See-Te-Cah NC Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 See, I will ask (as I keep asking, but no one will answer) where exactly you think "undocumented primate" DNA would come from aside from an undocumented primate? A good, clean DNA sequence is 100% absolute proof of the animal whose sample it came from. You simply cannot have the former w/o the later. Understood, hence my initial statement. However, telling the public that you've "discovered" Bigfoot without the accompaniment of evidence to lend credibility to their findings is not going to fly with the majority of the public. A very small portion of the public will ever understand or care about DNA... They want to see evidence that they can understand. I don't blame them. I do, too. The DNA doesn't tell me the creature's habits, diet, range, possible intelligence, growth rate etc. That's what folks want to know about. That takes evidence in addition to DNA. Without conclusive accompanying evidence, this presentation of DNA will mean little to most people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Do you suppose there is a skeptic out there trying to figure out a way to hoax DNA to show how easy it is? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Until it passes the "peer-review", isn't all this high-fiving a little premature? Or did some of you miss that in the press release? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 So I think that it's going to take a lot more than 3 sequences and multiple labs. Try 109 samples, many with complete mitochondrial genomes (16.5k base pairs) novel morphology in the samples, 3 complete nuclear genomes with novel sequences interspersed, plus other supporting data , vids , photo's testimony etc. DWA, if this is Sasquatch, you can't have a specimen. As soon as you attempt to curate one, it will be repatriated, and to kill one would obviously be homicide which we of coarse can't do in the name of science. Maybe this won't prove to all interested that BF exists, but to many, this explains the conundrum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted November 24, 2012 BFF Patron 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. You mean this one.... http://news.discovery.com/human/bigfoot-sightings-michigan-russia-111013.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 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. Slim, I agree with you on the above statement. I also find it odd that they do not have real media and interviews lined up already for the colloboration in lieu of the journal release at this time. It appears that they are letting this blow in the breeze until someone picks it up. Perhaps this was not planned and they just wanted to win a race. It seems that way from Paulides's blog post. We'll see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 You mean this one.... http://news.discover...sia-111013.html Yessir. Perhaps this was not planned and they just wanted to win a race. It seems that way from Paulides's blog post. I wonder. They know Sykes is close to his announced deadline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Are any of you guys under NDA a little freer now to say more? Would be good to hear some of your stories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Bass Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Yahoo is carrying it: http://news.yahoo.com/bigfoot-dna-sequenced-upcoming-genetics-study-181025122.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Go BFF, nothing released on BFRO thus far. Anyone see Saskeptic, Cerv, Kit...............??? I've been in the Dismal Swamp all day here's what I found..... Without a body ya still got the same thing I found today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 I just had one firmly tell me that DNA was "junk science"... 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. Which is just why I said "dirty little secret;" because sometimes it seems that only scientists haven't gotten the memo that the public pays for what they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 The phone number on the press release looks to be listing to a VoIP phone out of Petoskey, MI which is in Emmet county. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Adrian Erickson and The Olympic Projects websites are still not updated with any fresh information. I wonder when these guys will get to chime in? Paulides didn’t waste any time that’s for sure. I am sure Wally will need his props as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 I've been in the Dismal Swamp all day here's what I found..... Without a body ya still got the same thing I found today Did you plant that evidence Cervelo? Yes or no will do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Understood, hence my initial statement. However, telling the public that you've "discovered" Bigfoot without the accompaniment of evidence to lend credibility to their findings is not going to fly with the majority of the public. A very small portion of the public will ever understand or care about DNA... They want to see evidence that they can understand. I don't blame them. I do, too. Please don't think I'm taking a shot here, but what is so difficult to understand about DNA? Each type of critter has a specific genetic code that tells the developing embryo what kind of critter it is, its "blueprint". That code is unique to that type of critter, and we can read it, telling us what kind of critter it is, the same as, for example, one can look at the blueprint for a house and know that following that blueprint makes a house, a car blueprint makes a car, etc. The exact details (what kind of metals, what shape the parts are, etc) may be beyond most people, but I wouldn't expect ANYone not to be able to look at a set of blueprints and at least have a very good idea of what they are for. The DNA doesn't tell me the creature's habits, diet, range, possible intelligence, growth rate etc. That's what folks want to know about. That takes evidence in addition to DNA. Agreed, but that's not the issue, in my opinion. All that is needed from this study is to establish that it exists. The rest can come later. Without conclusive accompanying evidence, this presentation of DNA will mean little to most people. Well, all I'll say is that there is a lot that "means little to most people" even when it actually means a great deal. People in the wilderness development industry (for example) will find that it may mean a great deal when their jobs go "poof" if BF is declared to be some sort of aboriginal near-human and they lock up the woods as it's "reservation". Do you suppose there is a skeptic out there trying to figure out a way to hoax DNA to show how easy it is? LOL...I have no doubt...maybe closer to home here than we think, even... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts