Guest gerrykleier Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 300! 300! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) I didn't think Sasquatch would be the result of a hybridization. It would explain why the mtDNA has always showed modern human. Obviously they are very special Edited November 25, 2012 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 It must be close to publication if she's confirming on rumors According TO the press release, it hasn't even passed peer review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePhaige Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 It is possible to discuss the "Nephilim" in a non Biblical context. The cryptic Nephilim are not associated with the supernatural, but are human/alien hybrids in service to an ancient race of aliens who the theory states were the "gods" of the ancient world. Many sources refer to the alien overlords as the Annunaki. I'm familiar with the secular sources and Zecharia Sitchins works. The Sumerian texts etc.... I prefer to not have the discussion if I need to be cryptic about it. Its just too difficult to discuss it here. I just have a belief that SSq comes from somewhere in history and the book that describes one such example is rule bound out of the discussion on this particular forum, which is what it is. I accept that. I think these new DNA related studies will open up (hopefully) some new realities about the subject. Ironically it may lead to this forum being handicapped in going forward as to the origins of such a discovery and being boxed in by its own rules, but thats cool. It will still be discussed somewhere I gather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 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. The exact details (what kind of metals, what shape the parts are, etc) may be beyond most people, but I wouldn't expect ANYone not to be able to look at a set of blueprints and at least have a very good idea of what they are for. You seem to be missing my point. I don't find the fact that DNA comes from a creature, possibly Bigfoot, hard to understand. It's not difficult to understand, nor has it ever been. What I mean is that this evidence needs to be accompanied by additional evidence of another type to claim that Bigfoot has been discovered. If you want to say that it's possible that Bigfoot DNA has been discovered, that's one thing. But to claim a discovery based on the DNA alone is akin to attempting to sell a house without showing it, using those blueprints you alluded to as proof that the house it details has actually been built. People like to see what they're buying. To the majority of citizens, DNA isn't proof. Seeing a Bigfoot is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 You seem to be missing my point. I don't find the fact that DNA comes from a creature, possibly Bigfoot. That's not difficult to understand, nor has it ever been. What I mean is that this evidence needs to be accompanied by additional evidence of another type to claim that Bigfoot has been discovered. If you want to say that it's possible that Bigfoot DNA has been discovered, that's one thing. But to claim a discovery based on the DNA alone is akin to attempting to sell a house without showing it, using those blueprints you alluded to as proof that the house it details has actually been built. People like to see what they're buying. To the majority of citizens, DNA isn't proof. Seeing a Bigfoot is. Right. If all you have is the DNA, people know that DNA mistakes have been made. A mistake isn't an unlisted animal. We've had the "unknown primate" finding before. Where are we? People want to see this animal, to find out how it lives, to truly know that there isn't some flimflammery going on in this field full of circuses. A DNA finding will not satisfy the public; and it won't satisfy the mainstream of science. If it moves some opinions closer to proponent or uncommited, that is best case scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 We've had the "unknown primate" finding before. Where are we? Do you have a link to the science paper on that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) Wow, 19 people in the chat room. That's news right there. I just wanted to get in on page 300. "People like to see what they're buying. To the majority of citizens, DNA isn't proof. Seeing a Bigfoot is." Why would 'Science' be concerned with what the majority of citizens think, considering they are not scientists. If the science is sound, it speaks for itself. What anyone else feels is of no consequence. Edited November 25, 2012 by Thepattywagon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Right. If all you have is the DNA, people know that DNA mistakes have been made. A mistake isn't an unlisted animal. We've had the "unknown primate" finding before. Where are we? People want to see this animal, to find out how it lives, to truly know that there isn't some flimflammery going on in this field full of circuses. A DNA finding will not satisfy the public; and it won't satisfy the mainstream of science. If it moves some opinions closer to proponent or uncommited, that is best case scenario. We'll have to see how the professionals evaluate her evidence. If enough well known DNA Researchers validate it, then the public will accept BFs existence. At worse, it will cause a lot more Scientists to look at the evidence, and presumably get involved. BTW, I think the Government 'knows' about BF, and the response to the Ketchum and Sykes reports if favorable will tip them over to disclosure mode, or at least flush a lot of whistleblowers out into the open. GK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 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. This isn't necessarily comparing apples to apples. In court cases, there is a type specimen...you. If the DNA is a match with yours, bingo. In this case, we have no type specimen, just a sample that could be tampered with or contaminated. Science demands a body, period. There have been exceptions. The kipunji was confirmed with a photograph. But mainstream scientists were making a claim plausible to the mainstream of primatology; and there was a plausible picture of the animal. (Yes, we have a movie of a bigfoot. And we know what the mainstream thinks of that.) Science has been denying this animal for decades. They aren't going to roll over for a badly-handled release of stuff that purportedly came from something that the claim's proponents can't produce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanFooter Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 SES-Te-Cah NC But is'nt that what the Erickson Project is for ? '' IF '' there is clear HD footage of a Sasquatch leaving a sample or even being associated with a sample collected at an area where footage was obtianed and this sample comes back with a unique genitic code, would that be worth buying for the scienctific board and general public ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 SES-Te-Cah NC But is'nt that what the Erickson Project is for ? '' IF '' there is clear HD footage of a Sasquatch leaving a sample or even being associated with a sample collected at an area where footage was obtianed and this sample comes back with a unique genitic code, would that be worth buying for the scienctific board and general public ? What the heck, I'll take a stab. If that is great footage; if it shows the purported activity clearly taking place; and you get the code, one thing I might bet on is that some scientists might secretly shift sides in the debate, and there would be a lot of raised eyebrows, some of them positive. My problem: they slam-dunked P-G without trial; and I've never seen anything else like that. The mainstream may hold out for a body. Which shouldn't stop any intermediate steps that can be taken in the interim to build the evidence file. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 The reason nobody bigger has picked this up is because its her own self released press. It wasn't released on any major PR channel. Along with her using another nutty habituator as her PR person and how this just looks like damage control due to Igor's mention I think this stinks worse than it looks. My guess is this is a move to use public PR to pressure American Science Journals to reconsider her manuscript. You heard it here first ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 SES-Te-Cah NC But is'nt that what the Erickson Project is for ? '' IF '' there is clear HD footage of a Sasquatch leaving a sample or even being associated with a sample collected at an area where footage was obtianed and this sample comes back with a unique genitic code, would that be worth buying for the scienctific board and general public ? Yes, supposedly it is, and this is exactly what I mean. Evidence in addition to the DNA would go far to confirm the creature's existence. My fear is that the accompanying evidence - should it be presented with the DNA - will be just as inferior as much of it has been up until now. Any video evidence needs to be at least as clear as PGF, if not better. Red circles and commentators just won't be as convincing as definitive evidence accompanying the DNA. Look, guys - I believe that it's possible that Bigfoot exists. I'm not declaring that the DNA evidence isn't good enough for science, just that the general public will demand absolute proof before anyone tells them they can't sell their timber or hunt in a specific area. I can't say that I blame them, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 I'll bet I still have a lot of questions, unanswered.. after this study.. if it Ever concludes. Not even peer reviewed yet (?).. looks like it will still be a while longer . Sure got bigfootery all riled up, though. It was quite interesting, reading that " government on all levels " should immediately protect squatchy's human and constitutional rights as an indigenous people, and then reading the fallout to that statement.. lol. Can't say I'm not entertained, because that wouldn't be true . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts