Guest parnassus 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? Dude, this is not an explanation for anything that anyone is doing now, that I know of. This is just the best way to try to hoax a modern human bigfoot. Of course it wouldn't explain a new hominin. But as far as I know, no one HAS a new hominin DNA. Do you know of anyone who does? All we have seen is modern human DNA, with this or that polymorphism. You have heard the expression, if all you have are lemons, make lemonade. That is what my scenario is about. If there isn't any new hominin DNA around then if you are a hoaxer all you have to work with are lemons/modern human DNA. I'm just showing the best way to make lemonade outta that. You take the most unusual modern human DNA you can find, and send a whole family of it in from a whole lot of places where it shouldn't be, statistically. couldn't fool the experts? well, if all you did was look at the data, it might well persuade some journal to publish it. It wouldn't fool me or a primatologist. Again, fooling the experts isn't necessarily the goal. The goal is fool the people. Look at all the stuff that goes up on the internet, and is believed by large numbers of people...bigfoot or other-related. I'm not trying to sell anything. I'm not in any argument here. I'm just giving my idea of what would work best. No one has to do it. I'm just pointing out that provenance means a great deal in certain situations, just like Holdmybeer and others have stated. 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? I'd call it a wash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 (edited) parnassus wrote: "The money in this game is huge. This would involve three days work by one person and maybe a couple thousand dollars. Maybe only a couple hundred. It's simple. Collect the specimens, mail them to your friends across the country, and have them mail them to Texas under their own names. Or if you don't have any pranky friends, , do it yourself: get on a plane, get some mailboxes in different cities. Mail it in under assumed names." If I can take this theory seriously for a moment (well, I'll try) at what point does the "huge" money come rolling in? And from what source? Edited May 21, 2012 by tuckybuzzard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 (edited) 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? Strawman,.... you can't speak for other peoples beliefs. I know you want to paint optimists as believers but it is not accurate. 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. not a strawman if it's true. I am characterizing the response that I have seen over the past year to the idea that the popular bigfoot could be a human being. And very few people have said "no way." You show me more than a handful here who have rejected it. Bet you can't. "but you don't know that the numerous samples are all related in the immediate maternal lineage". I could collect whatever samples I wanted. Almost everyone knows who their mother is. cmon with the mail fraud stuff. THAT is a straw man, and a ridiculous one, at that. Who did I accuse, myself, for dreaming up this scenario? LOL. That the samples come from BF, not some cockamame scheme of musical samples, fake hairs and consipracy. so if someone publishes an article showing all modern human DNA, you'll believe it came from bigfoot? I guess that makes my case. 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. tell me the holes. It seems to me the only hole is the one I know of, which is that I wouldn't fall for human DNA being from the popular bigfoot. But it seems to me that many, many people would believe that. A hoaxer/con man doesn't need much more than a good story, when people are not just willing, but anxious, to buy in. yes, I can get one for $338 and I'm not asking anyone here to buy it for me. I'm gone for today. duty calls. p. Edited May 21, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Primate Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 HUGE money in bigfooting !!?? Now that sounds like a hoax ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 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. Too bad Dr. Meldrum doesn't include any sources for his info in LMS. Could it be he's merely speculating, especially since the report in the journal I mentioned didn't come out until 2008? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Parn, The hole is convincing a large number of people already known in the Bigfoot community to be a part of your hoax and send in samples, on your behalf, for apparently some sort of great pay off, which you kinda pulled outta you know where, since no one, including myself, can think of any scenario where someone who convinces a large number of non-anonymous people to send in hoaxed samples will collect a penny from anyone or anywhere. There is very very little that makes sense in your hoax theory that tracks with what we know about this study (not even touching those areas which have been fleshed out from the leaks). So, maybe in a parallel universe, where the study obtained anonymous samples from unknown people around the country, your theory might be true. I think you need to re-calibrate your Prediction Machine to work with the frequency hum of this universe, and not the frequency hum of its parallel twin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 not a strawman if it's true. I am characterizing the response that I have seen over the past year to the idea that the popular bigfoot could be a human being. And very few people have said "no way." You show me more than a handful here who have rejected it. Bet you can't. I think you're oversimplifying this a lot. I for one think bigfoot could be human - as in homo. So could a lot of others here, probably. But I don't think I've ever seen anyone here say that they think bigfoot could be homo sapiens. Show me some! (Ketchum doesn't count, as she has said that this is NOT what the study is going to result in (as you are well aware but keep ignoring).) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Careful Gershake! Do you mean Homo sapiens, or do you mean Homo sapiens sapiens? One is a subset of the other, and the difference it makes to your argument is rather large. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 HUGE money in bigfooting !!?? Now that sounds like a hoax ... Huge money to be made from a newly aware and eager public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Let's see, you have a sliver of flesh from Justin Smeja, so that Native American would have had to cut a piece off of himself, then Larry Jenkins submitted a toenail, so that one ripped his toenail off, another one ripped some hair off and sent it to Southernyahoo. Still another climbed up and slobbered on Derek Randles camera. One native was extremely enthusiastic for this study and licked a plate with glass shards glued to it so Adrian Erickson could have his share of the glory. Yeah I guess you can say we all know hoaxers will do just about anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 tell me the holes. It seems to me the only hole is the one I know of, which is that I wouldn't fall for human DNA being from the popular bigfoot. But it seems to me that many, many people would believe that. A hoaxer/con man doesn't need much more than a good story, when people are not just willing, but anxious, to buy in. Well, since this is not and never has been the story, it's not relevant, and you know it parn. Ketchum is not Paulides, or Stubsted or Lindsay. There is no souce linked directly to Ketchum that says BF is "modern human". The closest that anyone has come is that the mtDNA is identical to that of modern human (which would indicate interbreeding with us at some point) BUT the nuDNA is decidedly NOT modern human. Please stop misrepresenting what has been said and what has not been said and/or by whom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 There seems to be some issue that something so big, hairy and tall could be Human, or closely related to what is generally accepted as Human. Again, I just have to say, a Mastiff is dog, so is a toy terrier, look at their DNA, they are both dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Too bad Dr. Meldrum doesn't include any sources for his info in LMS. Could it be he's merely speculating, especially since the report in the journal I mentioned didn't come out until 2008? RayG It must have come out before his book because he mentions it IN his book. Here's a link off the top of a google search http://www.mendeley.com/research/bamboo-feeding-dental-microwear-diet-pleistocene-ape-gigantopithecus-blacki/ The above link compares giganto tooth wear paterns to those of chimps (pan troglodytes) who are confirmed omnivores that hunt and eat animals as well as plants. Not that it matters really. Omnivorism is well established as an ape/monkey trait. And the evidence is that BF is omnivorous based on the reports of the types of food being gathered and consumed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Careful Gershake! Do you mean Homo sapiens, or do you mean Homo sapiens sapiens? One is a subset of the other, and the difference it makes to your argument is rather large. Mike depends really. If Neanderthal is "homo neanderthalensis", then I mean "homo sapiens". If Neanderthal is "homo sapiens neanderthalensis", I mean "homo sapiens sapiens". From what I've read, the former description is far more used/accepted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts