientific proponents reject. That's not water much less weak sauce. This is where the nuance of approach of true intellect comes in. Those of us whose life experience totally informs everything we do and think understand with a surgeon's thoroughness of approach, knowledge and precision what to sift and what to keep, what is chaff and what is wheat. dmaker is a walking illustration of the person who has never devoted significant thought to anything that didn't have professional or practical-in-town value. These folk are gonna have a real rough time at the outer edges of science where the true thinker is always comfortable.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1980squatch Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 ^^^ I dunno DWA, he sure spends a lot of time thinking about this subject along with us, on a topic that sure is shy of professional or practical value. I bet 99% of the population does not spend any time at all thinking about this stuff. Dmaker is part of the 1% same as you or me, like it or not (I'm pretty sure not). And you just could not let the GF go 4 hours without a post! So close... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 (edited) ^^^Yes. But I have something I am interested in that I post about. Dmaker very very clearly does not (other than continuing to try to Rescue the Deluded, which, well, can be somewhat of a delusion itself.) I have, very honestly, seen no more evidence of time he has spent thinking about this than I have seen from people who don't care about out and never bother to read a thing about it. I've never seen him post a thought such a person could not. Never. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet. YOU ARE TIMING INTERVALS BETWEEN MY POSTS? I mean, even looking to check? Um...could we talk about the subject some....? Edited August 25, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 Time I'd be screwed though if I ever saw one, how in the heck would I explain it to you, oh the rejection. Who cares at that point unless you have an overwhelming need for acceptance over this. If I saw bigfoot, I would be excited and possibly uncomfortably wet but I would not expect everyone to believe or accept my statements at face value. I would be making plans for my next encounter and traps and dynamite and bubblegum etc : ) Like Chelefoot, I am curious about the disparity of reports. I have my ideas about them and Chele likely has her own just as everyone here has something they think on these disparate reportages. As long as people continue to invoke the straw man fallacy they'll be able to go comfortably to sleep insulated from information. Here's dmaker, 8000 posts in, and he's still throwing stuff into the hopper that the scientific proponents reject. That's not water much less weak sauce. This is where the nuance of approach of true intellect comes in. Those of us whose life experience totally informs everything we do and think understand with a surgeon's thoroughness of approach, knowledge and precision what to sift and what to keep, what is chaff and what is wheat. dmaker is a walking illustration of the person who has never devoted significant thought to anything that didn't have professional or practical-in-town value. These folk are gonna have a real rough time at the outer edges of science where the true thinker is always comfortable.. What does Dmaker say that science has a problem with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 Who cares at that point unless you have an overwhelming need for acceptance over this. If I saw bigfoot, I would be excited and possibly uncomfortably wet but I would not expect everyone to believe or accept my statements at face value. I would be making plans for my next encounter and traps and dynamite and bubblegum etc : ) Jeez louise, lighten up, it was just my poor attempt at humor. You did see the smiley face? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1980squatch Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 YOU ARE TIMING INTERVALS BETWEEN MY POSTS? I mean, even looking to check? Um...could we talk about the subject some....? No, just noticed this afternoon that the forum had gone hours between posts which is very rare. Then you posted just shy of the four hour mark. Was not following your activity personally, you get enough of that sort of thing already. .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 ^ Dmaker is part of the 1% same as you or me, like it or not (I'm pretty sure not). I knew it!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 No, just noticed this afternoon that the forum had gone hours between posts which is very rare. Then you posted just shy of the four hour mark. Was not following your activity personally, you get enough of that sort of thing already. .. The man's in pain from a dislocated shoulder. It's tough to pat your own back several times a day. Give him a break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted August 25, 2014 BFF Patron Share Posted August 25, 2014 Dmaker would "begin to rethink his beliefs if he got evidence from a reliable source". Evidence in the form of good HD would do the same thing. But he is not holding his breath because BF "does not exist". There are several scientists that are convinced of BF, that have provided evidence but that has done nothing to open up even the possibility in his mind. He keeps saying there is not any evidence. I don't know who would be good enough to provide such evidence for him if several PHDs are not good enough to even open the possibility in his mind. He is the modern day equivalent of a flat earther with regards to BF. I keep hoping for some good HD video of my own, but in his case, immediately I would be accused of being a Hollywood level costumer and my HD video a hoax. His belief system is just too strong to be swayed by any evidence from any source. He could have a personal encounter and it would probably send him into shock and denial. He probably would rather think he hallucinated than accept the possibility that BF exists. I think it a waste of time to engage with him quite frankly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 What's to debate with dmaker? The evidence is lacking. Is there a debate about that? Look, I'm a skeptic that wants to believe, that hopes something comes thru to prove the big guy's existence. But to berate an avowed skeptic because he (correctly) points out there is no proof is a mistake. Put up and make the avowed skeptics shut up. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts