southernyahoo Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 (edited) 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. I think you've forgotten the other arguments about sample testing.....ie; degradation, contamination, inhibitors, types of primers which only target short sequences which may not fully disambiguate closely related species. I'm sure you would argue the full spectrum of possibilities in the case of a fast BF result, in fact you'd throw them under the bus for not rushing to publish while claiming "sloppy" science at the same time. PCR Edited November 20, 2011 by southernyahoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 Disingenuous much? Those physical traces DO have traits that can be objectively analyzed by the appropriate experts, such as Drs Meldrum, Fahrenbach, et al. The only ones squealing are Skeptics who don't like their conclusion. There are some very good craftsmen out there that can easily make some very nice foot prints, the materials today are great for duplicating real prints, i suspect thats why prints found these days are more detailed than later prints, people get smarter. If they turned a 180 tomorrow and denounced their own results, I'm sure you'd be 100000000% supportive of them. Only if they find a real BF Hypocrisy, thy name is Skeptic. Which we have, as the analayses of people like Drs Meldrum, Fahrenbach, et al show. They have speculation not evidence, they also after many years of running around the globe have no BF, Yeti, Etc So what? Argument from division fallacy. Cop out for not answering the question. I see through the eyes of an open-minded, intellectually honest person. I was convinced by the evidence BEFORE my personal sighting. Were can i read about this sighting ? Sideways argument from authority fallacy Cop out for not answering the question. Gee, Red, I dunno...maybe all that evidence adduced by scientists such as Drs Meldrum, Fahrenbach, Sariamento, Swindler, et al? Or are you seriously going to claim they are not scientists? Evidence is not foot prints, foot prints are not a good scientific reason to claim a new species. Flies and house mice/rats are not considered "wildlife, Ptero...and I suspect you know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 I think you've forgotten the other arguments about sample testing.....ie; degradation, contamination, inhibitors, types of primers which only target short sequences which may not fully disambiguate closely related species. I'm sure you would argue the full spectrum of possibilities in the case of a fast BF result, in fact you'd throw them under the bus for not rushing to publish while claiming "sloppy" science at the same time. PCR The labs that do wildlife and forensic work are very accustomed to these issues. And I take it that the lab which is supposedly working on this for ?months( !) has provided no explanation? I'm assuming this is another disappeared DNA test that someone will say is "unknown"....etc yadda yadda... And the story will persist that there is evidence that DC actually shot a Bigfoot. Sorry but "Been there, seen that." a la Skookum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 The labs that do wildlife and forensic work are very accustomed to these issues. And I take it that the lab which is supposedly working on this for ?months( !) has provided no explanation? I'm assuming this is another disappeared DNA test that someone will say is "unknown"....etc yadda yadda... And the story will persist that there is evidence that DC actually shot a Bigfoot. Sorry but "Been there, seen that." a la Skookum. We forgot one other point, the testing consumes the sample, so you need lots of it and the testing has to go in the right direction from the start, which is not likely if you are starting with the assumption of a complete unknown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Biggie Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 ^^ it was an attempt at humor... unsuccessful apparently. Obviously so, but sometimes we all miss the obvious too. There are times I wish that this site gave the option to click on a -1 for people's posts. Patty we get that you are a strong person but you don't have to be rude to be tough. Consider lightening up and relaxing a little. These are good people here so why not enjoy them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest UPs Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 I have read quite a few posts that criticize the actions of some TRBC members described within this report. Do any of you have any positive feedback or see any good things that could result from OE? There are 2 things that really jump out at me and the first is making the details available for the public to see and having Bipto openly answer the many questions. The other thing that I see as a positive is this report shows how serious some people are in trying to prove bf is a real animal and its possible affect on hoaxers. If the details were disseminated to a wider audience, the sales of bf costumes may plummet. Personally, I equate hoaxers to thieves and have no compassion for them. If hoaxing was as widespread as many skeptics think, there should be a few that have gone missing and will probably never be found. I do not know of any reports of a hoaxer being shot, but there should be many if the skeptics are correct and hunters cannot differentiate a turkey from a human (ref, to a previous post). The lack of these types of reports tells me that hoaxing armed outdoors men/women is not a likely scenario. Any of you see more positives in the OE report (from what has been released so far)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 There are some very good craftsmen out there that can easily make some very nice foot prints, the materials today are great for duplicating real prints, i suspect thats why prints found these days are more detailed than later prints, people get smarter. And there you go again. "Army of hoaxers" argumentation. Show me your evidence of this organized, multi-generational conspiracy of hoaxers or drop the claim! Only if they find a real BF I'm going to assume you misread what I said. I said if they turned around and denounced their current pro-BF position then you would be absolutely supportive. They have speculation not evidence, They have scientific analyses (not "speculation") that is testable and verifiable. That is evidence. Cop out for not answering the question. Give me a question worth answering, not debaing fallacies. Were can i read about this sighting ? I think it might be on the member sightings thread. I know I've talked about it here before. Cop out for not answering the question. Again, give me a legitimate question rather than pathetic debating fallacies. Evidence is not foot prints, foot prints are not a good scientific reason to claim a new species. In your opinion. Under professional scrutiny, they can be powerful evidence, as the various experts have shown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 ^^ it was an attempt at humor... unsuccessful apparently. I'll remember not too next time... Ya did good Art As a fellow forum comedian i know the effort it takes to patiently think out a good rebuttal post that is both funny, sarcastic and respectful, there not all going to hit the mark but don't give up, 100% is a way too high a standard, personally if i hit 60% i am comfortable and on feel i am on the opposite side of failure ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 Flies and house mice/rats are not considered "wildlife, Ptero...and I suspect you know that. I live in NY, but I suspect most states would have a similar statement on their hunting website, or literature available at Sporting Good stores where licenses are sold etc... From NYS DEC website.... "In New York State, nearly all species of wildlife are protected. Most species, including endangered species, songbirds, hawks and owls are fully protected and may not be taken. The few unprotected species include porcupine, red squirrel, woodchuck, English sparrow, starling, rock pigeon, and monk parakeet. Unprotected species may be taken at any time without limit. A hunting license is required to hunt unprotected wildlife with a bow or firearm." Hmm, no mention of Sasquatch though.... I really wonder how they would handle it, if you did drop one...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 And there you go again. "Army of hoaxers" argumentation. Show me your evidence of this organized, multi-generational conspiracy of hoaxers or drop the claim! Did i say there was an Army ? I said a good craftsman could make very nice foot prints. Are you using a translator to read the forum ? cause that is the only thing i can think of why you post the way you do, your constantly adding things that are not there, and it seems you have no understanding of what is being written. We're ~ is ~ the ~ report ~ of ~ your ~ sighting ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 Did i say there was an Army ? I said a good craftsman could make very nice foot prints. You said this: There are some very good craftsmen out there that can easily make some very nice foot prints, the materials today are great for duplicating real prints, i suspect thats why prints found these days are more detailed than later [sic] prints, people get smarter. Implying that all the tracks are hoaxes, and that the hoaxes have improved over time as a result of better tools and methods. Which is you implying that there is some sort of vast conspiracy of hoaxers who have been at this for well over 50 years at least, studying, practicing to perfect their "hoax" and staying in constant contact with one another so that the observed traits in tracks from different years and different parts of the country all share similar biometric indicators, as Drs Meldrum and Fahrenbach have pointed out. Are you using a translator to read the forum ? cause that is the only thing i can think of why you post the way you do, your constantly adding things that are not there, and it seems you have no understanding of what is being written. I understand what you are saying, and more importantly what you are carefully NOT saying, Red. We're ~ is ~ the ~ report ~ of ~ your ~ sighting ? I told you above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 I'm sure some people will find this post 'rude', but WHY is it that when someone doesn't agree with a popular notion or opinion and express it however mildly or strongly, they're called rude, but when someone has a strong opinion IN favor of something, it isn't? How many more times can some people in this thread be told THEY are being rude because they've expressed a negative opinion? That hardly makes for fair debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 Implying that all the tracks are hoaxes, and that the hoaxes have improved over time as a result of better tools and methods. Which is you implying that there is some sort of vast conspiracy of hoaxers who have been at this for well over 50 years at least, studying, practicing to perfect their "hoax" and staying in constant contact with one another so that the observed traits in tracks from different years and different parts of the country all share similar biometric indicators, as Drs Meldrum and Fahrenbach have pointed out. Yes there are going to be better hoaxes as people get better at making prints and such, that's really only using common sense as i see it, and whats to stop a hoaxer from jumping in a car to visit his family 1000 miles away and while there doing a little foot planting with some different tools ? Conspiracy, i don't really think that but you could have a few old army buddies or something in different states having a little fun hoaxing prints, the tools to do so could easily be mailed back and forth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 whats to stop a hoaxer from jumping in a car to visit his family 1000 miles away and while there doing a little foot planting with some different tools ?Conspiracy, i don't really think that but you could have a few old army buddies or something in different states having a little fun hoaxing prints, the tools to do so could easily be mailed back and forth. So you are confirming the position I ascribed to you: a conspiracy (however informal) of hoaxers is more likely than a real creature to explain the sophisticated biometric data observed in tracks all over the country... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 So you are confirming the position I ascribed to you: a conspiracy (however informal) of hoaxers is more likely than a real creature to explain the sophisticated biometric data observed in tracks all over the country... however informal I like how you kinda box me in there ~ but i'll go with it Well since i don't think there is an animal such as BF, then yes the logical conclusion is hoaxes. " however informal " "O" While i got ya here, can you explain ( sophisticated biometric data ) ? i take it you mean the little lines ( dermal ridges ) that are formed during the casting process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts