Guest HairyGreek Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 (edited) 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 Agreed Stank! Too bad 127 isn't catching my drift... Edited October 21, 2011 by HairyGreek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 BTW, I do have to say that I'm digging being called Stank or stanky! i tried to be SKUNKAPE, but that was taken, so I just went silly instead with STANKAPE! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Two posts have been edited already in this thread. I'm suggesting folks take a deep breath before hitting the "post" button before this escalates anymore. Thank you for you future compliance. Grayjay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Who says the test didn't take 5-7 days? I thought the whole wait was due to NDA's that are in place while Dr. Ketchum waits for her paper to be peer reviewed. Most researchers don't discuss their findings before that takes place. I can imagine the samples being tested, retested and tested again considering how enormous these findings would be. Just because they haven't talked, doesn't automatically mean they don't have anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 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. You remember this post don't you 127? I simply asked what DNA tests take 5-7 days. Do they include peer reviewed and published papers with that? There are some tests using a barcode technique that would identify a known, but it's use is highly discouraged for phylogenetic placement in the event a new species is found. The entire mitochondria is sequenced and is compared to all data bases along with "some" nuDNA to do this right. Surely you can understand that I can't tell you more about Ketchums work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 BTW, I do have to say that I'm digging being called Stank or stanky! i tried to be SKUNKAPE, but that was taken, so I just went silly instead with STANKAPE! lol I thought long and hard about choosing some variant of BF for name when I joined up on BFF 2.0 , then realized keeping it short and simple was my best bet.. Your stuck with Stanky now mister !!! Although... we could just shorten it to SA.. Initials seem to be popular on here, or shortened versions... HG for HairyGreek, RRS for RedRatSnake, Inc1 for Incorrigible1, Bip or BP for Bipedalist.. etc etc... If it comes to it, i think your allowed one name change- you could combine Skunkape with your birth year or something... Shoot a PM to a mod or admin to discuss it if comes to that... Ok Stanky ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted October 21, 2011 Admin Share Posted October 21, 2011 (edited) There are some tests using a barcode technique that would identify a known, but it's use is highly discouraged for phylogenetic placement in the event a new species is found. The entire mitochondria is sequenced and is compared to all data bases along with "some" nuDNA to do this right. Even though I'm a skeptic, I accept the fact that peer review can take years in some cases. The more controversial the subject/conclusion, usually the longer the wait. Sometimes, it's about "shopping" the journal that will publish the "paper". It could have been submitted and rejected by many journals already, thus causing the delay. We don't know if it's even been accepted yet by any journal at all. For all we know, they're down to waiting for "popular science" to agree featuring it. There are some exceptions to the rule, when the orthodoxy is challenged, peer review of an affirming paper can happen in mere weeks. Edited October 21, 2011 by gigantor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alpinist Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 I'm tempted to suggest that the dedicated should re-sample if they can, get their own dna work done and pay for it yourself, then post online the results yourself. 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. Agreed HairyGreek. There are no rules, nonsense like "Exceptional claims require ...." etc etc ... what a load of BS. And BS is the skeptics only defence these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 I thought long and hard about choosing some variant of BF for name when I joined up on BFF 2.0 , then realized keeping it short and simple was my best bet.. Your stuck with Stanky now mister !!! Although... we could just shorten it to SA.. Initials seem to be popular on here, or shortened versions... HG for HairyGreek, RRS for RedRatSnake, Inc1 for Incorrigible1, Bip or BP for Bipedalist.. etc etc... If it comes to it, i think your allowed one name change- you could combine Skunkape with your birth year or something... Shoot a PM to a mod or admin to discuss it if comes to that... Ok Stanky ? believe you/me there are a few women out there who've called me much worse than Stanky! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 127 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 (edited) You remember this post don't you 127? I simply asked what DNA tests take 5-7 days. Do they include peer reviewed and published papers with that? There are some tests using a barcode technique that would identify a known, but it's use is highly discouraged for phylogenetic placement in the event a new species is found. The entire mitochondria is sequenced and is compared to all data bases along with "some" nuDNA to do this right. Surely you can understand that I can't tell you more about Ketchums work. southernyahoo: I responded to that post and said a simple google search will easily confirm that many types of DNA tests can be done in that time. No, they don't include peer review or NDA or other barriers. I asked 3 simple questions to which you have answered none of. Does your NDA prevent you from answering these? What type of testing is being done for your sample? What date did you submit your sample? Have you received any results? Note: I did not ask what the results were, nor did I ask any personal information. Only if you have received any results. Did your sample undergo SGM+, identifiler or mitochondrial DNA? You cant be specific? What does your NDA state? Can you post the wording of it here? Edited October 21, 2011 by 127 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 I'm tempted to suggest that the dedicated should re-sample if they can, get their own dna work done and pay for it yourself, then post online the results yourself. Agreed HairyGreek. There are no rules, nonsense like "Exceptional claims require ...." etc etc ... what a load of BS. And BS is the skeptics only defence these days. Defense against what exactly? Tall tales and wishful thinking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 See above rant about merging threads,........lost in the fray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Agreed HairyGreek. There are no rules, nonsense like "Exceptional claims require ...." etc etc ... what a load of BS. And BS is the skeptics only defence these days. That's not even possible because the skeptical side doesn't even need a "defence". The believer says they're real. What defense do we need? Just prove they're real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 (edited) You haven't missed the head of the nail much at all lately RWR . Thank you, sir. I suspect that skeptics are going to think this is directed at them, but I mean it to apply to anyone who takes a definitive stand. Proof is never required if you're not interested in being taken seriously. It doesn't matter what position you take. This notion that burden of proof only applies to one side I believe is a misguided notion handed down from individuals who ran out of arguments years ago. I don’t think anyone is asking skeptics to prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist. I would agree that you are removed from the burden of proof in that case because the standard of proof would be impossible to meet. I'm asking skeptics to back up statements like these with facts (these are just a few examples): It's a hoax. It's a guy in a suit. The shooting never happened. It's a bear. It's matrixing. It's Pareidolia. The footprints are fake. He/she is lying. Etc. I'm willing to believe that any of these things are true, but not just because you say they're true. Think of this as math class. I want to see your work. Setting your bias aside, how did you come to these conclusions? Bias in this case would include basing your answers on your belief that Bigfoot does not exist. Just as bias includes basing your answer on your belief that Bigfoot does exist if you’re on the other side of the debate. If those statements are based on your belief, then say that. I’m cool with having an opinion. It just drives me nuts when opinions are presented as fact. That’s where you lose me, and frankly, if it’s something I see repeated over and over again by the same individual, I stop paying attention to that individual’s posts because they aren’t really bringing anything of value to the table. This observation goes to both sides of any debate. Human nature usually dictates that once you take a position on something you will adopt a win at all costs mentality. All evidence to the contrary will be ignored or dismissed without serious consideration. I’m not above this behavior. My skin crawls when I come across the paranormal discussion. I would be unable to have a serious conversation about such a thing, so I have to restrain myself from making snarky remarks, and just move on, removing myself from the conversation altogether. I recognize in those cases that I’m more interested in denigrating the other side than actually proving my point. It’s really not fair to anyone including me because it makes me look like an a**hole. In summary, don’t be an a**hole. Show your work. Edited October 21, 2011 by rwridley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Who says the test didn't take 5-7 days? I thought the whole wait was due to NDA's that are in place while Dr. Ketchum waits for her paper to be peer reviewed. Most researchers don't discuss their findings before that takes place. I can imagine the samples being tested, retested and tested again considering how enormous these findings would be. Just because they haven't talked, doesn't automatically mean they don't have anything. Well said, arizonabigfoot, well said Indeed! I gave you my point for the day because you deserved it... Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts