Guest Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 What is your alternate explanation for dna? Whence does it come from if not from a living creature (or the body of a formerly living one)? DNA=critter Mulder: I don't have any alternate explanantion. I was simply referring to the circular argument that gets revived here about every 5-10 pages regarding the "DNA" verse the "body" evidence. That's all. I am a true believer in DNA. It doesn't lie. But the camps are very divided, as you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 20, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) Working on this: so far here is one find I've not seen linked to before: http://www.uky.edu/A...rthamerica.html Another update here: (she's still on the docket for a 2PM-3PM Primal People's Conference in Oregon) http://bigfoottimes.blogspot.com/ Edited March 20, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Here's the best advice for dealing with Dr. K's study Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Particle noun: I agree with you that a paper strongly advocating the existance of something called "bigfoot" will inspire a rash of new hoaxes. Some will be crap and the occasional one may be well done and ingenious. That is one of the merits of the PGF, in that it's "ancient" status takes it back to an era where good hoaxes were harder. On the matter of new material, let me just say I am confident that once the dust settles, the PGF will still be appreciated as a superlative example of photographic evidence. Bill It will be seen as merely a prop in one of the biggest hoaxes of our time. I'm more than confident of that. p. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 ^Proof? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Mulder I think his signature sums it up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 245 days and counting! ..and that's only the length of this thread, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 This would depend on how neutral the authors are. Obviously, partisan authorship may overlook or ignore or minimize stronger objections and competing scenarios.. I submit as a cautionary example the Heuvelman's paper on the Minnesota Iceman, wherein he decided the exhibit was of a modern neanderthal rather than a carnival giff. This, after his study was basically look and see and proclaim since he was unable to examine the subject in any meaningful way. Did he really consider the obvious, especially considering the context of the exhibit? Another example is the cold-fusion fiasco of a few years ago. Are you saying these gentlemen scientists actually considered alternative explanations and were forced to publish only after all possible criticisms were considered and rejected? I think we are at the point where science, in analysis of DNA, makes fewer mistakes than with other material evidence from which we are limited in observation. The strength of DNA is in the statistics, and the only question is where the threshold lies to distinguish BF from other organisms. With enough data generated from the samples it should show itself. Remember that Dr. Ketchum feels she has overkilled this, plus the reviewers wouldn't be doing their job if they allowed any assumption unsupported by the data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Particle noun: I agree with you that a paper strongly advocating the existance of something called "bigfoot" will inspire a rash of new hoaxes. Some will be crap and the occasional one may be well done and ingenious. Bill The report will come out. The public will demand a body. The woods will be full of hunters for the first few months. 2+2=4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 ... The public will demand a body... I don't think there's evidence that anyone but the self-proclaimed mouth pieces of "Science" will demand the body. There's a difference between "I'll believe it when I see it," and "I want a body before I believe it." Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I agree TimB, I do not think science would demand a body. I think the the kill, no kill debate is more designed to be inflammatory, rather than a valid point. If Dr Ketchum statistically proves that there is something out there,then science will take a stance of trying to study it, having accepted the statistical proof it exist. I do not think the science will care one way or another, what the skeptics here think. As a matter of fact,the skeptics that so often tell us what they believe is scientific proof, sighting "science" as their crutch, will be forced to abandon that crutch,and become contrary to science, in order to deny statistical DNA proof. How is that going to work out for them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Mulder I think his signature sums it up Nothing in his signature is proof, or even evidence. Nor is it logical or proper argumentation. It is his (unsupported) opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 . . . the skeptics that so often tell us what they believe is scientific proof, sighting "science" as their crutch, will be forced to abandon that crutch,and become contrary to science, in order to deny statistical DNA proof. How is that going to work out for them? If there is "statistical DNA 'proof'", then why do you think it would be "denied?" I've never written that, and I don't recall ever reading a statement like that from any of our other resident skeptics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Saskeptic, there are more than one member here who has stated that without a body there is no proof,only a body would be good enough.Do you think these people will accept statistical proof? I am sorry if I was painting with so broad a brush you felt included, it did not occur to me you would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 ^Indeed, I am one of those "we need a body" people. As our dear Mulder has correctly established however, DNA comes from tissue, i.e., a part of a body. If there is "statistical proof" as you put it, then that is a "body." I've not seen any logical refutation of that point, nor would there be any reason to develop one. The rub concerns your premise of statistical proof - of what: a rare polymorphism among populations of Homo sapiens? I wouldn't be at all surprised by such a finding. The important part is how it might be established that people with such a polymorphism are "bigfoots", i.e., giant, hairy, technology-averse, wild people with long arms, mid-tarsal breaks, and the ability to catch and dispatch deer with their bare hands. That's the part I'm waiting to see when and if a Ketchum paper is ever published. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts