Guest Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 which doesnt prove a thing without a validated specimen, nothing to compare it to. Wrong. You don't need a body, the DNA itself is prima facie evidence of the body it came from. Or as I always put it: DNA comes from critter. DNA = critter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 +1 Mulder. DNA = Critter for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest teria Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 This is frustration talking: I hope I don't die of old age before this is published! Sorry! I just had to vent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Darn it, I've always wanted to respond to a post with "DNA = Critter" but every time the opportunity arises I keep getting beaten to it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 I wrote a program that will replicate this thread almost exactly- 10 Skeptic- I don't believe in bigfoot 20 Believer- I do believe in bigfoot 30 Skeptic- there is no evidence 40 Believer- there is dna evidence forth coming 50 Skeptic- unless it comes from a known specimen I won't believe it. 60 Believer- Why? 70 goto 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Yes it's true .........DNA = Critter ..... As the skeptics with an axe to grind will soon find out..... I'm just saying ... Of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 DNA = plant too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I hope I don't die of old age before this is published! Sorry! I hope you aren't using your smartphone to make that post.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOLDMYBEER Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 PIctures are useless unless there is proof that the DNA came from the "thing" in the picture. From what I understand there is only a single submitter which has film and/or images of their subject's DNA. Ahhhhhhh........ we're back to vetting again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I dont know. Surely pictures would be nice for the publication, but how difficult it is to sientificaly claim this and that picture to be of a real sasquatch and not a fake is likely harder than the whole DNA thing. It seems an easy task, but a solid proven BF picture, and a good one for that, is unlikely to be found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Vetting does nothing to the DNA. It is either uncatalogued or it isn't. It's a pure sequence or it's contaminated. It's a repeatable result or it isn't. It's from two or more different animals or from one. Science is supposed to be able to tell the difference. If they can't believe then they must throw out the proven reliability of DNA testing all together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I dont know. Surely pictures would be nice for the publication, but how difficult it is to sientificaly claim this and that picture to be of a real sasquatch and not a fake is likely harder than the whole DNA thing. It seems an easy task, but a solid proven BF picture, and a good one for that, is unlikely to be found. True, on it's own it's difficult to declare any proposed picture of a sasquatch to be genuine. However, if this study has some good science showing that we have undocumented primate DNA in North America, and further can show that the same species shows up in different parts of the country, then it is probably good enough to publish by itself. If they have the science and it is sound, what is the harm in delaying in hopes of getting some quality photographic evidence to go along with it? In other words, why not go for the home run? If there is quality science proving unknown primate DNA in North America, then there would be no reason to question the accompanying photographic evidence, since the animal has been proven to exist. I must mention that there is one potential drawback to delaying publication too long, and that would be the prospect of getting scooped. Could you imagine the horror of being the first one with publishable proof of the existence of sasquatch and not being credited with the announcement because someone else published before you? This would be great for the Bigfoot community, but bad for Dr. Ketchum and friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Darn it, I've always wanted to respond to a post with "DNA = Critter" but every time the opportunity arises I keep getting beaten to it! Trademark pending... I wrote a program that will replicate this thread almost exactly- 10 Skeptic- I don't believe in bigfoot 20 Believer- I do believe in bigfoot 30 Skeptic- there is no evidence 40 Believer- there is dna evidence forth coming 50 Skeptic- unless it comes from a known specimen I won't believe it. 60 Believer- Why? 70 goto 10 Left out lines covering all the other evidence on proffer. I must mention that there is one potential drawback to delaying publication too long, and that would be the prospect of getting scooped. Could you imagine the horror of being the first one with publishable proof of the existence of sasquatch and not being credited with the announcement because someone else published before you? This would be great for the Bigfoot community, but bad for Dr. Ketchum and friends. And it's a very real risk, with the Sykes study now probably well into either evaluation of their samples or possibly even beginning writing up the findings (depending on how many samples they had and how many they may have already tested). Sykes is promising publication by year end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Trademark pending... Left out lines covering all the other evidence on proffer. And it's a very real risk, with the Sykes study now probably well into either evaluation of their samples or possibly even beginning writing up the findings (depending on how many samples they had and how many they may have already tested). Sykes is promising publication by year end. I would think that the Ketchum documentation is complete. Would that not be acceptable as " FIRST " ? Why would Melba have to be first to publish, when the documentation is there..... Go figure. Documentation = First... I do not think it will come to this, as November/December seems to loom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 ^If rumors are to be believed, her documentation is not complete, or there wouldn't be a dely while looking for certain types of video/photo evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts