Guest vilnoori Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 (edited) While I am disappointed that an article in Nature is not confirmed, the fact that she says the article is coming out soon is heartening. After all, how long have we waited already? A little longer won't kill us. Stop jumping ship, everyone! "the popular list of bigfoot features excludes the possibility that it could have human DNA" Heh, says who. Just what popular list would that be, and by what authority? Let's start with the DNA and samples and work backwards from there, not the other way around. Edited November 10, 2011 by vilnoori Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Hmmm I says whaaa ?? !! Shorter parnassus: 1. The DNA that Ketchum has is human (except for known animals), And 2. I agree with Saskeptic that the popular list of Bigfoot features excludes the possibility that it could have human DNA. Here is the win win win outcome: Ketchum says " no bigfoot DNA yet and that is because Bigfoot is rare and evasive and we just have to keep looking. " The only loser on this would be Paulides. Parn, have you seen any nudna for any proposed bigfoot samples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Parn has seen no evidence of any kind. (I don't know that for a fact, but I am using his "state unsubstantiated opinion as fact to appear authoritative" strategy.) Tim B 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Hmmm I says whaaa ?? !! Shorter parnassus: I agree with Saskeptic that the popular list of Bigfoot features excludes the possibility that it could have human DNA. The "popular" list has been in revision for several years now. Even the wood ape proponents are coming around on the "new" features. You've got to watch out for the false positive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 While I am disappointed that an article in Nature is not confirmed, the fact that she says the article is coming out soon is heartening. After all, how long have we waited already? A little longer won't kill us. Stop jumping ship, everyone! "the popular list of bigfoot features excludes the possibility that it could have human DNA" Heh, says who. Just what popular list would that be, and by what authority? Let's start with the DNA and samples and work backwards from there, not the other way around. Oh, is there a paper in publication? So you disagree with us on the characteristics of humans and don't think that the list of Bigfoot characteristics given is representative. That's your right. Do you think humans run on all fours and that bigfoot is 5-11, for example... So if Ketchum finds bear DNA, will you believe that Bigfoot is a bear? Capiche? How about chicken DNA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 (edited) I think Kitikaze is on the review board too. It should be absolutely impartial. Kita has neither credentials nor standing to sit on a paper review board. Furthermore, given his slipshod, sloppy and occasionally deliberately misleading so-called "analyses" on things like the Patty/Bob? issue, I'd run the other way if he were a reviewer. So you disagree with us on the characteristics of humans and don't think that the list of Bigfoot characteristics given is representative. That's your right. Do you think humans run on all fours and that bigfoot is 5-11, for example... BF and humans don't have to share ALL characteristics in order to share at least some DNA, parn. You know that. So if Ketchum finds bear DNA, will you believe that Bigfoot is a bear? Capiche? How about chicken DNA? If she had found either of those, we wouldn't be having this conversation because she never would have published a paper. Next fail? Edited November 10, 2011 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Not that Parn needs defending HOWEVER, NO creature has been proven via DNA evidence without some sort of physical evidence as well . (a bone, a fossil , a tooth a skeleton...etc) UNLESS it was merely a sub species of an existing animal ( a new kind of rat snake, a new kind of chicken turtle, a new kind of pig frog, a new kind of lemur ...etc) Just having a DNA profile that doesn't match Chimps, Orangs, Gorillas, or humans is going to be a smoking gun. It isn't. It's just going to be a limb that leads from point A to point B. Chimps share like over 98% of OUR DNA!!! if the results come back and are similar it may not be the slam dunk we wish for. It may say that "well it shares these traits that mosts animals share, and these traits humans share, yet it looks different than humans.... we don't know what it is..) The fact that they don't KNOW what it is doesn't scream BIGFOOT!!!! (and that doesn't mean that Ketchum is wrong either) I can have a human Vs human DNA test to see if I killed my girlfriend. They can determine I didn't do it. They can't always tell that species A of snake is different than species B of snake via DNA. They use things like scale count, patter formation,habitat and amount of specimens per area to determine that. Darwins Finches on the Galapogos are often genetically similar to the 1/100th of a %, but they have adapted differently. They have different species names they have different ways of feeding..etc. BUT we know what a Darwins Finch is, so we have a true baseline. When it comes to Sasquatch, the baseline may be us. any differences will take years to work out without a type specimen. Well I hope my paragraph of pain helped a bit to decipher this DNA maelstrom! :-) I don't think they are expecting anything different with regards to proving this species. There is the kind of physical evidence you're listing. A tooth, hair, a piece of flesh are all types of physical evidence. I don't think the team is just submitting a DNA sequence and saying, "here, acknowledge this as a previously undiscovered 8 foot, bipedal hominid." Kita has neither credentials nor standing to sit on a paper review board. Furthermore, given his slipshod, sloppy and occasionally deliberately misleading so-called "analyses" on things like the Patty/Bob? issue, I'd run the other way if he were a reviewer. BF and humans don't have to share ALL characteristics in order to share at least some DNA, parn. You know that. If she had found either of those, we wouldn't be having this conversation because she never would have published a paper. Next fail? Sorry, with regards to Kitikaze, I should have put a J/K after that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Oh, is there a paper in publication? Yes. I could be wrong; for example, the other day I thought you hinted there was a paper in publication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Do you think humans run on all fours and that bigfoot is 5-11, for example... Yes , and 5-11, thats what , a couple inches shorter than Patty? I've never seen this bigfoot characteristic list, that said they are born taller than this, but I'll play along. So if Ketchum finds bear DNA, will you believe that Bigfoot is a bear? Capiche? How about chicken DNA? The prerequisite is great ape DNA , and I agree with mulder, you know this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 I'm kinda slow. Parnassus, you are a reviewer then? Probably can't say. Gimme a wink if it is yes. And the DNA from the Bigfoot specimens submitted was the same as you and I? Now she can't take that DNA and claim it is from a Bigfoot because it is plain 'ol human DNA. So the project is at a standstill until they can manipulate the samples to a specific being. Video of them collecting it from a squatch? Wink as many times as necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 He's not a reviewer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 (edited) Kita has neither credentials nor standing to sit on a paper review board. Furthermore, given his slipshod, sloppy and occasionally deliberately misleading so-called "analyses" on things like the Patty/Bob? issue, I'd run the other way if he were a reviewer. BF and humans don't have to share ALL characteristics in order to share at least some DNA, parn. You know that. If she had found either of those, we wouldn't be having this conversation because she never would have published a paper. Next fail? Mulder I guess I missed it... Where is this publication showing any non human DNA belonging to Bigfoot? Thanks for any help you can give me in finding it, cause you know I'd love to see it. Your pal p. Oh and ps: if there is a publication that claims human DNA belongs to Bigfoot, are you going to reject claims that Bigfoot is 9 feet tall, has glowing eyes, a conical head, a mid-tarsal break, a compliant gait, a non opposable thumb, is responsible for the casts in Dr. Meldrum's collection, and travels quadripedally? Edited November 11, 2011 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Mulder I guess I missed it... Where is this publication showing any non human DNA belonging to Bigfoot? Thanks for any help you can give me in finding it, cause you know I'd love to see it. Your pal p. Oh and ps: if there is a publication that claims human DNA belongs to Bigfoot, are you going to reject claims that Bigfoot is 9 feet tall, has glowing eyes, a conical head, a mid-tarsal break, a compliant gait, a non opposable thumb, is responsible for the casts in Dr. Meldrum's collection, and travels quadripedally? You know where the publication is don't you Parn? That bit about submitting to more than one journal and all. And where is the Human DNA for that matter. Same place? There wouldn't be a paper if there was only human DNA, surely you don't believe that Ketchum could get as far as to have something in review with randomly collected human hairs found in the wild. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 I think Parn is enjoying yanking everybody's chain. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 (edited) Mulder I guess I missed it... Where is this publication showing any non human DNA belonging to Bigfoot? Thanks for any help you can give me in finding it, cause you know I'd love to see it. Your pal p. Oh and ps: if there is a publication that claims human DNA belongs to Bigfoot, are you going to reject claims that Bigfoot is 9 feet tall, has glowing eyes, a conical head, a mid-tarsal break, a compliant gait, a non opposable thumb, is responsible for the casts in Dr. Meldrum's collection, and travels quadripedally? I don't know. Both of these guys are human. Edited November 11, 2011 by arizonabigfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts