Guest Patty3 Posted November 19, 2011 Posted November 19, 2011 Oh come on. Wadr, J. You haven't done DNA testing, have you??? Plz don't confuse the folks. You may have ordered DNA testing, in which case you are like millions of others. I have ordered dozens of DNA tests and it rarely took two weeks to get results, usually a week. You dont have to believe me. But do a little research. Species identification is very fast. Paternity testing can be done in a week for 79 bucks. These facts can be verified by use of the miracle that is the internet. OE should be demanding results or calling the BBB. The months-long delay raises questions..... That's my opinion. I gave you a plus, and because it would be a discovery of a new species news would travel fast. IMO this is another hoax in the latest fad of mystery DNA hoaxing and I'm certain the results will be either lost or inconclusive.
southernyahoo Posted November 19, 2011 Posted November 19, 2011 Oh come on. Wadr, J. You haven't done DNA testing, have you??? Plz don't confuse the folks. You may have ordered DNA testing, in which case you are like millions of others. I have ordered dozens of DNA tests and it rarely took two weeks to get results, usually a week. You dont have to believe me. But do a little research. Species identification is very fast. Paternity testing can be done in a week for 79 bucks. These facts can be verified by use of the miracle that is the internet. OE should be demanding results or calling the BBB. The months-long delay raises questions..... That's my opinion. Please don't confuse the folks? Right, don't confuse the sequencing of a few known markers from humans and other wildlife with sequencing the entire mitochondria. Species ID vs. Phylogenetic Taxonomy and identification of archaic human remains and their specific haplogroups.
Hairy Man Posted November 19, 2011 Posted November 19, 2011 Oh come on. Wadr, J. You haven't done DNA testing, have you??? Plz don't confuse the folks. You may have ordered DNA testing, in which case you are like millions of others. I have ordered dozens of DNA tests and it rarely took two weeks to get results, usually a week. You dont have to believe me. But do a little research. Species identification is very fast. Paternity testing can be done in a week for 79 bucks. These facts can be verified by use of the miracle that is the internet. OE should be demanding results or calling the BBB. The months-long delay raises questions..... That's my opinion. I apologize if I wasn't clear. I have collected multiple DNA samples from multiple sources and sent them to labs to be tested. The tests I have requested have ranged from determining if a sample is human to determining ethnicity (and even tribe). All of those took between 6 to 8 months to get back. The last test I sent in (less than a year ago) took five months and I was pleased with that. And although I have noticed the price has come down a bit, I have never paid less that $400 for a test and report. Not all labs do every kind of testing. I have tried in the past to use labs that specialize in paternity testing only to be told that I can't get what it is I'm looking for. I would suspect that ordering a DNA test on a large blood draw would get a faster result because there is more material to work with. The material I work with has to be cleaned of contamination, is generally old, and usable DNA has to be found. The TBRC, as I understand, sent in a small dried blood stain that had been exposed to sunlight for a period of time. That an't going to be $79 bucks nor a week turn around. That was my point. BTW, if you have a good lab that you use, please PM me the name because I could use one that is faster and cheaper.
Guest Posted November 19, 2011 Posted November 19, 2011 You still don't get it do you? A upright walking "whatever" was shot at. In this country you don't shoot at anything that walks upright and if that part of the story wasn't fabricated you better start praying that nobody has turned up missing. I thought the same thing when I read that aspect of the report. There is no excuse for shooting at something walking upright except for self defense and that is not the case here. Moreover, shooting at a wild animal is a crime unless it is in hunting season. Anyway you look at, a crime was committed. I think any shooting of a bf is a crime except for self defense.
Guest Posted November 19, 2011 Posted November 19, 2011 I am missing something here? Can someone please provide me with examples (enough to establish a fad) of hoaxed DNA attempts? Results that were lost or inconclusive based on samples that were deliberately faked? As far as I know, DNA can not be faked. It stands up in court after all. If I have read correctly, I believe that all the TBRC is stating is that they found a significantly degraded drop of blood from an unknown source. It just seems awfully irresponsible to be throwing the word "hoax" around without any evidence. I don't think they have claimed it's anything. And as far as the other DNA studies are going, samples have been identifed as other animals, synthetic fibers, and contaminated material, and the ultimate findings have not even been released yet. On a side note, can someone please provide me with one, just one, quote of anyone from the TBRC bragging about firing upon the creature in question. I can't seem to find it in my notes. Thanks. I thought the same thing when I read that aspect of the report. There is no excuse for shooting at something walking upright except for self defense and that is not the case here. Moreover, shooting at a wild animal is a crime unless it is in hunting season. Anyway you look at, a crime was committed. I think any shooting of a bf is a crime except for self defense. If an animal does not exist, there are no laws establishing a season for that animal. So the way I look at it, and the way the United States of America looks at it, no crime was committed.
Guest RedRatSnake Posted November 19, 2011 Posted November 19, 2011 I thought the same thing when I read that aspect of the report. There is no excuse for shooting at something walking upright except for self defense and that is not the case here. Moreover, shooting at a wild animal is a crime unless it is in hunting season. Anyway you look at, a crime was committed. I think any shooting of a bf is a crime except for self defense. I agree if it's walking on two legs you don't try and hunt it down.
Guest Posted November 19, 2011 Posted November 19, 2011 (edited) Anyway you look at, a crime was committed. I think any shooting of a bf is a crime except for self defense. I don't think I'd worry about it. If I shot something as bizarre as an upright, bipedal ape in the woods of upstate New York and was questioned by the police as to why I did it; I would reply, 'Are you f'n kidding me, wouldn't you have ?' Edited November 19, 2011 by Tyinhell
Guest Posted November 19, 2011 Posted November 19, 2011 You still don't get it do you? A upright walking "whatever" was shot at. In this country you don't shoot at anything that walks upright and if that part of the story wasn't fabricated you better start praying that nobody has turned up missing. Just so we can be clear, when you say "upright walking", I would think that describes every animal pretty accurately. Well unless there is a whole class of them who scurry around on their backs, with their feet in the air....kind of like doing "the worm" but on your back... ? I've also just recently heard about the ones that lay on their sides and flail their legs, but they just spin in circles....makes grazing a breeze though. I was going to say, because hunting the back scurriers and side flailer's doesnt seem so sporting. I'd have to assume they're just filthy with mud as well. Yep, I'm pretty confident the animals I used to hunt (not so much anymore) were all "upright walkers". I feel just horrible now, knowing that I wasnt supposed too be doing so. OH.. you meant BIPEDAL... as opposed to QUADRUPED .. ? Ahhh, ok... now I see what you were getting at. I swear i'm just trying to be humorous- not trying to be sarcastic or anything... (I kind of "knew" you meant bipedal, but couldnt resist having a little fun w/ it...) Too many "dark clouds" hanging around this thread, someone's gotta lighten the mood a bit.. Speaking of Bipedal "upright walking" check out this Black Bear momma Sow..! From a distance, I bet she would definitely cause some Bigfoot reports..! (Credit to RWRidley for bringing vid to my attention in another thread)
Bonehead74 Posted November 19, 2011 Posted November 19, 2011 (edited) I thought the same thing when I read that aspect of the report. There is no excuse for shooting at something walking upright except for self defense and that is not the case here. Moreover, shooting at a wild animal is a crime unless it is in hunting season. Anyway you look at, a crime was committed. I think any shooting of a bf is a crime except for self defense. Thinking something is a crime is quite different from it being an actual crime, thankfully. You are correct in stating that there is no established bigfoot open season, but every law I'm familiar with prohibits shooting an animal out of season. As far as I'm aware, there are no federal or state governments that recognize sasquatch as an extant species. A law prohibiting the shooting of an animal out of season or shooting a non-game animal cannot apply if the target doesn't officially exist as an animal recognized by the prosecuting body. Any fun-loving defense lawyer would have a field day. The firearm was discharged on private property, the owner's nephew and gf were not endangered, and it seems highly unlikely that an unknown human actor was targeted because there were no police complaints filed and no 'kid' in a gorilla costume rushed to the local hospital with a severe case of ALP (Acute Lead Poisoning). So what law(s) were broken? You have blatantly called DC a criminal in a public web forum sans proof. Corpus delicti. Edited November 19, 2011 by Bonehead74
Guest parnassus Posted November 19, 2011 Posted November 19, 2011 (edited) I apologize if I wasn't clear. I have collected multiple DNA samples from multiple sources and sent them to labs to be tested. The tests I have requested have ranged from determining if a sample is human to determining ethnicity (and even tribe). All of those took between 6 to 8 months to get back. The last test I sent in (less than a year ago) took five months and I was pleased with that. And although I have noticed the price has come down a bit, I have never paid less that $400 for a test and report. Not all labs do every kind of testing. I have tried in the past to use labs that specialize in paternity testing only to be told that I can't get what it is I'm looking for. I would suspect that ordering a DNA test on a large blood draw would get a faster result because there is more material to work with. The material I work with has to be cleaned of contamination, is generally old, and usable DNA has to be found. The TBRC, as I understand, sent in a small dried blood stain that had been exposed to sunlight for a period of time. That an't going to be $79 bucks nor a week turn around. That was my point. BTW, if you have a good lab that you use, please PM me the name because I could use one that is faster and cheaper. Extraction of DNA from blood stains has been a standard forensic procedure for many years. If the DNA is there, polymerase chain reaction can make as many copies as needed overnight. Running the gels takes a few hours, but this is mainly just waiting around. The point is: These are biochemical lab tests; you set them up and let them run for a few hours while you go and do something else. not like finding a needle in a haystack or building the pyramids. The lab procedures for identifying species from blood just don't take that long. Three days at the most. Not getting results for months simply means you're getting the runaround: the longer you sit around without calling them out the greater the chance your sample will be "lost" like so many other " Bigfoot" samples seem to be. Sorry if you haven't found a lab that does your work in a timely fashion; people should be more assertive about getting decent service. Consult your local wildlife agency and LE for help in finding a lab or consult a major university. Edited November 19, 2011 by parnassus
Guest Posted November 19, 2011 Posted November 19, 2011 I am missing something here? Can someone please provide me with examples (enough to establish a fad) of hoaxed DNA attempts? Results that were lost or inconclusive based on samples that were deliberately faked? As far as I know, DNA can not be faked. It stands up in court after all. It IS possible to manufacture DNA in a lab now, BUT the process is time consuming, expensive, and the results are of uncertain quality. If I have read correctly, I believe that all the TBRC is stating is that they found a significantly degraded drop of blood from an unknown source. It just seems awfully irresponsible to be throwing the word "hoax" around without any evidence. I don't think they have claimed it's anything. And as far as the other DNA studies are going, samples have been identifed as other animals, synthetic fibers, and contaminated material, and the ultimate findings have not even been released yet. On a side note, can someone please provide me with one, just one, quote of anyone from the TBRC bragging about firing upon the creature in question. I can't seem to find it in my notes. Thanks. You are correct on all counts, of course. However, you must understand that Skeptics in general, and BF Skeptics in particular, operate on the presumption (however logically fallacious) that anything not conclusively proven true is automatically false. If an animal does not exist, there are no laws establishing a season for that animal. So the way I look at it, and the way the United States of America looks at it, no crime was committed. That is not the case. Wildlife codes the country over (including Federal) have a catch-all clause that states (paraphrasing) that only species for which harvesting is explicitly permitted may be taken or possessed in whole or in part. Any other species automatically falls into the prohibited category, and taking or possessing such animals in whole or in part is forbidden.
Guest Patty3 Posted November 19, 2011 Posted November 19, 2011 Just so we can be clear, when you say "upright walking", I would think that describes every animal pretty accurately. Well unless there is a whole class of them who scurry around on their backs, with their feet in the air....kind of like doing "the worm" but on your back... ? OH.. you meant BIPEDAL... as opposed to QUADRUPED .. ? Ahhh, ok... now I see what you were getting at. I said what I meant lets not turn this into a play on words. Upright walking as opposed to walking on all fours, I didn't realize I would be required to explain that. An Ostrich is also a biped.
Bonehead74 Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 (edited) Mulder, Bigfoot are not a species. The law is very specific, as you point out. They don't exist in the eyes of the state. They might not be animals. They may not exist at all. Shooting at something that doesn't exist especially cannot be a violation of wildlife laws. If bigfoot is proven, then the laws you cite are applicable. Edited November 20, 2011 by Bonehead74
Guest Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 ^^ it was an attempt at humor... unsuccessful apparently. I'll remember not too next time...
Guest Patty3 Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 I am missing something here? Can someone please provide me with examples (enough to establish a fad) of hoaxed DNA attempts? Results that were lost or inconclusive based on samples that were deliberately faked? As far as I know, DNA can not be faked. It stands up in court after all. If I have read correctly, I believe that all the TBRC is stating is that they found a significantly degraded drop of blood from an unknown source. It just seems awfully irresponsible to be throwing the word "hoax" around without any evidence. I don't think they have claimed it's anything. And as far as the other DNA studies are going, samples have been identifed as other animals, synthetic fibers, and contaminated material, and the ultimate findings have not even been released yet. On a side note, can someone please provide me with one, just one, quote of anyone from the TBRC bragging about firing upon the creature in question. I can't seem to find it in my notes. Thanks. If an animal does not exist, there are no laws establishing a season for that animal. So the way I look at it, and the way the United States of America looks at it, no crime was committed. Every case I have seen that was suppose to contain bigfoot DNA turns out to be inconclusive for whatever reason, or apparently lost in a lab because they can't seem to get any results in a reasonable time frame . . . IMO these are all good indications of a hoax. What are the odds of nothing but contamination and delay everytime someone claims to have bigfoot DNA? Or as I like to call it blobDNA? This isn't the first time this behavior of getting mystery DNA has developed and was collectively followed with enthusiasm for some period on this forum. It's only a matter of time before people like myself take notice and hoaxing tactics will need to change.
Recommended Posts