Guest 127 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Just a quick note as an update. I wrote dna diagnostics (Ketchums lab) and asked how long it would take to get results on an unknown hair sample with roots/follicle. Their reply: Normal species ID with a good sample with roots takes about a week or so. They also offered to take my sample free of charge and have it as part of their study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek 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. Easy there Alpinist. You forget that I am a cautiously optimistic skeptic. I am much more concerned with the idea that anyone can come here for whatever their reasons without feeling like they need to answer to science or anyone else for it and share their opinion or experience. My point was that the average lay person who has a sighting has no way to fulfill the whole "extraordinary claims..." stuff. Does that mean they can't say anything when eye-witness accounts are pretty much the only thing holding together the claim of these creatures being real? If you are here to prove something to others or science, then have at it. Not everyone should have to IMO. I am not saying no one should face any scrutiny, but there are ways of doing that which allow the person being questioned to keep their dignity that some on here have little regard for. That's just how I see it and what I was addressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 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. As for this skeptic, I've said it could be one of the above. Could be a Bigfoot too, if they're real. Problem is, your list (at least seven of them) are things that we all know do actually exist. We don't know that about BF. Ask yourself which is more likely? Seven plausable explanations or a population of BF running around escaping detection, bones disappearing, incredibly elusive and can't be hit by cars but apparently not smart enough to stay away from rummaging in garbage cans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 As for this skeptic, I've said it could be one of the above. Could be a Bigfoot too, if they're real. Problem is, your list (at least seven of them) are things that we all know do actually exist. We don't know that about BF. Ask yourself which is more likely? Seven plausable explanations or a population of BF running around escaping detection, bones disappearing, incredibly elusive and can't be hit by cars but apparently not smart enough to stay away from rummaging in garbage cans? I've stated before that I'm in the camp that the existence of Bigfoot is implausible, but not impossible. You're applying a generic approach to specific statements. Known behavior and outcomes do not apply in every case. If that were true, then there would be nothing left to discover in this world. I want specific facts to back up each and every declarative statement, pro or con, in relation to a specific event. If one is going to take the time to comment and they want their comment to carry weight, one should take the time to back up their statement with facts. Hence, bear the burden of proof. And again, most of the skeptics on this forum have no problem resourcing their arguments from what I've read. Now, that’s not to say someone isn’t going to question a resource, but at least I can see there is some basis for the argument other than “It’s this way because that’s the way it is.†That’s okay if you’re telling me that’s why Wednesday follows Tuesday, but not when, addressing specific evidence, you’re telling me an animal doesn’t exist simply because it hasn’t been discovered. I’d much prefer you’d step outside of your bias and tell me specifically why you believe a certain piece of evidence isn’t valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Just a quick note as an update. I wrote dna diagnostics (Ketchums lab) and asked how long it would take to get results on an unknown hair sample with roots/follicle. Their reply: They also offered to take my sample free of charge and have it as part of their study. You gonna send her your hair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 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. As a skeptic i completely agree with this synopsis. It's pretty much what I meant in my statement above. IN THE GENERAL CASE OF SASQUATCH the burden of proof lies with the endorser of said animal's existence. However, in the immediate discussion, any and all statements made as absolutes (on either side ) require evidence or at least conjecture of some merit... kudos sir! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 127 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 You gonna send her your hair? Perhaps you can address the questions I asked before I answer anymore of yours. Takes two ya know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 They also offered to take my sample free of charge and have it as part of their study. You should write them back and ask them if including the hair in the study will; 1) Delay the time you will get the results and 2) Give them ownership over the hair and/or results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 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? Try reading the post you quoted. SGM is likely to have been done in my opinion. Sample submitted in april 2010. My NDA says I own no results and can't give you any specifics, I agreed to participate in the study, which means Dr. Ketchum is authorized to publish the results. The sample was sent for the simple ID of a known if it was,initially. It was determined by her team that it should go into the study from there. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 127 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Try reading the post you quoted. SGM is likely to have been done in my opinion. Sample submitted in april 2010. My NDA says I own no results and can't give you any specifics, I agreed to participate in the study, which means Dr. Ketchum is authorized to publish the results. The sample was sent for the simple ID of a known if it was,initially. It was determined by her team that it should go into the study from there. southernyahoo: Thank you for the reply alas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 You gonna send her your hair? Perhaps you can address the questions I asked before I answer anymore of yours. Takes two ya know. Your turn. What kind of test did DNA Diagnostics offer for species ID? Are they going to sequence the entire mtDNA , just the SGM test, or what? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 127 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 southernyahoo: I probably will not send them anything. If I did I wouldn't post about it here until I got some results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 I want specific facts to back up each and every declarative statement, pro or con, in relation to a specific event. Okay. When I make a declarative statement I will back it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 southernyahoo: I probably will not send them anything. If I did I wouldn't post about it here until I got some results. Well I see no reason why you couldn't say whether you sent them some hairs for ID, you could test the lab to see if they can ID something that is known. If you happened to have hairs from something of interest to them, it might put you on the inside. You've got nothing to lose here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 (edited) Okay. When I make a declarative statement I will back it up. "There is no Bigfoot, no shootings, no bodies and no Bigfoot "slice-of-thigh" or any other body part forthcoming. My sources are irrefutable. There IS no DNA. There is no (to say the least) convincing Erickson video. Isn't there..." - WTB1 So how much time do you require? The same, more, or less than Ketchum? I will wait over here in the corner holding my breath. Thanks to SouthernYahoo... Edited October 21, 2011 by HairyGreek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts