Guest Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 What some of you are missing with the DNA hoax-via-parcel-post theory is that the submitters don't have to be in on the hoax. The submitters could be genuinely submitting samples of something, but the recipient could be replacing these samples with the hoax DNA. The recipient them mails out the samples for peer review, not the submitter. Did the submitters mail out samples themselves to different labs for peer review or did the study author do it? Occam's Razor certainly applies. What's the theory with the fewest assumptions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 That's interesting barlow, so you are saying the Dr. Ketchum might have received actual field specimen samples, then didn't use them and instead replaced them with a prearranged set of samples? Careful you don't cut yourself with that razor. Putting on moderator's hat.... ... Please note Dr. Ketchum is a member of the BFF. ... back to participating in discussion as member: Members here have already noted they submitted samples for the Ketchum study and have noted they have submitted to other labs as well. I'll allow them to speak more clearly about that. So, to sum up my view of the hoax conspiracy theory, I think the machinations involved in such a hoax are so incredible that the possibility of pulling off such a hoax become close to nil. The whole point of Occam's Razor is to look for the simplist alternative explanation, not the most complex possible hoaxing scenario... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 One other thing Parn, How would potential submitters know they were taking or accepting samples from an undescribed human that would fool DNA experts? One would have to assume these people had already been tested to verify this so that only theirs were distributed then submitted. This would not explain a new hominin hypothesis or conclusion from the experts. All humans test within 1 % of each other right? So what happens when you find something outside the range? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Sounds like a very well thought out, coordinated, complex, and devious hoax conspiracy.... It isn't at all complex. it's simple. And it's an obvious method. Takes no skill. Very little money. All it requires is that a significant number of people will believe that the 8 foot 600 lb monster with glowing eyes, hinged feet, no need for fire or clothing or shelter or tools, is a modern human being. And it has been demonstrated over the past year that there are a lot of people who would believe that....almost everyone who believes in bigfoot would believe it, it seems. Read the threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 .... or a significant number of people that will believe a very complex and devious hoax theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Parnassus, put down that razor before you hurt someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Parnassus, How can you hoax a "steak" with hair attached? Furthermore, the "hoaxed" steak would then have to pass being dissected and studied by independent scientists so they could replicate the same results in the study. Just curious as to how you think it might be done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Yeah but what's more likely? That BF exists or that people have always pulled off hoaxes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 WTB1, That's a "generalization" and I'm asking Parnassus a specific question based on a specific theory he presented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 (edited) Parnassus, How can you hoax a "steak" with hair attached? Furthermore, the "hoaxed" steak would then have to pass being dissected and studied by independent scientists so they could replicate the same results in the study. Just curious as to how you think it might be done? not referring to the steak; that can't be faked. However, the result can be, and is being, concealed. I think that Meldrum and Sykes are out to 'bust" it. Meldrum has very clearly indicated he isn't on board with the modern human theory of bigfoot, which is what seems to be coming out of the Ketchum/Paulides camps. I am getting the idea that Meldrum has been given a piece of the steak, and IF SO, I imagine the results will come very quickly; say, by July, he will put it in the Relict Hominoid Inquiry (it's not publishable anywhere else) and it will be a common animal. Oops, my crystal ball went dark again. Sorry, no more predictions til I get the equilibrator coil replaced. Edited May 21, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 What some of you are missing with the DNA hoax-via-parcel-post theory is that the submitters don't have to be in on the hoax. The submitters could be genuinely submitting samples of something, but the recipient could be replacing these samples with the hoax DNA. The recipient them mails out the samples for peer review, not the submitter. Did the submitters mail out samples themselves to different labs for peer review or did the study author do it? Occam's Razor certainly applies. What's the theory with the fewest assumptions? Whadda have me on block or something? I've laid out that exact formulation several times. It's too bad your crystal ball went Dark, Parnassus, before you were really able to address the striking holes in your 'very simple' hoax theory. Oh well, hopefully that Equilibrator coil is coming from a trusted seller on Ebay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 (edited) It isn't at all complex. it's simple. And it's an obvious method. Takes no skill. Very little money. All it requires is that a significant number of people will believe that the 8 foot 600 lb monster with glowing eyes, hinged feet, no need for fire or clothing or shelter or tools, is a modern human being. No Parn, you still have to get that past the experts, I recommend you try it in the Sykes study alongside putative bigfoot samples as a control to see if you can simulate it. Test your theory. Just a suggestion here, but you don't know that the numerous samples are all related in the immediate maternal lineage. Have you considered what it would do to your theory if they weren't , yet equally unique? And it has been demonstrated over the past year that there are a lot of people who would believe that....almost everyone who believes in bigfoot would believe it, it seems. Read the threads. Strawman,.... you can't speak for other peoples beliefs. I know you want to paint optimists as believers but it is not accurate. What some of you are missing with the DNA hoax-via-parcel-post theory is that the submitters don't have to be in on the hoax. The submitters could be genuinely submitting samples of something, but the recipient could be replacing these samples with the hoax DNA. The recipient them mails out the samples for peer review, not the submitter. Did the submitters mail out samples themselves to different labs for peer review or did the study author do it? Occam's Razor certainly applies. What's the theory with the fewest assumptions? Now you are implying mail fraud, which is a federal offense. Thats a serious accusation, tread lightly there. You are failing in you're assumption that all samples were sent to the same recipient, some may have went through Paulides, but not all did. Edited May 21, 2012 by southernyahoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Do you have a source for that Mulder? The wiki page makes no mention of Giganto being an omnivore, nor does the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Volume 135, Issue 1, pages 85-91, January 2008. The journal says this: "The combination of evenly distributed occlusal enamel and relatively short dentine horns in G. blacki results in a flat and low-cusped occlusal surface suitable to grinding tough or fibrous food objects. This suite of molar morphologies is also found to varying degrees in Pongo and Sivapithecus, but not in African apes and humans, and may be diagnostic of subfamily Ponginae." (my bolding) RayG Dr Meldrum makes mention of the wear patterns in LMS. The evidence is a bit conflicting, with some wear patterns suggesting a more herbivorous diet and others suggesting omivorous feeding. Thus the possibility of Giganto being an omnivore cannot be exluded. Based on the reports of BF feeding behaviors, it is plainly an omnivore. John, why would you say that? that is precisely the best strategy that doesn't require non-modern human DNA; 1) Go to an isolated tribal reservation, 2) obtain samples from 10 or 20 genetically related family members (they will not be in GenBank), and 3) take (or mail to friends) the samples to different parts of the country 4) then submit them from different parts of the country. So the lab reports closely related "strange" DNA ie not in GenBank from all across the country. DNA statistical analysis assumes randomness. By this "distribution scheme', Voila. you make it seem impossible for this to have occurred randomly. Which, of course, it didn't. Ha ha. Randomness was the entire basis for Richard Stubstad's argument. All you have to do is fake the distribution. I suggested this over a year ago. Why is it ridiculous? It's simple, and Is it more ridiculous than the Georgia boys? This is how you make modern human DNA seem "special." No one has any primate DNA except modern human. So if you want to have something noteworthy, you have to make it special. Distribution is the only way. Of course, no real primatologist is going to buy it, but some third rate journal will publish it, I promise you that. p. Do you have even one shred of evidence to support this wild-eyed conspiracy theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Parnassus, put down that razor before you hurt someone. Plussed. XD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 What some of you are missing with the DNA hoax-via-parcel-post theory is that the submitters don't have to be in on the hoax. The submitters could be genuinely submitting samples of something, but the recipient could be replacing these samples with the hoax DNA. The recipient them mails out the samples for peer review, not the submitter. Did the submitters mail out samples themselves to different labs for peer review or did the study author do it? Occam's Razor certainly applies. What's the theory with the fewest assumptions? That the samples come from BF, not some cockamame scheme of musical samples, fake hairs and consipracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts