Guest Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Try to have some patience with my lack of understanding here. Lets say there is Homo sapiens sapiens, and for argument sake,lets say there is Homo sapiens bigfooti (heheh), now when they refer to polymorphisms, would they not be referring to variance within the Homo sapiens bigfooti? If there had been no interbreeding with them, as there apparently has with Neanderthal, would we still expect to see traits in modern Humans that would surface related to the hypothetical bigfooti? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Right, so the "steak" presumably got left behind as a result of the bullet that Smeja claims he sent through said bigfoot. That's what I thought was the story, If you mean the "steak" was literally removed by the bullet (this idea was circulating at one time), then no. Although the participants can only speculate about the missing remains (particularly the lack of bones), they feel the flesh was likely the result of some predator working on the body. That's my read anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Right now, having researched, searched, searched searched for years, I have arrived at my opinion that BF does not exist based on the evidence. WTB1, Just curious. What books have you read on the subject ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) Parn, why do you keep going on about the Copyright stuff? All concerned have explained very well that it is utterly irrelevant, and doesn't represent the findings of the report at all. Why are you talking about people's understanding of the results of the tests, when those results are unknown? The one bit of information that has leaked is that the animal is said to be roughly 70% human........which is utterly meaningless, other than being pretty clearly not human. You are simply hypothesising about the hypothetical. I would also remind you that you are committing yourself to a terribly inflexible position, in writing, and in public. You could find yourself trying to defend the indefensible once the actual results are out, and, as I said at the time of your last outburst (around the time the copyright thing reared its head), the wise know when to keep their counsel. Mike PS Exnihilo.....you'll get told off by the Mods for quoting the immediately preceding post. Do some deleting, quickly, whilst you can still edit. Mike, thanks for your concern. LOL. I always get a kick out those kinds of attempts here to suppress discussion and speculation. What would you have here if it weren't for those sorts of discussions? I see you are presenting as real, something that Ketchum has never released.[/b] "...70%...."? Really? Do you see any hypocrisy in that? You do know that others are talking about how much time has passed, how many supposed deadlines haven't been, why the paper hasn't been published, etc etc? And some ask questions, or write things that aren't accurate about the science and the processes involved in publishing a paper? When and if Ketchum, Stubstad, you, Paulides, or others release papers, drafts, memos, letters, or make dubious statements about DNA, I'll evaluate them and comment as I see fit. Perhaps, through discussion, in the meantime, members will be better equipped to evaluate such items as they appear, rather than swallowing anyone else's endorsements or rejections uncritically. You, of course, and all the others you refer to in such a sweeping manner, are free to believe that past records, performance, manifestations of thought processes, data, etc do not mean anything, and to hope for some better product in the future; and.....You are also free to read or not read what I write. If I offend, consider reporting me, or examining your own sensibilities. Or PM me, always love to get the PM's. p. Edited February 8, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Do we get to vote for the savior of critical thinking on this board? Let the nominations begin!! Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 . . . the flesh was likely the result of some predator working on the body. That's my read anyway. Ah, OK thanks. That certainly would be more plausible than a hunk of flesh left behind from a bullet wound. So, Smeja then claims to actually have killed a bigfoot, it's just that he wasn't able to collect anything from the carcass but for a scrap of unswallowed tissue that the coyotes missed. Thus . . . the point stands. Some dudes have claimed recently to have shot and/or killed bigfoots. So it's not impossible to kill a bigfoot. So if folks want to stick it to mainstream science, just go kill another one, but this time work on retrieval as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 So this is a photo of putative bigfoot hair? Great! Was there DNA extracted from it? Has it been analyzed? Since I do believe this is a rhetorical question, what do you think? Are you calling into question my credibility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 8, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) I'm wondering if samples were left both after predation and as a result of bullet fragmentation and exit wounding. Reason I say so is confidential privileged communication as well as Derek's recent description on the show stating it appeared to be rib tip fragmentation with tissue and hair attached. Knowing derekfoot is not an anatomist I've still got to think that his best guess on the bone fragment may be right. This said in view of the described rib-shot or lunging of the animal/hominid. Blood-soaked clothing/boots have always been in the background for testing...... I'm assuming it will be the "ace-in-the-hole" ..... and played to trump the detractors (or at least I'm hoping that is how it will come down) Edited February 8, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Biggie Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Parn I edited your post #2083. My edit note in your post and my sig explain it all. Please remember that from now on. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I'm wondering if samples were left both after predation and as a result of bullet fragmentation and exit wounding. Reason I say so is confidential privileged communication as well as Derek's recent description on the show stating it appeared to be rib tip fragmentation with tissue and hair attached. Knowing derekfoot is not an anatomist I've still got to think that his best guess on the bone fragment may be right. This said in view of the described rib-shot or lunging of the animal/hominid. Blood-soaked clothing/boots have always been in the background for testing...... I'm assuming it will be the "ace-in-the-hole" ..... and played to trump the detractors (or at least I'm hoping that is how it will come down) I believe Derek said both the bone fragment (found nine months later) and the blood on the boot have not been tested. It also occurred to me that testing on the blood (which could prove a paternal/maternal relationship with the other sample) could be the said "ace-in-the-hole". After the comments from Bart Cutino in the shooting thread, I'm not sure that's the case...at least not yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 When and if Ketchum, Stubstad, you, Paulides, or others release papers, drafts, memos, letters, or make dubious statements about DNA, I'll evaluate them and comment as I see fit. Perhaps, through discussion, in the meantime, members will be better equipped to evaluate such items as they appear, rather than swallowing anyone else's endorsements or rejections uncritically. p. Is that the 2012 equivalent of digging through some ones trash and then running around yelling "see, see, I told you so"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Why wouldn't you accept. "Until now, we did not have enough evidence that Bigfoot existed. Now, an incredible new paper has demonstrated, and been repeated by others to demonstrate, that there is indeed a new hominid." I'm suspecting this for you wouldn't suffice. Not even close to addressing the point I was making about the post I was responding to, WTB. Go back and re-read it. If you have a bigfoot on a slab, who needs a paper? Conversely, where did the DNA come from if not from a critter? It's a pretty simple point Sas, Science isn't a machine where if X and Y occurs then Z happens. Nor does it always follow a linear process, coming at a proof from a singular direction. It's my coffee analogy at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 (edited) Is that the 2012 equivalent of digging through some ones trash and then running around yelling "see, see, I told you so"? I don't usually post my trash on government websites. LOL. You like to formulate analogies: How about this one: What if Roger Patterson had said, "you know, Officer Tootie, I'm glad you reminded me that I promised to return this rented camera 3 months ago because I no longer want to have this camera. Isn't that enough? okay, Officer?" Now, I'm not saying Ketchum stole something or even committed a crime. I'm just saying that when you screw up, you can't always escape scrutiny just by some denial. Perhaps Emily is a better analogy: p. Edited February 8, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 WTB1, Just curious. What books have you read on the subject ? Big Footprints: A Scientific Inquiry Into the Reality of Sasquatch North America's Great Ape: the Sasquatch Manlike Monsters on Trial: Early Records and Modern Evidence Sasquatch/Bigfoot: The Search for North America's Incredible Creature The Field Guide to Bigfoot, Yeti, and Other Mystery Primates Worldwide Bigfoot: The Yeti and the Sasquatch in Myth and Reality ...to name a few. I've also done field work in multiple states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Since I do believe this is a rhetorical question, what do you think? Are you calling into question my credibility? No it wasn't rhetorical. How the heck am I supposed to know what it means when you post a photo of a putative bigfoot hair? Is it one you collected? I don't know. Is it among the samples included in Ketchum's analysis? I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts