Guest Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 When all was said and done, this Walter Mitty individual wound up being a chicken farmer from South Carolina. There is a cool conversation about this as well as other individuals who have harmed the subject of BF in the Tar-Pit Forum of the Premium Membership Plan. It has been quite enlightening and funny to hear/read folks speak out about some of those who have/are doing harm to the subject. Now, chicken farming is an honorable job and one that should be respected. But to have someone like LongtabberPE make the wild claims he made, as others have done, and then be exposed as such will forever rest in the BF Communities *infamy* category . not to mention puff that the chicken farmer even fooled the bestest "skeptics" at their own forum also, lol , it took members of a military forum to bring him down, peeps that were actually where he was not.........so I wonder if this leads us to if you will an information vacuum, to where we believe what we want to hear instead of what is real? I for one will wait as long as it takes for the paper to come out, no need to rush the science, it will come out when its ready........its not like we havent waited many years already for something of this magnitude to arrive.....in the mean time, i will just keep reading all the great posts in this thread.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 Here's the layperson version Human mumbo jumbo DNA that is so unusual, yet so many samples that are alike, gathered under squatchy circumstances, that it's a statistical slam dunk they must be from a new species Mulder, You may have misunderstood Cervelo's shorthand. I took "mumbo jumbo" not as a pejorative description like "gobbledygook," but instead as a colorful referring to the complexities of DNA issues that are beyond the knowledge base of many of us laymen. I think the important issue is in the "yet so many samples ... are alike" part of Cervelo's comment. Some folks are thinking the DNA will be human but with genetic variations that have yet to be cataloged and thus perhaps something new as it relates to the phenotype. Others think this proves the samples are from humans, pure and simple. But the fly in the ointment of that point of view is the alleged consistency of the samples from various locations across the country. If that is the case, then we have genetic variations not in the genetic data bank but found exclusively in samples alleged to be from Bigfoot. That would be very interesting indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 good to see driftinmark hanging around again. looks like we'll all be hanging around for a while waiting on this project / paper......pull up a chair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 not to mention puff that the chicken farmer even fooled the bestest "skeptics" at their own forum also, lol , it took members of a military forum to bring him down, peeps that were actually where he was not.........so I wonder if this leads us to if you will an information vacuum, to where we believe what we want to hear instead of what is real? I for one will wait as long as it takes for the paper to come out, no need to rush the science, it will come out when its ready........its not like we havent waited many years already for something of this magnitude to arrive.....in the mean time, i will just keep reading all the great posts in this thread.......... Yeah that was a debacle of the highest order friend. Wasn't too funny at the time but is sort of humorous in retrospect I guess. Astute analysis regarding folks from both sides reading into things what they want to hear. Heck, just look at the last page or two of this thread to confirm that. Some folks are like Timex watches as they *take a licking and apparently keep on ticking*. Dunno, I have this sneaking suspicion that the Ketchum Report is going to be a big *sigh* and inconclusive. Full of ambiguity and not solve a darn thing. Hope I'm wrong about that. Not going to get too caught up in expectations of *time* as there is more going on than most are aware of. Still the *leading and suggestive* FB postings by Dr K and Sally have done them no favors and have only heightened expectations. This could be the greatest news since sliced bread or the biggest *fizzle* since the *New Coke* product was released. But yeah, folks will read into it what they want to believe from both sides of the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 Mulder, You may have misunderstood Cervelo's shorthand. I took "mumbo jumbo" not as a pejorative description like "gobbledygook," but instead as a colorful referring to the complexities of DNA issues that are beyond the knowledge base of many of us laymen. Possible. Based on my prior experience with Cervelo I tend to discount that option, but it is possible. I think the important issue is in the "yet so many samples ... are alike" part of Cervelo's comment. Some folks are thinking the DNA will be human but with genetic variations that have yet to be cataloged and thus perhaps something new as it relates to the phenotype. Others think this proves the samples are from humans, pure and simple. But the fly in the ointment of that point of view is the alleged consistency of the samples from various locations across the country. If that is the case, then we have genetic variations not in the genetic data bank but found exclusively in samples alleged to be from Bigfoot. That would be very interesting indeed. True. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 (edited) Jerrywayne, While I appreciate your fair/open minded interpetation, I do feel I should clarify my position. I do not believe Bigfoot will or can be accepted as a new species without a body or significant part, hand, foot or head. The Kethum report is most likely going to be nothing more than statistical probability report based on the erroneous interpetation of human DNA. Accompanied by the usual anecdotal "evidence". I believe they could exist and base that on some personal experiences. I also think 99.9% of the current evidence is malarkey It will all be kinda like this LOL Edited May 13, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 Nah, Cervelo, I'd have to say more like 96-96.9 % is bunk Throw out the mistaken identity and outright hoax efforts and whallaaah! We at ..... 92% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 So you're going with the, "10 PHDs, departments heads, and university professors are incompetent" card? Interesting. I find it unlikely that these many people would erroneously interpret DNA. The findings may not be conclusive, but I am not sure that would be the reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 A, Show me where I said incompetent? Your words not mine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 Just interpreting what "erroneous interpretation of human DNA" would mean. That's a mistake of the highest magnitude. For them to roll with those results would be incompetence for sure. Of course, those are my words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 A, Not really! Let's say the PhDs are statisticians and their analysis of the probabilty of the samples from so many diffrent places, and alike, yet so close to human (but not) concludes that statistically they must be from a different species..... walla Bigfoot! I'm sure that works for the knowers and believers but thats not going to prove Bigfoot exsist scientifically. If the study includes a Bigfoot head and some really compelling footage it's a slam dunk and I'll happily eat my crow pie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 That's a bizarre series of suppositions, Cervelo. Are they hand-picked suppositions to support your beliefs? Do you really just think that the experts in the world of DNA are so dim that they can't possibly be trusted to get this right? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 (edited) Indeed it is!! And just like "The Report"and this thread at this point it's a WAG on anyone's part. I think you might be jumping the gun on the experts when and if the report comes out then that "supposition" can be reviewed as to the credentials of said experts. It's all in matter of interpetation and ones perspective Edited May 13, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 (edited) Nothing but modern human DNA has ever been claimed or shown. Ketchum claimed that one of the thus-far-anonymous supposed 10 or more "authors" called the results only "interesting." And none of them are known to have actually put their names on this supposed paper...let's see who puts their money where their mouth is. It hardly seems likely that they have something other than modern human DNA with some polymorphisms that aren't in GenBank. People say she wouldn't have spent all this time and effort if that's all she had...but look at the copyright document...she did just that, it seems. Now has she got something completely different since then? non-modern human DNA? She hasn't said so, has she? I guess for something completely different, you have to believe the Sierra Kill story and that the 'steak" represents the animals he shot days earlier. Meldrum has some sense of what went on there and what the sample looked like, and he doesn't seem to buy it. I frankly don't either. I think the paper will be published somewhere, but not anywhere good, imho, if it tries to make modern human DNA into the popular bigfoot. I'm fine with an article that says one can find modern human DNA in the woods, and that modern humans are sometimes confused with some scary monster in the dark or in fuzzy photos and videos or in Native American folklore, and that new polymorphisms are found sometimes and we don't know what they all translate into. I think she could get 10 reputable people to sign on to that. I would. p. Edited May 13, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 I believe they could exist and base that on some personal experiences. I also think 99.9% of the current evidence is malarkey This is an attitude I really don't get. Some guy has a personal experience, then starts believing his experience is among the .1% of all the evidence that is legitimate. Thats pretty narrow Cervelo. I'd be interested to know how your experience has informed you about other evidence, which you didn't experience. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts