norseman Posted June 10, 2017 Admin Posted June 10, 2017 On 6/6/2017 at 10:22 PM, dmaker said: I disagree. I think your wrong based on what I see in other fields of science. Proving the existence of a North American Primate based on a single DNA test with no collaberating evidence is going to get some serious push back from scientific community. If the lab was to somehow survive the shit storm and successfully defend their lab results? Then they would be vindicated and get their feather in their cap. But a single hair will be destroyed during testing, that's not enough. You would need probably dozens of hair samples. So that other labs could verify and reverify what the one lab is claiming to have gotten back.
Guest DWA Posted June 10, 2017 Posted June 10, 2017 (edited) One of the most consistent proponent errors I see is "one tooth, one hair, one body..." Um, that would be a big nuh-uh. Relevant scientists have written books about this that one would think would be read and commented on by the mainstream. And that has been [crickets] so far. More than one hair test has come back "primate, unknown" already. [crickets] from the mainstream. And then there is this little thing called "chain of custody." Whatever gets brought in has to get to us...on what will, count on it, be a long and winding road. It is probably better to clean and oil your gun and go on stakeout for a body - that better be a big gun, and two or more with you might be nice - than it is combing streambeds for teeth and pheromone traps for hair. It is gonna take a *lot* of evidence to prove this to people who seem intent on not believing it until a bigfoot is dropping their desk on their car from a fifth-story window. (And have it figured out in advance how that body is gonna become our proof. Cos the devil in these details is meaner than most. Norse, if you haven't said it here and maybe you have, I was wondering about what you have set up in the event.) Edited June 10, 2017 by DWA
SWWASAS Posted June 10, 2017 BFF Patron Posted June 10, 2017 Chain of custody is important. If I show up to a TV proof Proof of bigfoot roadshow that has a 10 million dollar prize for proof hosted by Dr Disotell,, (gee we already had one of those) with a swatch of hair that does test out as primate the questions would go like this. Who the hell are you? Oh not even a Masters in biology. Disotell sneers in contempt. Oh you are a BF researcher. So where in Asia did you get that hair? Oh, you got it in a forest in Washington? Have you been to a zoo lately? Traveled to South America or Asia? Was anyone other than you present when you found the hair? What methods did you use to make sure it was not contaminated when and after it was collected? How do you know it was not planted or just dropped off the clothing of some other human in the area. Have you been in control of the sample since it was collected? Never out of your sight? Did you see the animal what produced the hair? No? How do you know it was bigfoot? Got any pictures of the creature that produced the hair? Well sorry the origin of the hair and chain of custody is just too uncertain to make the claim that some primate lives in the forest of North America. Buzzz!!! Next contestant.
Guest DWA Posted June 10, 2017 Posted June 10, 2017 (edited) It is the scoftic mindset to grasp at any straw to discredit that one can. Somebody posted a couple days back or so that it's really interesting that the witnesses don't immediately run up to the animal to secure proof. I would like to see that poster try. That poster would be frozen in place, if not dead from shock and might disappear utterly from the site for the ten years it would take that poster to come to grips. And of course, most witnesses *are* that poster: skeptics if not utter scoftics. Until they saw one. One hell of a straw there, isn't it. That long and winding road is going to encounter people who have to justify their stoneheadedness on this topic. Count on it, there will be those that try that even if presented with a body. As an Ontario witness put it: when you see one of these, you don't react in the way people think you will. I'd think that's pretty broadly applicable. And the scoftics have dug themselves a Marianas Trench of a pit, that everything in them will be demanding they deny when they first see they've been proven wrong. Why so many of them wait years, even decades, to report their encounters. Edited June 10, 2017 by DWA
dmaker Posted June 10, 2017 Posted June 10, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, DWA said: More than one hair test has come back "primate, unknown" already That is not true. You've been asked to support this claim in the past, and you never do. I don't know why you continue to claim this as fact. Edited June 10, 2017 by dmaker
FarArcher Posted June 10, 2017 Posted June 10, 2017 14 hours ago, Rockape said: LOL, did you just call Dmaker an inbred? I didn't actually finish - I was so busy typing with my middle finger.
norseman Posted June 10, 2017 Admin Posted June 10, 2017 To my understanding it is true concerning morphology. But not DNA. I believe Farenbach reported this. Can someone fact check me?
hiflier Posted June 10, 2017 Posted June 10, 2017 DWA, dmaker, Norseman- do with this what you will: http://sasquatchsyndicate.com/hair-samples.html
dmaker Posted June 11, 2017 Posted June 11, 2017 An outdated hair analysis that does not include DNA, is not of much value.
hiflier Posted June 11, 2017 Posted June 11, 2017 Again, do with it what you will- especially since you didn't do the work to find the article. But then that's the game isn't it?
dmaker Posted June 11, 2017 Posted June 11, 2017 Go and do some thread research. I've hashed this topic out many times in the past, and did the work and provided links. Maybe you should not be so quick to jump down my throat?
hiflier Posted June 11, 2017 Posted June 11, 2017 Show me where you posted this one before you jump down mine.
dmaker Posted June 11, 2017 Posted June 11, 2017 Excuse me? I was not the one who left a snide remark along with the link, that was you. I pointed out that this is not my first go around with DWA about this exact topic. In the past, I have done the googling and provided links for articles. Perhaps not that exact same link, I can't be sure. I believe the article I mentioned in the past was this one: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/hair.htm I do thank you for your contribution, however. The point is whether or not DWA will defend his claim. I suspect not, he never has in the past.
ohiobill Posted June 11, 2017 Posted June 11, 2017 DWA defend a claim? Why start now? I predict a "rainbow rant" full of soothing colors, numerous fonts & sizes & at least 7 logical errors. I'd love to be wrong but the odds are in my favor.. 2
hiflier Posted June 11, 2017 Posted June 11, 2017 (edited) And I thank you for yours as well, my friend. And I get the thing with DWA because even as a semi-proponent (good grief, IS there such a thing? LOL) I rarely if ever got links from him when I asked. I posted that one because I kinda knew the deal (from experience) and just couldn't see it being dragged out. You can be a pretty tenacious character where such things are concerned Oh, and you can keep asking him if you wish- sorta fun to read the responses. P.S. Forgot to mention: Your link is way better than mine. Just so's ya know. Edited June 11, 2017 by hiflier
Recommended Posts