Guest Cervelo Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 It's out there now....and you thought the bashing here was bad LOL as the song says "you ain't seen nothin yet" and deservedly so... http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/11/27/bigfoot-is-part-human-dna-study-claims/
Guest Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 ^^^ Author of that article: Benjamin Radford is deputy editor of Skeptical Inquirer science magazine and author of six books, including Tracking the Chupacabra and Scientific Paranormal Investigation: How to Solve Unexplained Mysteries. His website is www.BenjaminRadford.com.
Guest TH68 Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 Fox "News" is an oxymoron. Nevertheless even they said if she has the goods other scientists will accept it. Other scienticists have attempted to comment responsibly and have been criticized in blog land. People, slow down, be logical and above all be patient. If what she found was Giganto the skeptics would be just as vocal. The is a logical reason why all previous attempts at DNA analysis of purported Sasquatch samples came back human and it is not that all were contaminated or were not from Sasquatch. And you can take it to the bank that if dr Sykes has real Sasquatch samples to analyze his nuclear DNA findings will confirm Dr Ketchum's. It will take time to go through each the analysis of each sample to understand where it came from and how it was gathered. Is it likely that it was hoaxed? Did it come from a hunter, vagrant, etc who happened to be deep in an uninhibited forest naked leaving footprints, hair, saliva, blood feces, toenails and shows up on hd video being impossibly big, hairy, formidable and real? I think not. Remember when you were a kid and the wait from Thanksgiving to Xmas was an eternity? You still had to wait and voila, Christmas did eventually arrive. Believers, just wait a little longer. real skeptics, your analysis is welcomed and considered. Trolls, prepare to go back under the bridge. 1
Guest Cervelo Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 (edited) Here's some more press http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2013/02/14/bigfoot-dna-results-final_n_2681135.html Edited February 17, 2013 by Cervelo
Guest gershake Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 And you can take it to the bank that if dr Sykes has real Sasquatch samples to analyze his nuclear DNA findings will confirm Dr Ketchum's. I'm not so sure of that anymore...The link to Foxnews above ^ is from the time of her press release in November, by the way.
Guest TH68 Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 Too difficult to do on an iPad. I tried then hit cancel and here it is, in cyberspace for eternity. Sorry 'bout that! But I stand by my opinion, obviously.
Guest Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 My understanding of the paper, upon the first views of people I know qualified to take a look at such things, is the structure of the paper is lacking. It is not set up professionally, and the lack of descriptions of process will make it difficult, if even possible to verify any of the data contained in the paper. They find it hard to believe it has been through any sort of peer review, considering the peer reviews would certainly address the lack of structure to the paper.
Guest gershake Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/14/16964023-bigfoot-dna-discovered-at-last-not-so-fast?lite
bipedalist Posted February 17, 2013 BFF Patron Posted February 17, 2013 (edited) Well it has been described that way John C and it would seem painfully obvious but as one Prof. in Texas that was assoc. with The Human Genome project that read it said and I paraphrase, there is not enough to condemn it on poor structure alone. So, go figure. But I agree John C, based on outlines it sounds as if peer review is in the boiler room now until C2C asks her this question tonight and we get a straight answer. Monograph? Or, peer-reviewed represented paper on a self-owned peer-reviewed open source pay per view online journal site? Edited February 17, 2013 by bipedalist
Guest Cervelo Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 (edited) I'm not so sure of that anymore... The link to Foxnews above ^ is from the time of her press release in November, by the way. Dang sorry about that, if you go to Fox News science section the article is there I copied that off google it was the first to come up. The other article is new. Edited February 17, 2013 by Cervelo
Guest Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/14/16964023-bigfoot-dna-discovered-at-last-not-so-fast?lite Wow what a bunch of gibberish JREF would be proud.
Guest gershake Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 Here's a link: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/17/bigfoot-dna-study-seeks-yeti-rights/
bipedalist Posted February 17, 2013 BFF Patron Posted February 17, 2013 ^^^ An interesting take, and some good stuff, but the unicorn cart tells you which forum rep. free-lanced that one, LOL.
Guest Llawgoch Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 Wow what a bunch of gibberish JREF would be proud. What will satisfy you that this report is hokum? Every time a properly qualified person says so, you dismiss it. No pro-Bigfoot people with any sort of qualification are supporting it. What are you waiting for?
Guest Cervelo Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 ^^^ An interesting take, and some good stuff, but the unicorn cart tells you which forum rep. free-lanced that one, LOL. Cart before the Unicorn....
Recommended Posts