Guest Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 The most that DNA would do would be similar to the microscopic life that NASA claimed to have found on a Mars Meteor found in the Antarctic. This was from NASA and thier was still quite a bit of skepticism with most scientists falling on the side of it being chemical rather than biological. Remember that NASA has more credibility than Ketchum, and I would expect that most scientists think life on Mars more likely than the existence of BF.
Guest slimwitless Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 The most that DNA would do would be similar to the microscopic life that NASA claimed to have found on a Mars Meteor found in the Antarctic. This was from NASA and thier was still quite a bit of skepticism with most scientists falling on the side of it being chemical rather than biological. Remember that NASA has more credibility than Ketchum, and I would expect that most scientists think life on Mars more likely than the existence of BF. It's not the same. The claims of life in the martian meteorite were based on microscopic structures that resembled similar structures of biological origin here on Earth. There was no DNA found in that rock. DNA is pretty solid evidence. That said, you're probably right that most scientist's would wager in favor of martian life over bigfoot.
southernyahoo Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 As to a "confirmed DNA sequence" via Dr. Ketchum's study, will it literally be "game over" on the subject of BF? What if the study strongly implies BF is human or virtually human, what then? Will true believers give up on the Great American Ape. the Apes That Walk Among Us, the True Story of Apes in America? Will true believers adjust to a new apeless America? Or, will they argue that what Dr. Ketchum and company have discovered is not all that remarkable, and the REAL sasquatch is still out there waiting for confirmation? There might be some fraction of the proponents that would say the search isn't over, though I would invite them to find hair samples and test them against Dr. K's findings. What if the Erickson Project releases videos that portray an animal that is different from Patterson's subject? Do true believers merely cite "species variation", or do they forget Green and go with Coleman and promote multiple types or species of crypto-bipeds of human/ape manifestations, each needing its own "Sierra Shooting" or good videos or DNA discovery. Proponents don't have to ascribe to the videos supporting just one or more types. If it is not a human as we know it and is hominid then it is atleast one type fitting the description of bigfoot. (Modified to add this): If Dr. Ketchum's study gives us a human or virtual human BF, what then do we make of Dr. Meldrum's carefully constructed arguments for BF ape-feet anatomy and such Meldrumesque notions as a mid-tarsal break (an odd idea anyway, given that the ape-foot mid-tarsal break is for grasping feet, not bipedalism). Meldrum also has the opinion that early hominids also had midfoot flexibility.
Guest Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 (edited) That said, you're probably right that most scientist's would wager in favor of martian life over bigfoot. A position that makes no logical sense whatsoever. We KNOW life exists here on Earth. As of yet, we have very little to suggest it exists anywhere else in the universe. Given that, why would it be more likely for there to be "little green men" than BF? By the way, regarding some other topics: 1) wasn't there someone posting awhile back that the whole "they're human with a few extras" thing was the word of ONE person who isn't even with the project or was forced out of the project early on? 2) Yes, it's possible there may be more than one type of bipedal ape out there (the "nape" comes to mind), and technically speaking each and every one would need it's own Ketchum paper at a minimum for documentation. Edited August 10, 2011 by Mulder
Guest gershake Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 Say what now? That referred to jerrywayne's post, yours got inbetween.
Guest Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 That referred to jerrywayne's post, yours got inbetween. Ahhh - I thought that was the case.
Guest Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 Given that, why would it be more likely for there to be "little green men" than BF? No sane scientist thinks there are little green men on Mars. The probability that there are bacteria on the Red Planet, however, is widely viewed as greater than 0.0. Personally, I find the probability of Martian bacteria to be far higher than the probability of Earthly bigfoots. I'm looking forward to the Ketchum results to see if there's any reason for me to adjust those probabilities.
Guest slimwitless Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 No sane scientist thinks there are little green men on Mars. The probability that there are bacteria on the Red Planet, however, is widely viewed as greater than 0.0. Personally, I find the probability of Martian bacteria to be far higher than the probability of Earthly bigfoots. I'm looking forward to the Ketchum results to see if there's any reason for me to adjust those probabilities. I doubt he meant little green men literally. There's some pretty good arguments that Viking's Labeled Release experiment already discovered life on Mars. Unfortunately we won't know for sure until the next few Mars missions verify (nearly forty years and millions of dollars later). Luckily, DNA is a known quantity.
Guest Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 Not to add fuel to life on Mars debate, but doesn't the fact that they've discovered streams of running surface water on Mars change the life on Mars debate somewhat? Personally, I think both concepts (Bigfoot and life on Mars) are implausible, but not impossible. Both deserve scientific inquiry.
Incorrigible1 Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 Streams of running surface water on Mars? That's news to me.
Guest Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 Streams of running surface water on Mars? That's news to me. "Discovered" may have been too strong a word. "Possibly discovered" is more accurate. Strongest evidence yet for water on Mars
Guest Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 I doubt he meant little green men literally. Had I agreed I wouldn't have responded . . .
Guest slimwitless Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 Not to add fuel to life on Mars debate, but doesn't the fact that they've discovered streams of running surface water on Mars change the life on Mars debate somewhat? Personally, I think both concepts (Bigfoot and life on Mars) are implausible, but not impossible. Both deserve scientific inquiry. Not to mention they're finding the building blocks of DNA and other interesting structures in non-martian meteorites. I don't think we know as much as we think. Once we get out there, my feeling is we're going to find life in some very unusual places. To your point, I don't think the existence of microbes all over the solar system (Titan, Europa, Mars, etc) is implausible. As for sasquatch, I'm not sure I'd use that word either. Maybe. It's certainly not impossible and that's why I find this so interesting.
Guest Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 Not to mention they're finding the building blocks of DNA and other interesting structures in non-martian meteorites. I don't think we know as much as we think. Once we get out there, my feeling is we're going to find life in some very unusual places. To your point, I don't think the existence of microbes all over the solar system (Titan, Europa, Mars, etc) is implausible. As for sasquatch, I'm not sure I'd use that word either. Maybe. It's certainly not impossible and that's why I find this so interesting. I guess I meant "implausible" in the context of currently accepted scientific theory. It was once implausible that gravity could bend light, but Einstein changed minds on that. If you think about it, science has a very low batting average of being right when you take in the entire history of science. Scientific theories and concepts are constantly changing because of new studies and findings. What was true 20 years ago in some fields of study have been proven to be wrong today. That's the great thing about science. Nothing is fully discovered or understood.
Incorrigible1 Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 Thanks for the link, RW. Fascinating. As ubiquitous as life is on Earth, I tend to believe life is not uncommon throughout the universe. I hope to be the first to discover a bigfoot similar species on Mars!
Recommended Posts