Guest VioletX Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Any time I "hear" from Mulder or Southern I know I'm on the right track Hey, everybody's got to have a muse, (or two) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 OK, I'll agree that the DNA is known. However - as I said in an earlier post - science seems to fill in the gaps, coming to grandeose conclusions that are accepted as fact and promoted as such by science. It appears that if you find DNA without a type specimen, all you need to do is name it and proceed to conclude whatever you'd like from a minimum amount of evidence. The Denisova DNA was extracted from a pinky finger, molar and a toe bone. Yet from this, we're supposed to believe that we can know where the creature came from, when it migrated, what it looked like, etc. This is the problem I have with this type of science, but at least in the case of Denisova we at least have a few fragments. To conclude that the unknown Bigfoot DNA is proof that a discovery of the animal's lineage has been determined is nonsense without finding - and thus presenting - the type specimen or a fragment thereof to compare it to. Scientists found a few bones from Denisova. Look at what's been speculated from those few bones. If science did this with those few bone fragments, isn't it fair to assume that they'll do the same with this unknown paternal DNA? Those would be the educated speculations from science atleast, and based on solid evidence to begin those "questions". All is not known about our own origins, or where we once inhabited. This study had a primary question to answer, "is it there" not all the hows and whys. Yes the scientists would have alot to hash out, but it all does not have to be in this paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 I understand people wanting to get excited about "something", but unless the study is holding out and hiding a piece of physical evidence with a proper chain of custody verifying the physical evidence matches the results of the DNA testing, you still have "unKNOWN" whether it's primate or "horse" in nature. All the wishing in the world doesn't turn "verified unknown primate" into "bigfoot"... unless you've got one laying around you're not telling someone about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ike Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Whether you believe or disbelieve in the existence of bigfoot, I think many here are underestimating one major primate sitting in the middle of the room. Science (thanks to Mulder? who distinguishes between big "S" Science, and little "s" science) has a major vested interest in this project to FAIL. For nearly 50 years they have done nothing but ridicule, deride, and scoff at anyone or anything that had a whiff of "Bigfoot" attached to it. They have successfully created an environment wherein society, led by the media, paints anyone who is even open to the concept of bigfoot as a loon, regardless if they are Dr. Meldrum, Janice Carter, or anything in between. I know I have never seen or heard a report from the media that didn't have a wink or smirk attached to the subject. The fact is, the establishment will never be happy about having egg on their face nor having to eat crow as many of the proponents of the creatures existence think they will have to do upon release of this paper. So what will they do? They will ignore it. Of course they can verify a previously unknown homin based on a fossilized toenail...as long as it hadn't been the specific object of their vociferous ridicule for 50 years. In order to "keep face" they can't reverse themselves now unless an irrefutable piece of evidence is thrown before them. In other words, a body, dead or alive. DNA study by a scientist who even entertains the idea of bigfoot enough to take samples for a study, much less one who claims to have a family of them on her ranch braiding horse hair? Forget it. The establishment will be able to find a hundred excuses to negate and downplay this study regardless of how much care and objectivity was employed in its creation. Regardless of how or when the report is generated, it will be buried and forgotten except among the believers. THE ESTABLISHMENT DOES NOT WANT TO HEAR IT and thus they won't unless TBRC or whomever trots out a live or dead specimen in the press which embarrasses them into recanting their position. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted November 25, 2012 Moderator Share Posted November 25, 2012 Oh, brother. My problem isn't necessarily with the Bigfoot DNA, but with the unknown paternal DNA. I won't bother to dream up anything. The scientists will do that aplenty when attempting to classify the unknown paternal DNA. well something had to have existed in order for them to find this DNA, something mated with human female and this is the existance of some thing real that is living today.You cannot fake DNA of something that never existed unless it had existed.DNA is comformation of that living in our forest. Whether it is unknown does not matter what matters is the fact that DNA came form a living organism. They have the markings to prove that and only time will tell how this will effect the way we see things living in our forest.As it stands they have DNA of something that all have said never existed.I do not see it fading away but making the case of there being a living organism called BIgfoot living with in our forest. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 I understand people wanting to get excited about "something", but unless the study is holding out and hiding a piece of physical evidence with a proper chain of custody verifying the physical evidence matches the results of the DNA testing, you still have "unKNOWN" whether it's primate or "horse" in nature. All the wishing in the world doesn't turn "verified unknown primate" into "bigfoot"... unless you've got one laying around you're not telling someone about. DITTO! How is it you can say it and not get slammed, but I do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 well something had to have existed in order for them to find this DNA, something mated with human female and this is the existance of some thing real that is living today.You cannot fake DNA of something that never existed unless it had existed.DNA is comformation of that living in our forest. Whether it is unknown does not matter what matters is the fact that DNA came form a living organism. They have the markings to prove that and only time will tell how this will effect the way we see things living in our forest.As it stands they have DNA of something that all have said never existed.I do not see it fading away but making the case of there being a living organism called BIgfoot living with in our forest. I give up. We'll just see how it plays out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 I give up. We'll just see how it plays out. Ditto! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 ^^^^ Cervelo, is heckling other members the only thing you have to contribute to this topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 ^^^^^^ It's how I express myself...if you think I'm out of bounds report away!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 It also depends on what labs she used. They better be pretty credible labs as well as having very credible peer reviewers. The involvement of Igor isn't helping bring credibility to the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 The best part is yet to come, all the Dr. K study bashers will be the 1st ones to shout out they were right all along, and new the study would be a success. you just have to laugh at some people, they will do anything to be seen in a favorable light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 well something had to have existed in order for them to find this DNA, something mated with human female and this is the existance of some thing real that is living today.You cannot fake DNA of something that never existed unless it had existed.DNA is comformation of that living in our forest. Whether it is unknown does not matter what matters is the fact that DNA came form a living organism. They have the markings to prove that and only time will tell how this will effect the way we see things living in our forest.As it stands they have DNA of something that all have said never existed.I do not see it fading away but making the case of there being a living organism called BIgfoot living with in our forest. Agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 This doesn't look good for Sykes, since he has hairs mostly and few will give him any nuDNA. The track record for Squatch hairs is also not good in yield from the shafts only. I think he will have mostly a non-result from most of his samples suspected to be BF, maybe some with human mito, and few less with a snippet of weird nuDNA. Don't forget, Sykes had the same issue trying to extract and multiply the dna from the 'Yeti' hair back in the early 00's - from memory it's included in Meldrum's LmS companion book. It stumped him (Sykes et al) at the time because he'd never been unsuccesful before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted November 26, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted November 26, 2012 Well he has since determined that particular hair was bear IIRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts