NathanFooter Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 SES-Te-Cah NC . Thanks for your thoughts on this I am sure you have seen the leaked Erickson photo of the sleeping sasquatch, if the film footage is filmed at that range and clarity of that photo it will be better than the PG film, that is why I am confident that we will not be dealing with red circles around black blobsquatches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 You seem to be missing my point. I don't find the fact that DNA comes from a creature, possibly Bigfoot, hard to understand. It's not difficult to understand, nor has it ever been. What I mean is that this evidence needs to be accompanied by additional evidence of another type to claim that Bigfoot has been discovered. If you want to say that it's possible that Bigfoot DNA has been discovered, that's one thing. But to claim a discovery based on the DNA alone is akin to attempting to sell a house without showing it, using those blueprints you alluded to as proof that the house it details has actually been built. People like to see what they're buying. To the majority of citizens, DNA isn't proof. Seeing a Bigfoot is. Right. If all you have is the DNA, people know that DNA mistakes have been made. A mistake isn't an unlisted animal. We've had the "unknown primate" finding before. Where are we? People want to see this animal, to find out how it lives, to truly know that there isn't some flimflammery going on in this field full of circuses. A DNA finding will not satisfy the public; and it won't satisfy the mainstream of science. If it moves some opinions closer to proponent or uncommited, that is best case scenario. I'm not entirely disagreeing with either of you. Just pointing out it's irrational. But who ever accused human beings of rationality? Wow, 19 people in the chat room. That's news right there. I just wanted to get in on page 300. "People like to see what they're buying. To the majority of citizens, DNA isn't proof. Seeing a Bigfoot is." Why would 'Science' be concerned with what the majority of citizens think, considering they are not scientists. If the science is sound, it speaks for itself. What anyone else feels is of no consequence. Only in Scienceland. But the Brotherhood of the Labcoat seems to think that they and they alone determine what is real and what is not. The reason nobody bigger has picked this up is because its her own self released press. It wasn't released on any major PR channel. Along with her using another nutty habituator as her PR person and how this just looks like damage control due to Igor's mention I think this stinks worse than it looks. My guess is this is a move to use public PR to pressure American Science Journals to reconsider her manuscript. You heard it here first ! Actually, I said the same thing a page or so back...sorry... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Bass Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Look, guys - I believe that it's possible that Bigfoot exists. I'm not declaring that the DNA evidence isn't good enough for science, just that the general public will demand absolute proof before anyone tells them they can't sell their timber or hunt in a specific area. I can't say that I blame them, either. I think most of us would be just happy if it opens eyes with the scientific community that this something that needs to be taken seriously. But I personally feel that's wishful thinking at least on my part, I find today's science not very open minded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SmokeyMntnHooch Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 So we have hair, blood, saliva, a toenail, and the "steak" from the Smeja shooting as samples nearly all coming back with these same results? Yeah, skeptics will always want the dead body on a slab (and no, it wouldn't be homicide seeing as they aren't 100% human. It's not considered homicide when we kill an ape or a monkey, right? Why would sasquatch be treated any differently?) Hell, I'd take the life of criticism and haters to bring in the dead body of a bigfoot just to get this garbage over with. Put up or shut up. But how can "you" deny the results of so many samples from multiple sources coming back with the same exact result? I understand the current standing of this press release and the study, but if it truly turns out to be what they say it is (including other independent studies), dead specimen or not, you have to be completely ignorant to still deny the existence of the beast. In my experience, the majority of skeptics are armchair squatchers who like to instigate arguments online. BFE comments show this. If you are a skeptic and are actively in the woods searching to prove or disprove the thing then you will be bound to change your mind at some point. It's like riding motorcycles...it's not if you're going to be in an accident, it's when. It could be 3 months, 3 years, or 30 years but you will be involved in an accident. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Science demands a body, period. There have been exceptions. The kipunji was confirmed with a photograph. But mainstream scientists were making a claim plausible to the mainstream of primatology; and there was a plausible picture of the animal. (Yes, we have a movie of a bigfoot. And we know what the mainstream thinks of that.) Science has been denying this animal for decades. They aren't going to roll over for a badly-handled release of stuff that purportedly came from something that the claim's proponents can't produce. According to this logic, Denisovans don't exist. They have found a finger bone fragment, followed by an unrelated tooth and toe bone. This is not "a body" and yet this newly discovered humanoid is accepted by science. Where did the DNA material that Ketchum tested come from? Maybe...a body? Logic prevails in this argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rockfoot Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Well there goes all the new TV shows geared to "finding" Bigfoot. Now they will really have to get serious about finding one as I don't think people will be happy to just be happy with a blobsquatch any longer. I do wonder if there is a major difference between the creatures found in the North West verses those in the Mid West or North East? Sightings and research I have read indicated physical differences so I would be curious to know if there are DNA differences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 I'm familiar with the secular sources and Zecharia Sitchins works. The Sumerian texts etc.... I prefer to not have the discussion if I need to be cryptic about it. Its just too difficult to discuss it here. I just have a belief that SSq comes from somewhere in history and the book that describes one such example is rule bound out of the discussion on this particular forum, which is what it is. I accept that. I think these new DNA related studies will open up (hopefully) some new realities about the subject. Ironically it may lead to this forum being handicapped in going forward as to the origins of such a discovery and being boxed in by its own rules, but thats cool. It will still be discussed somewhere I gather. My thoughts as well. I noticed the mention of possible hybridization locations or areas in Paulides' release (middle eastern, possibly european), and the lack of that same information in Melbas' release. I feel probably to downplay that particular subject of which we do not speak, and to have one less obstacle to overcome in dealing with secular media, of which as I said in an earlier post, the vast majority of humankind will learn of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted November 25, 2012 Admin Share Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) You guys could join the Premium section of the forum and discuss whatever you want in the Tar Pit... Edited November 25, 2012 by gigantor 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Do you have a link to the science paper on that? Don't think DWA mentioned a "science paper" at all. Are you saying that tested "Bigfoot" hair samples, in the past, have never come up "unknown primate?" According TO the press release, it hasn't even passed peer review. Well, the press release does close with this: "Full details of the study will be presented in the near future when the study manuscript publishes." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) The reason nobody bigger has picked this up is because its her own self released press. It wasn't released on any major PR channel. Along with her using another nutty habituator as her PR person and how this just looks like damage control due to Igor's mention I think this stinks worse than it looks. My guess is this is a move to use public PR to pressure American Science Journals to reconsider her manuscript. You heard it here first ! public pressure has nothing to do with the release of the manuscript, they have their own process and will release it when they feel confident the data is correct. By what David P said, I would bet at being first over Skyes, stopping him from stealing their thunder. I don't understand how people feel that this study will not prove BF being of flesh and blood, their is more types of samples than they ever had for dinosaurs. many dinosaurs only had a couple fossilized bones and their is no problem with acceptance. They have soft tissue samples for the study, witch is much better proof than a fossilized bone. I could only imagine the giant waves over on the JREF, must have been capsized forums members everywhere Edited November 25, 2012 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagniAesir Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 So we have hair, blood, saliva, a toenail, and the "steak" from the Smeja shooting as samples nearly all coming back with these same results? Yeah, skeptics will always want the dead body on a slab (and no, it wouldn't be homicide seeing as they aren't 100% human. It's not considered homicide when we kill an ape or a monkey, right? Why would sasquatch be treated any differently?) Hell, I'd take the life of criticism and haters to bring in the dead body of a bigfoot just to get this garbage over with. Put up or shut up. But how can "you" deny the results of so many samples from multiple sources coming back with the same exact result? I understand the current standing of this press release and the study, but if it truly turns out to be what they say it is (including other independent studies), dead specimen or not, you have to be completely ignorant to still deny the existence of the beast. In my experience, the majority of skeptics are armchair squatchers who like to instigate arguments online. BFE comments show this. If you are a skeptic and are actively in the woods searching to prove or disprove the thing then you will be bound to change your mind at some point. It's like riding motorcycles...it's not if you're going to be in an accident, it's when. It could be 3 months, 3 years, or 30 years but you will be involved in an accident. There is another possible reason why you could get similar results from all these samples and that is due to a flaw in the procedure that producing the same error I am not saying this is the case here , just that this is why it needs to be peer reviewed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 I'm familiar with the secular sources and Zecharia Sitchins works. The Sumerian texts etc.... I prefer to not have the discussion if I need to be cryptic about it. Its just too difficult to discuss it here. I just have a belief that SSq comes from somewhere in history and the book that describes one such example is rule bound out of the discussion on this particular forum, which is what it is. I accept that. I think these new DNA related studies will open up (hopefully) some new realities about the subject. Ironically it may lead to this forum being handicapped in going forward as to the origins of such a discovery and being boxed in by its own rules, but thats cool. It will still be discussed somewhere I gather. Hey, you're over the 75 post count, and eligible to gain access to the PMP section. In the Tar Pit, you could talk about it to your heart's content... Why dont you think about joining us there ?? http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/30015-important-news-premium-access-memberships-are-now-available/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 frontiersofzoology.blogspot.com Not the study. Just a statement. So does anyone have the actual announcement? NEAT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 You guys could join the Premium section of the forum and discuss whatever you want in the Tar Pit... you know,gigantor is correct...i usually end up there more than the other sections. much like out here,just avoid the stuff you don't wish to discuss. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Well, the press release does close with this: "Full details of the study will be presented in the near future when the study manuscript publishes." Yep, but then again, you'd expect them to put a positive spin on their hopes. It's equally plausible that the peer review will find issues with it. I'm not popping any wine corks just yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts