Submitting A BF Sample To Science

[MIB]

11 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Differences between lines Of Homo are obvious enough to detect a new species of Homo.

 

Conditionally true, but not absolutely true.    Most testing is done with the intent of matching a sample to a known species.    You are looking at specific loci to find something the same.   If it is a match on those known identifiers, it is assumed to be a match.   Looking for a novel species closely related to some known species is very much a different matter.    It requires first matching on the known identifiers to establish similarity, then has to proceed much farther than is done for species identification to locate differences.   

 

So yes, when a new human species is suspected, testing can determine if the new sample is a match to what is known or what is novel, but that is not the kind of testing that is done in almost all cases.   This testing for a new species is a lot more involved and a lot more expensive.    And the results are often controversial, both at the moment and sometimes for a long time afterwards .. the experts do not always agree on the interpretation of the data, sometimes for very good reasons.  

[Arvedis]

22 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

Sykes and Disotell's stand against existence plays to their credibility with main stream science.     I would not expect either one to find anything as evidence of existence since it would damage their reputations.    As I understand it there is a lot of subjectivity with fragmented DNA.   It is not like they have ever had an intact chunk of fresh BF or Yeti to test.    Actually I cannot know that.    Somehow everything Sykes tests turns out to be a bear.   Even bears not known to exist.    That is far safer to publish than "I found bigfoot"  

 

Different scenarios with Sykes and Disotell testing. Sykes wanted to find something relevant, put significant effort into the testing process. His samples were widespread so there was little chance of cross contamination. Sykes got more than bear. But still, all verifiable animals or extinct animals for which a dna catalog already existed.

 

Disotell ruined the snelgrove lake samples which was minimal to begin with. Then he ruined the Erickson samples. I think he's just a poor scientist in tandem with being insincere with his agenda. 

 

42 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

I usually try to avoid denigrating people in the Bigfoot community.  My main complaint about this field is the time and energy spent on researchers attacking other researchers.  Whole websites nominally devoted to Bigfoot that are only filled with rants and attacks on other people in the field.

 

That being said, I am surprised that anyone out there did NOT think that Todd Disotell was just in this to get his face on television. He never seemed sincerely interested or passionate about the topic of Bigfoot.  It just looked like a media gig for him, like starring in a toothpaste commercial or something.

 

No need to denigrate Disotell but we can speculate his mohawk is an indication he still thinks he's a teenager into punk music, imitating British slang like "oy" at every opportunity.

[BlackRockBigfoot]

2 minutes ago, Arvedis said:

 

Different scenarios with Sykes and Disotell testing. Sykes wanted to find something relevant, put significant effort into the testing process. His samples were widespread so there was little chance of cross contamination. Sykes got more than bear. But still, all verifiable animals or extinct animals for which a dna catalog already existed.

 

Disotell ruined the snelgrove lake samples which was minimal to begin with. Then he ruined the Erickson samples. I think he's just a poor scientist in tandem with being insincere with his agenda. 

 

 

No need to denigrate Disotell but we can speculate his mohawk is an indication he still thinks he's a teenager into punk music, imitating British slang like "oy" at every opportunity.

Attention seeking, much like his work in the Bigfoot community. 

[SWWASAS]

If Disotell is destroying samples he or his grad students could just be sloppy.   Or his agenda is to cover up BF existence.    New York is a big producer of forest products and finding bigfoot there would result in a big loss of revenue for the state.     Maybe he is worried about how that impacts his paycheck at NYU.   

[hiflier]

 

42 minutes ago, MIB said:

the experts do not always agree on the interpretation of the data, sometimes for very good reasons.  

 

Safe to say that data interpretation is a process that is better served through repetitive testing by peer groups? I mean, papers get submitted and are reviewed but it would seem interpretation shouldn't be accepted without samples being further tested by others? In that way an interpretation could be better supported or accepted?

 

In the case of say, Denisovans, the markers are there for identifying Homo, but there are enough differences to call Denisovans "Denisovans" as opposed tp Sapiens sapiens? Makes me wonder about a few things for sure. One of those musings being what if someone in science called the Denisovans Sasquatches instead? What would have happened? Another musing centers around the idea that since we have these "freshly-discovered" Homo genetic markers has anyone taken supposed Sasquatch DNA and run it against any of these new-found genomes? I mean, if Sasquatch is thought to be close enough to Humans to have alleged samples considered contaminated then why not run those samples against all of the recent ancient Homo genomes science has been coming up with? If the supposed Sasquatch markers match up with something recently discovered then we would have a winner.

Edited November 22, 2019 by hiflier

[SWWASAS]

2 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Safe to say that data interpretation is a process that is better served through repetitive testing by peer groups? I mean, papers get submitted and are reviewed but it would seem interpretation shouldn't be accepted without samples being further tested by others? In that way an interpretation could be better supported or accepted?

 

In the case of say, Denisovans, the markers are there for identifying Homo, but there are enough differences to call Denisovans "Denisovans" as opposed tp Sapiens sapiens? Makes me wonder about a few things for sure. One of those musings being what if someone in science called the Denisovans Sasquatches instead? What would have happened? Another musing centers around the idea that since we have these "freshly-discovered" Homo genetic markers has anyone taken supposed Sasquatch DNA and run it against any of these new-found genomes? I mean, if Sasquatch is thought to be close enough to Humans to have alleged samples considered contaminated then why not run those samples against all of the recent ancient Homo genomes science has been coming up with? If the supposed Sasquatch markers match up with something recently discovered then we would have a winner.

 

 

 

 

That might have happened if anyone with access to the ancient Homo DNA samples thought BF existed.  

[hiflier]

26 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

If Disotell is destroying samples he or his grad students could just be sloppy.   Or his agenda is to cover up BF existence.    New York is a big producer of forest products and finding bigfoot there would result in a big loss of revenue for the state.     Maybe he is worried about how that impacts his paycheck at NYU.   

 

I could see that being the case IF Sasquatch does indeed exist. Of course if it does, then then a hard rain will fall on many of our own as well as officials, agents, and their agencies. It could also be the tipping point at the head of a very long line of economic dominoes.

 

For all we know the Denisovans could be the cover up, or another line of Homo is the cover up. That's too big a reach to assume, of course, but then I typically like thinking beyond the usual, so.....

Edited November 22, 2019 by hiflier

[BlackRockBigfoot]

57 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

Conditionally true, but not absolutely true.    Most testing is done with the intent of matching a sample to a known species.    You are looking at specific loci to find something the same.   If it is a match on those known identifiers, it is assumed to be a match.   Looking for a novel species closely related to some known species is very much a different matter.    It requires first matching on the known identifiers to establish similarity, then has to proceed much farther than is done for species identification to locate differences.   

 

So yes, when a new human species is suspected, testing can determine if the new sample is a match to what is known or what is novel, but that is not the kind of testing that is done in almost all cases.   This testing for a new species is a lot more involved and a lot more expensive.    And the results are often controversial, both at the moment and sometimes for a long time afterwards .. the experts do not always agree on the interpretation of the data, sometimes for very good reasons.  

Agreed.

 

Sometimes there is a great deal of debate on whether a sample represents a new species of homo or is an outlier of an already established line.  

[hiflier]

True, and in some instances one has to wonder how much ego or jealousy enters the ring. We are dealing with Human after all. That's why I stress looking at the science and not the people. As it is there are logical discrepancies that I have been questioning all along on a number of points. Quite a few just wrapped around the OP nesting site. But there are others instances, too.

[BlackRockBigfoot]

44 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Safe to say that data interpretation is a process that is better served through repetitive testing by peer groups? I mean, papers get submitted and are reviewed but it would seem interpretation shouldn't be accepted without samples being further tested by others? In that way an interpretation could be better supported or accepted?

 

In the case of say, Denisovans, the markers are there for identifying Homo, but there are enough differences to call Denisovans "Denisovans" as opposed tp Sapiens sapiens? Makes me wonder about a few things for sure. One of those musings being what if someone in science called the Denisovans Sasquatches instead? What would have happened? Another musing centers around the idea that since we have these "freshly-discovered" Homo genetic markers has anyone taken supposed Sasquatch DNA and run it against any of these new-found genomes? I mean, if Sasquatch is thought to be close enough to Humans to have alleged samples considered contaminated then why not run those samples against all of the recent ancient Homo genomes science has been coming up with? If the supposed Sasquatch markers match up with something recently discovered then we would have a winner.

 

 

 

 

Paleoanthropologists can't even come to a consensus about how to define the genus Homo.  Some focus on bipedal locomotion while others use cranial characteristics.  

[hiflier]

In the mean time, keep those discoveries a-coming  

[SWWASAS]

The history of finding new species is full of initial misidentification.    I think I published a link to a Ted Talk about a palentologist that made several dinosaur species go non existent.       In several cases juvenile dinosaurs were misidentified as being adults of a separate species instead of the juvenile of known species.     He proved they were known species juveniles because he could demonstrate the changes in morphology as they matured.    All he had to do was find enough at various stages of maturity.   The early dinosaur finds in England really had paleontologists at the time confused as to what they were looking at.   

 

Some of these early human finds with one or two bones are likely to turn out to be something completely different that what they are thought to be. Of course since BF does not exist,  who would even consider it might be them.  

[ShadowBorn]

22 hours ago, Arvedis said:

It's a balancing act because you can go over the line and join that event they have in Washington state. I forget what it is called but where all the Bigfoot psychics go.  People who were not that way one day, suddenly transform into that as a result of this type of communication.

Sure, it's a balancing act until it becomes a cult following and you have everyone in a circle singing kumbaya to creature you believe to be that of a higher power. Just like you start to offer it gifts and for what purpose. What results does one get back when you offer these gifts. Self satisfaction. You cannot prove that it is them that did it. So all you are left with is that  self knowing that it was them that did it.

 

Dreams are the same thing . It is your self conscious that is deep with in your brain bringing back thoughts of what you have had experienced. 

[MIB]

19 hours ago, ShadowBorn said:

It's a balancing act because you can go over the line and join that event they have in Washington state. I forget what it is called but where all the Bigfoot psychics go.  People who were not that way one day, suddenly transform into that as a result of this type of communication.

 

If I had time, I'd be there.    Some good folks there.    They only pose a danger if you don't trust your own discernment.    Their perspective does not threaten me.   They have data, I have a filter.   It's all good ... for me.

 

MIB

[Incorrigible1]

I heard part of last night's Coast to Coast broadcast, an interview regarding bigfoot. Today I find this FB posting from Ms. Melba:

 

Stephanie J Little Wolf‎
to
 Melba Ketchum
9 mins ·

Outraged that Noory let ken Gerhard dis your work and smear it, claiming this tired garbage it came back as bear and that your methodology was suspect. URGH
1 Comment

Comments

    Melba Ketchum
    What's bad is when Sykes did the same thing, I called in and they wouldn't let me counter it. I am done with radio interviews and the BF crowd. I can't do this alone and though people say they support my research, I've asked for help before and only a handful stepped up to the plate. That was when WIKi let a reporter from Huffington Post dis it. The only way to help is to deluge C to C with complaints.If there are enough of you, maybe they will back off. It's bad enough with Sykes saying it is contaminated and more disgusting lies when he was on, but especially since I have the raw data to disprove contamination. I even did a video of how I could show that there wasn't any contamination on my YouTube channel, but this guy is no scientist and is no expert. This reminds me of the fake news. Lies and more lies and slander. That's one reason I haven't released some of the mindblowing data and corroboration I have as well. Why should I? They'd just lie and tear it apart.

    Like
     · Reply · 1m