southernyahoo Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Why does testing of hairs result in them being kept secret and belonging to someone else? I've seen examples of hair samples sent to labs before and the procedure usually goes like this: Send in the sample - get the results. Also, it seems like they are "testing" these now for quite a long time. Exactly how long does it take to perform the DNA test on the hairs? Sure seems like something is awry. Almost every lab I've checked (many) give hair DNA test results in 5-7 days. What types of testing are you prescribing to be done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 127 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 A better question might be - what type of testing are you having done that is taking this long? Exactly what date did you submit it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 No, you said the testing takes a few days, what kind of DNA testing is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 I disagree that the burden of proof lies on the skeptic. The burden of proof lies with those who make statements of fact, and it only lies with those who have a desire to be credible. And I don't mean that as an insult. Some people believe what they believe and they want to leave it at that, and that's perfectly fine. Most of the skeptics I've seen on this forum have no problem supporting their statements with reference material, so I don't see that it poses a problem here. Debate simply shuts down if one chooses to make a statement and leave it at that. What's the sense in even having the conversation at that point. The only way this becomes a learning experience for any of us is if we share the facts as we know them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 127 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 No, you said the testing takes a few days, what kind of DNA testing is that? Many types of DNA testing can be done in that period of time. A quick google search can confirm that for you. Even the most intense testing takes 4-6 weeks. What type of testing is being done to your sample? When did you submit it? Have you been given any results? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 You haven't missed the head of the nail much at all lately RWR . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 I disagree that the burden of proof lies on the skeptic. We aren't in court and Bigfoot isn't accused of "not existing". When it comes to the scientific evidence of support of a position. First the supporters of the "new discovery" must present their evidence "proving" their hypothesis. Then the skeptics, peers and what not get the chance to peruse said evidence looking for discrepancies, problems, false positives...etc Then , and only then, after the evidence has been judged to be on the up and up and definitive, is the new subject then allowed to be entered into the modern taxonomy. In other words, it's the burden of the believer to prove it's existence. Not on the skeptic to prove it doesn't... edit: a dead body isn't the only proof. I don't think that new ox thing they found in Asia a few years back was killed. They just interacted and filmed it and took tons of measurements. They then were able to take other scientists back to see it for themselves... Nor all of those new reptiles in Madagascar. But they had nice, detailed closeup photos and video, and scale drawings...etc Excellent point Mr. StankApe. I also agree that a dead body is not the only proof. I think photos or videos from different camera's of the same subject plus DNA extracted on site would suffice. For example, if PGF was filmed with two camera's from two angles and dna was bagged and tagged and an adequate chain of custody. Throw in footprint analysis and you would start to convince people if you could effectively eliminate suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Thats very revealing. Thank You. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 (edited) The burden of proof lies with those who make statements of fact, and it only lies with those who have a desire to be credible. And I don't mean that as an insult. Some people believe what they believe and they want to leave it at that, and that's perfectly fine. Most of the skeptics I've seen on this forum have no problem supporting their statements with reference material, so I don't see that it poses a problem here. Debate simply shuts down if one chooses to make a statement and leave it at that. What's the sense in even having the conversation at that point. The only way this becomes a learning experience for any of us is if we share the facts as we know them. i have just read on here a few times the statement (and I'm paraphrasing here) "prove that he doesn't exist" or "prove that it's a suit". But It's really not up to the naysayers to prove a negative unfortunately. The burden of proof lies in the hands of the claimant. Incredible claims require incredible evidence to be accepted... It's the way the Bigfoot thing is going to work. (especially now that claims of a big bipedal hominid living in the woods have become synonymous with aliens, chupacabras and the mothman). I do agree that neither side of the argument should just make grandiose statements and not at least have an argument to back it up. (not to mention some of the semantical nitpicking that goes on... how does that make things any better?) But, the burden of proof still lies on the believer to show evidence for the big guy... I myself reserve judgement until i either A)see one for myself or B ) am convinced by the preponderance of the evidence. Edited October 21, 2011 by StankApe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Many types of DNA testing can be done in that period of time. A quick google search can confirm that for you. Even the most intense testing takes 4-6 weeks. What kinds are most intense? What did you search for in your key words? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 127 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 What kinds are most intense? What did you search for in your key words? Nice answer. Thank you for playing evasion 101. This whole Ketchum/DNA/Sierra shooting stuff is very reminiscent of "the check is in the mail." (you hear that for months/years, then it finally arrives and bounces) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 (edited) But, the burden of proof still lies on the believer to show evidence for the big guy... Not if the believer in question could give a crap what anyone believes, he doesn't. That kind pf person may just be here to share their experiences with other like-minded people and really owe no one anything in my humble opinion. If you don't like their posts or attitude and can't handle what they say in a polite fashion. Use the ignore button. Fire and forget. This is not directed at you Stank...unless you are the type. Ketchum on the other hand has made extraordinary claims. People forget it wasn't her idea to announce anything until she had something solid in her hands though. It was a bunch of whiny people who didn't like she was going to get all the credit and spilled the beans in the name of "disclosure and science" when really it was only about bruised ego. Now Ketchum is caught playing damage control (and maybe not saying all the right things) when she really has no idea when/if this paper will pass peer review. It may be so shocking a find it takes years more to study before anyone wants to put their name on something that could end careers if it is wrong. Over and over...and really, it is the same old thing. We get it. Point taken. 40 pages and and 20 different iterations of "she has nothing" or "she's confused by the results" or "it's all a hoax". OK already... One last time critics: Read the whole thread (yes, all 40 pages) before you post. Not only will you see what you are thinking somewhere in there. It may have been that you posted it already yourselves...twice even. Edited October 21, 2011 by grayjay 1B Forum Rules 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 (edited) Nice answer. Thank you for playing evasion 101. This whole Ketchum/DNA/Sierra shooting stuff is very reminiscent of "the check is in the mail." (you hear that for months/years, then it finally arrives and bounces) Hey I can ask questions too, but you beat me to the evasion tactics, you can't even provide a single particular DNA test that I should do. Sorry but you are failing as a credible critic. Edited October 21, 2011 by southernyahoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 (edited) Not if the believer in question could give a crap what anyone believes, he doesn't. That kind pf person may just be here to share their experiences with other like-minded people and really owe no one anything in my humble opinion. If you don't like their posts or attitude and can't handle what they say in a polite fashion. Use the ignore button. Fire and forget. This is not directed at you Stank...unless you are the type. Ketchum on the other hand has made extraordinary claims. People forget it wasn't her idea to announce anything until she had something solid in her hands though. It was a bunch of whiny people who didn't like she was going to get all the credit and spilled the beans in the name of "disclosure and science" when really it was only about bruised ego. Now Ketchum is caught playing damage control (and maybe not saying all the right things) when she really has no idea when/if this paper will pass peer review. It may be so shocking a find it takes years more to study before anyone wants to put their name on something that could end careers if it is wrong. Over and over...and really, it is the same old thing. We get it. Point taken. 40 pages and and 20 different iterations of "she has nothing" or "she's confused by the results" or "it's all a hoax". OK already... One last time critics: Read the whole thread (yes, all 40 pages) before you post. Not only will you see what you are thinking somewhere in there. It may have been that you posted it already yourselves...twice even. I'm referring to the general "believer" Vs the general "skeptic" or "scoftic"...etc Plus I mean that in the scientific manner. Not a "hey I saw a bigfoot last weekend" response" no you didn't you! Prove it" That's just snarkyness and isn't going to resolve anything... in either direction Edited October 21, 2011 by grayjay quoted post in violation of 1B,symbols for profanity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 127 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Hey I can ask questions too, but you beat me to the evasion tactics, you can't even provide a single particular DNA test that I should do. Sorry but you are failing as a credible critic. Excuse me? Was I supposed to recommend a test for you to try? I believe I asked you which type of testing was being done to your sample? (still unanswered) I also asked when it was submitted? (still unanswered) If you'd like to paste anything that I've "failed as a credible critic" for posting - feel free to do so and I will address it. Unlike you have with my requests. There is no evasion going on here on my side. I have no tests to recommend. Again - what type of testing are you having done? When did you submit it? Have you received any results? Thank you kindly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts