Guest Particle Noun Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Yeah, thought it might be the same lazy wish fulfillment on the part of skeptics. One last chance to believe it is bunk... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 (edited) I'm just happy we are getting somewhere in the Sasquatch community when it comes to proving the existence of these creatures. We've waited too long, just make it happen. Additionally, if a type specimen is required (captured alive, please. Don't go out and brutally kill one), then maybe this DNA press release will cause scientists and the mainstream media to say, "Hey, maybe we are actually on to something here." Then, with enough recognition, they could get some funding for expeditions and some very high tech, high investment type deal. Edited November 24, 2012 by Austin M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 LOL...true That's where 3 complete DNA sequences and multiple independent labs come in. No worries. Well, the P-G film doesn't have a single scrap of evidence challenging its authenticity in 45 years, and it's gotten us nowhere. The trackways have been peer-reviewed....and here we still are. The sightings have been shown to conform to biogeographical rules, and to give us a compelling head start on the species' behavior and ecology...and zero progress. So I think that it's going to take a lot more than 3 sequences and multiple labs. Particularly when the scientists know that the public probably isn't following this too closely. Just a steep hill to climb without the type specimen. My best-case is that scientists who have been on the fence join the proponents, and some noted skeptics at least climb on the fence, and the phenomenon gets increased attention. I also think that the public's response will have much to say about where this goes, because the dirty little secret of science is that it's the public's servant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Press wise, Bobo and the rest of the FB crew have been all over the press lately. There is a space opened up for the mainstream media to cover this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Yeah, thought it might be the same lazy wish fulfillment on the part of skeptics. One last chance to believe it is bunk... I just had one firmly tell me that DNA was "junk science"... Well, the P-G film doesn't have a single scrap of evidence challenging its authenticity in 45 years, and it's gotten us nowhere. The trackways have been peer-reviewed....and here we still are. The sightings have been shown to conform to biogeographical rules, and to give us a compelling head start on the species' behavior and ecology...and zero progress. So I think that it's going to take a lot more than 3 sequences and multiple labs. Particularly when the scientists know that the public probably isn't following this too closely. Just a steep hill to climb without the type specimen. My best-case is that scientists who have been on the fence join the proponents, and some noted skeptics at least climb on the fence, and the phenomenon gets increased attention. I also think that the public's response will have much to say about where this goes, because the dirty little secret of science is that it's the public's servant. Cant entirely disagree, except that all too often Science thinks that it's the public's MASTER, not servant, with it reserving the right to tell us what is true and what is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 ^^^Well their "skepticism" is thinking people's junk science. So two can play at that game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 (edited) Wow, yeah, I saw that over on the JREF Forum, Mulder. There are a lot of people over there that is shocking, just how ignorant they are. EDIT: I keep reading through those last pages of the thread. Junk science, no photos, no evidence. Absolute ignorance at it's finest. That's like me swimming in the ocean and my friend saying, "Look, water!" "Nope, I refuse to believe there is water in this shifting, cold substance." Edited November 24, 2012 by Austin M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 : If these novel sequences aren't a part of the human (and ancestor) line, and not of the ape line, (but now seeing the wording, perhaps an ancestral line ape now extinct) what other possibilities? It still seems like H. erectus would be a candidate since it is still an unknown hominin genetically right? It also says to be peer-reviewed, so it's not a done deal I suppose? “Sasquatch nuclear DNA is incredibly novel and not at all what we had expected. While it has human nuclear DNA within its genome, there are also distinctly non-human, non-archaic hominin, and non-ape sequences. We describe it as a mosaic of human and novel non-human sequence. Further study is needed and is ongoing to better characterize and understand Sasquatch nuclear DNA.†I go away for less than 24 hours and there are 4 more pages to this thread! Sheesh! The Press Release seems hopeful to say the least, but opens up a lot of questions. I can't imagine what they mean by non-Human, Non Archaic Hominin and Non-Ape DNA! Fruit Fly DNA??!! Puzzling to say the least. Also I'm bothered by the fact it seems to still be under Review-after all this time! Perhaps that is just a turn of phrase to stay within the Journal's Guidelines. If there isn't an actual DATE inked in for publication, maybe they can claim it is till 'under review', but that seems a weird choice for a fig leaf at this point. I suspect it has to do with competetion-The Sykes study may be announcing results soon; Finding BF has DNA this weekend etc. I presume she's just placing her marker down first even if there are still loose ends. Exciting fer shure... GK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 So does this mean all bigfoot evidence was and still made or produced by humans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 ^^^Well their "skepticism" is thinking people's junk science. So two can play at that game. True Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted November 24, 2012 Moderator Share Posted November 24, 2012 Let the facts speak for themselves when it comes out,we all know that it will when it is finally published. How can one argue actual science that will prove the existence of a creature not yet known to exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest poignant Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 So does this mean all bigfoot evidence was and still made or produced by humans? Guess we'll need to specify Homo sapiens sapiens (HSS), or at least, Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH) to qualify you and I, unless of course you are a Sasquatch reading this on the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 I think a lot of skeptics put far to much relevance on their own opinions. A few believers to lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 I would think the "skeptics" have put their head too far up their descending colon. Bill 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Hmm. I wonder if the Robin Lynne listed as Ketchum's media consultant is Robin Lynne Pfeifer, a sasquatch "habituator" from rural Michigan. It seems likely as the 231 area code on the press release is located in Michigan. Hopefully some serious investigative reporting will ensue. Without the paper, I'd like to see the name of the journal or some corroboration from co-authors before I mention this to anyone I know offline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts