Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Wouldn't a more likely explanation be that it was just plain human hair? Depends how you look at it I guess. Once you know that these animals are real and how many samples have been tested over the years, you start to get an idea that there's something going on.
Guest Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) Depends how you look at it I guess. Once you THINK that these animals are real and how many samples have been tested over the years, you start to get an idea that there's something going on.You put "know" where it should have said "think", FTFY, You're not allowed to say "know" until you've seen one.The hairs cannot come back as modern human after testing, if the DNA has been altered in any way. The sequences will have noticeable differences to account for all the traits Bigfoot is said to have. Like Divergent1 said if it comes back human it's human. If Bigfoot hairs are the same as human hairs, whos to say Sasquatch hasn't been using gas station restrooms across the country, it would explain why nobody can find their poop. Edited May 13, 2015 by Nakani
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 You don't have to see one to know they exist. DNA testing on cryptid samples is done on mitochondrial DNA. Any genetic modification will show up only in the nuclear DNA because that's where the blueprint for what an organism will look like is. The mtDNA remains the same. Take ligers for example, you won't be able to tell that it's a liger from typical DNA testing because the mtDNA will show that it's 100% lion.
Guest DWA Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 You definitely don't have to have seen one to know they exist (I never have, although no one has ever explained the tracks I found to me). But one is on shaky ground when one is pinning discovery of an animal for which no physical specimen is in scientific custody on DNA.
kbhunter Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 The crazy thing is YOU can be found guilty and sent to prison or worse based on DNA. KB
Guest sprayanpray Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 In my thoughts if Bigfoot is ever proven to the skeptics through a body being place for the public to view the News media will have a field day. Many industries will change basically over night. Animal rights groups, Religious groups, timber industries, the Forestry service will be put under a microscope on the protection of this creature/species/humanoid and how much land will be put aside, The Bureau of land management will want in on the action,and the U.S Fish and Wildlife and then the lawyers for the subspecies if it has any humanoid DNA. The nightmare just gets worse. Maybe the DNA will always be degraded or contaminant until there is 600lb animal place in the lab/corners office remember the Giant squid/ silver back gorilla/. .. Unfortunately I think we have a better chance of finding a honest politician the finding Uncontaminated or degraded DNA of a Sasquatch. I think it is their (DNA) you will have to be at the right place at the right time
Guest DWA Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 The crazy thing is YOU can be found guilty and sent to prison or worse based on DNA. KB And actually, we are starting to see just how crazy that might be: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/crime-courts/forensic-science-in-crisis-as-doubt-cast-on-key-csi-techniques.123570132
ShadowBorn Posted May 13, 2015 Moderator Posted May 13, 2015 If Bigfoot hairs are the same as human hairs, whos to say Sasquatch hasn't been using gas station restrooms across the country, it would explain why nobody can find their poop Well then this can explain a incident I had while hiking. While out in the woods I came up to this object just sitting in the middle of nowhere. What the object was you ask? it was a toilet!. With the seat and toilet seat up. weird but funny.
BigTreeWalker Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 The crazy thing is YOU can be found guilty and sent to prison or worse based on DNA. KB KB, right there is a good example of found evidence (from the crime scene) and a known type specimen (the suspect).
Guest DWA Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Yes; and when we are finding out that *even with a type specimen* it has been used kinda dodgily, I am putting no confidence in it identifying for me a species for which one can show me nothing else. Again: Human DNA, absent the type specimen, means: toss the specimen, it's contaminated. I am a little confused how something showing about as clear a division from our species as inconclusive evidence could provide could be said to be "us" based on something that would invalidate the sample were we to see it in anything else. I have never believed it is either DNA or kill one. We have other ways, today, to confirm something as real. Problem is, no investment in any other of those ways, to the extent that will be required barring better-than-lottery luck, is being made. But count on this: without the type specimen, DNA won't do it...and shouldn't.
Guest Divergent1 Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 DNA doesn't show clear divisions anymore than morphology does. It's based on statistical probabilities and those divisions are man made. I know I'm going to regret telling you that for future discussion.
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 I think DWA means Bigfoot's physical description is what shows a clear division.
Guest Divergent1 Posted May 13, 2015 Posted May 13, 2015 Beg pardon, I thought he was talking about the DNA results.
SWWASAS Posted May 13, 2015 BFF Patron Posted May 13, 2015 Well then this can explain a incident I had while hiking. While out in the woods I came up to this object just sitting in the middle of nowhere. What the object was you ask? it was a toilet!. With the seat and toilet seat up. weird but funny. Out here unless you get way out, any closed off logging road becomes a human dump site. No wonder BF chases humans out of the woods. It makes me ill to see humans littering up the woods like that.
Guest DWA Posted May 14, 2015 Posted May 14, 2015 I think DWA means Bigfoot's physical description is what shows a clear division. I was indeed. I am really confused how anyone could think that the animal seen in P/G and described in thousands of reports which include, more than they do anything else, a phrase to the effect of "this wasn't human" could be somehow thought to be human. It's just another of the goofy things that happen when scientists allow an information vacuum. It gets filled by weird stuff. I know I have said more than anyone else here that sightings are not taxonomy. But humans simply are not being described.
Recommended Posts