Guest slimwitless Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 That raises an interesting question. At what point did man develop the technology to carve a footprint out of a block of wood and should we ignore all footprint evidence after that critical moment in our evolutionary history - the first practical joke. Is a sense of humor what separates us from the animals? Bigfoot may have a non-divergent big toe, a hooded nose and a bipedal gait, but can he crack wise? Inquiring minds want to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) It is not a logical fallacy to point out that Skeptics are "trying to have it both ways", trotting out Drs Meldrum, et al when they want to "prove" that institutional science has in fact addressed itself meaningfully to the BF evidence to hand, but then turning around and dismissing their conclusions and denying their qualifications when they make pro-BF statements. Because everyone knows that all scientists are correct 100% of the time, which is why you agree with me on all things. . . I suppose based on this statement from you, we will never again hear you decry the lack of scientific investment in bigfoot, because Meldrum is on the scene, or you'll never again brag about Medlrum as a "credentialed" scientist, because everybody knows that science ignores bigfoot. Neither you, nor any other Skeptic has proven them incorrect. You have stated such, but never introduced a shred of counter-evidence to support such a claim. Pray tell, what sort of evidence would you consider to prove Meldrum's ideas about bigfoot to be incorrect? DNA doens't generate itself. It comes from a critter. If you have the DNA, you have the critter. Why Skeptics can't understand such a simple fact is beyond me. Would you mind being specific about which "Skeptics" you mean? I agree that DNA comes from living things, yet you paint all of us with the same broad brush. (And for the love of Pete, would you please stop capitalizing the word "skeptic" or at least offer some grammatical explanation as to why you are?) Edited February 12, 2012 by megatarsal to remove personal comments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Just as an aside, I think there is a distinction between capital S and lowercase s when using the word skeptic; however, I believe it's being used incorrectly a significant part of the time on this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Guys, Not pointing at anyone in particular, but his thread has drifted off-topic, so please... let's get it back on track. Thanks, See Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Yet homicides occur every day, despite that dilemma. I can't believe that I've had to point this out now more than once in this thread. Is anyone suggesting that if bigfoots are real that one will never be collected? People murder people; people kill other people accidentally. People kill other highly intelligent animals like great apes, elephants, and whales. If Bigfoot exists, it is inevitable that one will be collected. Yes people commit homocide , that doesn't mean we should feel good about it, kinda-like people coming down with a neurological disease. Ofcoarse I'm not suggesting it couldn't happen, it's been claimed many times, but here lately, we've had scientists stepping up to examine biological evidence, which should validate or refute peoples concerns about doing that. Since it is not necessary to kill one to collect the biological evidence , I don't condone doing it. Heaven forbid, that we have people out there taking shots at some guy because his head is a little cone shaped and his backside is a bit hairy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Again, human is a term that is equivocal. It is used to refer informally to homo sapiens sapiens, and it can also be used to formally refer to all members of genus homo. Let's not be pedantic. Are you suggesting that Mulder is using the term "human" only informally and is simply being misunderstood on this issue by others? Parnassus, You and a number of others jumped on the copyright apps and immediatly started citing them as the conclusions of her study when both she and Stubstat have said clearly that they were very early and incomplete. Richard S. states that they were based on the very first mtDNA results. The way that you and other are using them amounts to a "strawman argument". I see a number of problems with using those copyright apps as citations to support your arguments that she has concluded that her purported BF samples are all homo sapiens. The final published study will tell us what she has concluded.JMO Your final statement I agree with. Previously I have cited the copyrights for the reason that they appeared to be the "early" conclusions of the study, later said to be "incomplete". My question: why were the early copyright statements understood then as conclusions, if they were not their conclusions at that time? People, please note that ALL known science is/was "fringe" until it is/was fully understood.-Knuck And the paranormal view of the world has been in retreat since the advancement of the sciences. Today's "fringe" is a throwback or ideological denial, not the vanguard of new knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) Could have been the excited conclusions of a veteranarian/ DNA lab owner and a, whatever Richard is professionally. At this point in time I understand there are five or six other authors involved, which would seem to be a good move. Maybe they got it straightened out. edited to add, How much rigorous education do you suppose Dr Ketchum has gone through in the past three years. Edited February 11, 2012 by indiefoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Yes, actually. A fundamental difference. One is transitory and easily hoaxed. The other is virtually impossible to have been hoaxed and for that hoax to escape detection. Mike Right, the difference in substrate and it's current condition lends to that perception. Though it may not be a correct one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest can Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Any chance that the results could be due to cross contamination? I've heard the same rumors over and over about this being human DNA but its still a bigfoot? That is just nonsense. If the rumors are true there are humans leaving DNA samples, not bigfoot. Thee descriptions and described features do not match humans. Is it possible that whoever collected those samples could contaminate them with their own DNA and that may not be in any known database? Who knows how the samples were handled? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 (edited) That will be their first hurdle of many and most likley part of the reason this is taking so long. It will play out like all the rest of the evidence! What else could it be but Bigfoot, since we can't prove it's something known! This logical only works in the world of Bigfootery. It will play out just like an episode of Finding Bigfoot just with bigger words (DNA mumbo jumbo) and "science"! No body no Bigfoot! Edited February 11, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Twilight Fan Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 ^Maybe it's the DNA of an escaped ape (such as a gorilla or chimpanzee) from a zoo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 The DNA will be what science says it is. When there is contamination,they can tell. When it's degraded,they can tell. When there is insertions,inversions and deletions, they can tell. You could have a mess to sort out, but it wouldn't publish without something conclusive. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 It's amusing to me how DNA evidence is accepted with very little hesitation in any number of circumstance. People going to and getting out of prison left and right. An ancient finger bone gives us a new hominin. Enter Bigfoot and the stuff is fraught with problems. No one but Todd Disotell knows anything about it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 How much rigorous education do you suppose Dr Ketchum has gone through in the past three years. I'd say she is a human population geneticist by now, ......according to Parn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 (edited) It's amusing to me how DNA evidence is accepted with very little hesitation in any number of circumstance. People going to and getting out of prison left and right. An ancient finger bone gives us a new hominin. Enter Bigfoot and the stuff is fraught with problems. No one but Todd Disotell knows anything about it. When people are getting out of prison it is because the prisoner's DNA is not a match for the DNA on the scene. We don't know who it is, but we do know it is not this suspect or prisoner. As i understand the logic in the Ketchum study bf could be implicated in a lot of crimes. We have dna from an unknown speciman -- we have no known matches. it is human --- unmatched human dna is bf Edited February 12, 2012 by bigfootnis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts