Guest DWA Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 JREF is already playing the "russian journal = junk science" card. And DWA, you're simply wrong. Finding human blood on a knife would prove to the authorities that a human was cut by the knife, even if they didn't know what human it was. Actually, that's wrong. Where the DNA is and whether the knife is bloody would also figure into it. All I'm saying is: watch the mainstream reaction. If they can't be convinced the sample came from a bigfoot, it'll be so-what.
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 (edited) Three complete nuclear genomes from different sources ought to squelch that IMO. I am not saying this is MY thinking (that the study is in error - but I haven't read it yet), but, I think others will disagree. If that sample tested does not have a reliable chain of custody that will be the same sample used in all three of those genomes. If that original sample is contaminated, it is contaminated, for all three genomes. ETA.. just saw "different sources" I agree... sorry. I'm thinking if the same sample is used, like from the S. Kills steak. Edited November 24, 2012 by BigGinger
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 Three complete nuclear genomes from different sources ought to squelch that IMO. not to mention multiple confirming labs
Guest COGrizzly Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 I have yet to see anything on FOX tv or internet...or any other news source for that matter.
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 Actually, that's wrong. Where the DNA is and whether the knife is bloody would also figure into it. All I'm saying is: watch the mainstream reaction. If they can't be convinced the sample came from a bigfoot, it'll be so-what. Did I not say the sample was from a bloody knife? (Yes I did) How about you take up the challenge: where would undocumented hominid/primate DNA that matched nothing else on record come from other than an undocumented hominid/primate not currently on record? I have yet to see anything on FOX tv or internet...or any other news source for that matter. http://www.kxxv.com/story/20175587/bigfoot-dna-sequenced-in-upcoming-genetics-study (ABC affiliate) only one I can find so far... Also just read someone over at JREF proclaiming he didn't care "how many DNA studies they did, BF does not exist..."
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 I guess we have a candidate now Not unless it is documented that a woman had an extramarital affair with a "novel non-human." Check the keywords.
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 Not unless it is documented that a woman had an extramarital affair with a "novel non-human." Check the keywords. We don't know anyone was married.
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 (edited) The press release said " Our data indicate that the North American Sasquatch is a hybrid species, the result of males of an unknown hominin species crossing with female Homo sapiens.", so I thought that it might fit. I could be wrong though. Edit: ok, I understand... I understood the "extramartial" as an interracial side leap. Edited November 24, 2012 by Obsi
Guest DWA Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 Did I not say the sample was from a bloody knife? (Yes I did) How about you take up the challenge: where would undocumented hominid/primate DNA that matched nothing else on record come from other than an undocumented hominid/primate not currently on record? http://www.kxxv.com/...-genetics-study (ABC affiliate) only one I can find so far... Also just read someone over at JREF proclaiming he didn't care "how many DNA studies they did, BF does not exist..." Well, JREF wouldn't accept the sasquatch if one were moderating their boards. As to the challenge: if I don't know what the DNA came from, I can simply go, prove to me the sample wasn't contaminated, or a mistake made in the analysis. Biology insists on type specimens for a reason. The only reason I even want science looking for the sasquatch is that I'd like to see one - preferably, many, or at least photos and videos of same - before I die. (They seem to be doing fine without our attention; more than I can say for the species that have gotten that attention.) Anything that moves the mainstream - and its time and money - away from the question is, to me, not good. And this just isn't being handled well, something that can only increase the raised eyebrows. (And yep, OK, you did say "blood" and not "DNA." Whoops. Sorry.)
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 I just read that press release. all I can say is W T F ? That nuclear DNA....... whoa! (the angels and the daughters of men???)
Guest Particle Noun Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 So, besides the igor connection, where are people seeing that is will be a Russian journal publishing?
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 Well, JREF wouldn't accept the sasquatch if one were moderating their boards. LOL...true As to the challenge: if I don't know what the DNA came from, I can simply go, prove to me the sample wasn't contaminated, or a mistake made in the analysis. That's where 3 complete DNA sequences and multiple independent labs come in. (And yep, OK, you did say "blood" and not "DNA." Whoops. Sorry.) No worries.
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 Personally I'm going with fringe Russian Journal
Guest slimwitless Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 So, besides the igor connection, where are people seeing that is will be a Russian journal publishing? I'm guessing they're making it up. I believe there were some similarly confused people on JREF. Maybe that's the original source.
Recommended Posts