Guest Cervelo Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 (edited) BG, You so so very funny!!! I guess we'll have to have it tested, oh that's right it will come back as human.... Edited November 24, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Try 109 samples, many with complete mitochondrial genomes (16.5k base pairs) novel morphology in the samples, 3 complete nuclear genomes with novel sequences interspersed, plus other supporting data , vids , photo's testimony etc. DWA, if this is Sasquatch, you can't have a specimen. As soon as you attempt to curate one, it will be repatriated, and to kill one would obviously be homicide which we of coarse can't do in the name of science. Maybe this won't prove to all interested that BF exists, but to many, this explains the conundrum. Well, that's a TAD premature. There will have to be a legal finding that they are indeed "human" and "persons" and therefore possess human rights before that can happen. As it stands, it's perfectly legal to kill people who arguably meet the scientific definition of "human" but who are not declared "persons" by the law (abortion). *Note to Mods: the above mention of abortion is for example purposes only, and not intended to start a prohibited discussion.* I've been in the Dismal Swamp all day here's what I found..... Without a body ya still got the same thing I found today No, with DNA we have proof positive that a body existed that it came from. Which is just why I said "dirty little secret;" because sometimes it seems that only scientists haven't gotten the memo that the public pays for what they do. point Did you plant that evidence Cervelo? Yes or no will do Couldn't've been him...he'd be empty then, and we know that's not true... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Please don't think I'm taking a shot here, but what is so difficult to understand about DNA? Each type of critter has a specific genetic code that tells the developing embryo what kind of critter it is, its "blueprint". That code is unique to that type of critter, and we can read it, telling us what kind of critter it is, the same as, for example, one can look at the blueprint for a house and know that following that blueprint makes a house, a car blueprint makes a car, etc. Mulder, I think the problem is that some people find DNA 'complicated' given all the talk of haplotypes, chromosomes, etc. The statement you make that DNA = Critter is not complicated, but others get blinded by the fact that they don't understand DNA and therefore they can't understand any subsequent assertion around it, even if the logic around that assertion and the complexity of DNA are orthogonal. Maybe it would be better for the press to stick to hairs and blood when reporting this. If someone said "I found a sample of <hair|blood> and it has been tested and proven to come from no known animal", then that might be easier for some to digest. Probably best to ask someone direct though why they don't 'trust' DNA results. I'm just speculating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 : If these novel sequences aren't a part of the human (and ancestor) line, and not of the ape line, (but now seeing the wording, perhaps an ancestral line ape now extinct) what other possibilities? I've wondered elsewhere if some of those 50 species of Miocene apes had living descendants - three branches instead of two - apes, humans and sasquatch instead of an ape-human split. ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Mulder, I think the problem is that some people find DNA 'complicated' given all the talk of haplotypes, chromosomes, etc. The statement you make that DNA = Critter is not complicated, but others get blinded by the fact that they don't understand DNA and therefore they can't understand any subsequent assertion around it, even if the logic around that assertion and the complexity of DNA are orthogonal. point Maybe it would be better for the press to stick to hairs and blood when reporting this. If someone said "I found a sample of <hair|blood> and it has been tested and proven to come from no known animal", then that might be easier for some to digest. That was pointed out years ago, and it wasn't accepted then either, unfortunately... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 (edited) I've wondered elsewhere if some of those 50 species of Miocene apes had living descendants - three branches instead of two - apes, humans and sasquatch instead of an ape-human split. ??? 25 years ago, when I was studying this stuff at Uni, there was plenty of attention being paid Australopithecus Boisei (now renamed Paranthropus Boisei). http://en.wikipedia....nthropus_boisei He was a stocky old dude who did not compete directly with the smarter, lightly built firestarter that was Australopithecus Afarensis. It was asserted back in those days that this big guy died out around 1M years ago because he could not compete with pigs. Given what Ketchum has written, and some of the obvious traits of Boisei (stocky build, distinct from Homo, sagittal crest), I wonder if we are looking at a contender for the ancestor to BF? Edited November 24, 2012 by corvus horribilus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 It was asserted back in those days that this big guy died out around 1M years ago because he could not compete with pigs. Could you elaborate on this? Why would they be competing with pigs for resources? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Well, Yahoo and Fox have picked it up. Still waiting for something bigger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 (edited) Probably best to ask someone direct though why they don't 'trust' DNA results. I'm just speculatin Of course the general population knows what DNA is in a general sort of way ....that's what they use for paternity tests. If you have DNA, it came from somewhere and it's pretty much proof. If the court systems can use them to prove paternity and order child support, then that is something easily understood by most. Edited November 24, 2012 by madison5716 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Could you elaborate on this? Why would they be competing with pigs for resources? Let me dig out my old lecture notes If I remember correctly, it was believed that Boisei was herbivorous and was competing with pigs for root vegetables. I'll see if I can find any online reference to it. For the record, I personally found that postulation somewhat simplistic and grounded in nothing more than speculation (somewhat understandable I suppose, given the dearth of evidence available for animal behaviour 1M years ago). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clubbedfoot Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 (edited) I am sure this thought has been trudged out before in re to lack of a living or dead BF specimen.... “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.†Arthur Conan Doyle --creator of Sherlock Holmes Edited November 24, 2012 by clubbedfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Could you elaborate on this? Why would they be competing with pigs for resources? I did a quick interweb trawl and found this: http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Birth_Rate_And_Competition_Were_Major_Reasons_For_Past_Hominid_Extinctions_999.html "A specialized feeder, Paranthropus boisei dined on hard objects like seeds, tubers and bones. While it had a variety of food sources, they all required the crunching, grinding force of its teeth. Unfortunately, bush pigs and hyenas had great grinding and crushing teeth, too, and went after the same food.[...] Paranthropus simply could not compete reproductively and could not alter its choice of food." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlueFunk96 Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Without conclusive accompanying evidence, this presentation of DNA will mean little to most people. I disagree, and here's why: I think the public can understand the conclusion that Dr. Ketchum (allegedly) has proved the existence of a previously unknown (to science) hominid, more closely related to humans than any other known primate. Suddenly, all of the thousands of witness reports are much more credible. Previously, people have viewed bigfoot from the premise that there is no scientific proof of a large primate (hominid) and therefore all of the reports must have been mistaken identity or hoaxes. Now, assuming Dr. Ketchum's study is released and is what it purports to be, there is a scientific basis to believe that people really are seeing these hominids. People can start reasonably believing that these beings exist, and therefore people really are seeing them. Every alleged sighting isn't automatically assumed to be a hoax. I think a lot of the public's eyes will be opened to the vast weight of eyewitness testimony that exists for bigfoot, and which doesn't seem to exist for any of the other alleged cryptids. I think you'll also see more reports coming from people who were afraid to make their reports because they feared they would be viewed as crazy. I think if the paper holds up, even without a captive or dead specimen, there is so much witness testimony out there that the study may just be enough for people to change there paradigm with regard to the possible existence of bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 (edited) DNA is absolute, undeniable proof. Period. You do not need a body, or a clear video, if you had a body, what would you do? Check its DNA for goodness sake. Agreed. It's good enough for courts convictions, it's good enough for BF and me. Edited November 24, 2012 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Let the Race to Page 300 begin! F5.....F5.....F5.....F5 GK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts