Guest Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 (edited) Benjamin Radford : "If the results are found to be conclusive, will this change your opinion on the existence ofBigfoot/Sasquatch?" It depends on what the results say; I don't know what "conclusive" means in this context. Conclusive about what? We have no reference sample of Bigfoot DNA to compare it to, so there cannot be a "conclusive match". I have no idea what Ketchum is going to claim about the DNA, but whatever it is, I will not just take her word for it; that's not how science works. The samples should be sent to independent DNA labs who have no vested or monetary interest in a movie, or the creature's existence.I have serious questions about Ketchum's objectivity and bias, and I read on Cryptomundo that questions have been raised about her laboratory (and perhaps results). If whatever Ketchum comes up with is accurate and valid, then she should be happy to have independent labs run the same tests to support her conclusions. The whole veil of secrecy behind this project is both unscientific and laughable. If Ketchum is right, and they can prove Bigfoot exist, then I congratulate her and look forward to seeing the Bigfoot. Otherwise, we'll need a live or dead body. If all the samples come back with the same DNA, wouldn't print cast, eye witness testimony, in conjunction with the DNA be enough to prove the existence of the species ? "I will not just take her word for it; that's not how science works. The samples should be sent to independent DNA labs who have no vested or monetary interest in a movie, or the creature's existence." Isn't that what the peer review is about ? The people that are doing the peer review are just doing it for there own gain ? where is his proof that is what is going to happen. Edited November 6, 2011 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 I believe that I read that samples had been sent to other labs for testing with no knowledge of what they were looking at, and that those results were part of the paper submitted for peer review. Perhaps someone who remembers the chain of events better than I do can jump in and shed some light on this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted November 6, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted November 6, 2011 UHHHH.....tell me I'm wrong, but independent labs are involved from what we have been led to believe.....guess he doesn't believe, who wudda thunk it?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 Unfortunately Zigo, even as a witness/believer- I unfortunately understand and agree with at least one major point he's making here. So the DNA comes back as (??) ??- still equals some unknown thing running around the woods. Some unknown thing that cant be studied further....(easily anyway). As I think you are starting to see with some of the research groups, and even some of the most die hard BF "proponents" (myself included)- is the belief that one of these creatures needs to wind up stiff and dead on a cold steel slab. Whether one agrees with that belief or not, it seems to be gaining strength. There are just going to be those out there who will believe nothing short of something big, hairy, and smelly, that they can walk up too and put their hands on. The idea of a live capture just seems so unrealistic- so many difficulties, hazards, safety issues, both for it and us- why it starts to seem like something out of a King Kong/Jurassic Park movie... (but for real). Hopefully this wont turn into another kill -vs- no-kill thread, but unfortunately that again is at least one factor or issue with dealing with the above skeptical viewpoint. Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 Guys this is really easy your making it way to hard! Their going to release a conclusion that the DNA is Bigfoot because of some sort of uniqueness, but close enough to human to "prove" it has to be Bigfoot. Now if they drop an arm, head or leg next to this paper then they have nailed it! But we all know the chances of that happening! So what's going to result from all this the same people that "know" Bigfoot is real will be singing the papers praise on all the sites like this one and it will be set next to all the other iconic evidence as proof biggie exist and we will all have something to discuss until someone brings in a body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thelion Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 Why not use a tranquilizer instead of a gun? I've heard that because they don't know what dosis to give it and that if given too much it will kill it....well if you use guns you definitely kill it but if you tranquilize it you "might" kill it. I think it's the logical and humane option since there is a possibility it won't die and we can study a live one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 So the DNA comes back as (??) ??- still equals some unknown thing running around the woods. Some unknown thing that cant be studied further....(easily anyway). So what? If the sample is good enough (and according to the leaks it is), then it can 100% dispositively say that it comes from a creature x% similar to human, y% similar to chimpanzee/gorilla/whatever, etc. DNA does not spontaneously generate itself. It comes from actual physical substances from living creatures. DNA = body = proof of creature Radford is throwing up exactly the psuedo-Skeptical BS I've been expecting (and that our local crop of PFMs has also been throwing up). All he's proving is that he is NOT "skeptical", but LOOKING for reasons to dismiss. He's not objective, and IMO can be easily dismissed. He has no credibility. There are just going to be those out there who will believe nothing short of something big, hairy, and smelly, that they can walk up too and put their hands on. And those persons are intellectually dishonest and should be summarily ignored. Guys this is really easy your making it way to hard! Their going to release a conclusion that the DNA is Bigfoot because of some sort of uniqueness, but close enough to human to "prove" it has to be Bigfoot. Now if they drop an arm, head or leg next to this paper then they have nailed it! But we all know the chances of that happening! So what's going to result from all this the same people that "know" Bigfoot is real will be singing the papers praise on all the sites like this one and it will be set next to all the other iconic evidence as proof biggie exist and we will all have something to discuss until someone brings in a body. DNA =biological sample = body = proof. Period. End of story. Unless you are prepared to show Dr Ketchum's lab artificially produced the dna, it's "game over" for the Skeptics if her results hold up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 Ya got it right Mulder just backwards but I would expect nothing less:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 (edited) Anyone know of a situation where science has accepted the reality of a new species or subspecies without a significant type specimen (full skin or full body)? Why would BF be any different, if that has never happened? From ICZN... "Consequently new species can be described on the basis of DNA sequences, and while not mandatory, it is strongly recommended that the type specimen(s) from which the DNA was sequenced is preserved and deposited in a museum with a type label and data linking it to the sequence (for example a GenBank number)." So, again, are there any currently living large animal species that have been cataloged and classified after being newly discovered using only DNA, or nothing more than a small mass of tissue? Edited November 6, 2011 by notgiganto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 Ya got it right Mulder just backwards but I would expect nothing less:) I have it in EXACTLY the right order. DNA comes from a physical sample, which came from a creature. What is your alternative proposed source for DNA? Spontaneous generation? Magic? Dr Ketchum perpetrating a fraud using lab-spliced DNA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 So, again, are there any species that have been cataloged and classified using only DNA, or nothing more than a mass of tissue? No, Denisova is recognized from DNA , a tooth, and a small finger tip bone. Since DNA doesn't come from nowhere, it won't be the case with bigfoot either since there is hair , tissue and blood to provide it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 We use multiple labs to back check our findings, its prudit to do so if your going to support a position such as a new species. This manuver is nessasary for ruling in and out materials that are being prepared to be presented as evidence. The same can be said for method of collection, chain of custody, testing and review. It's just how we do things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 Anyone know of a situation where science has accepted the reality of a new species or subspecies without a significant type specimen (full skin or full body)? Why would BF be any different, if that has never happened? From ICZN... "Consequently new species can be described on the basis of DNA sequences, and while not mandatory, it is strongly recommended that the type specimen(s) from which the DNA was sequenced is preserved and deposited in a museum with a type label and data linking it to the sequence (for example a GenBank number)." So, again, are there any currently living large animal species that have been cataloged and classified using only DNA, or nothing more than a mass of tissue? http://www.pnas.org/content/103/4/968.full.pdf http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2842 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC518999/ http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/ru-nbb021207.php http://laelaps.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/new-species-of-clouded-leopard-recognized/ And, again (and I will keep saying this until it sinks in) it is simple logic. DNA comes from tissue/blood/body fluids. Tissue/blood/body fluids come from a body. Therefore DNA comes from a body. Therefore if you have DNA, you have proof of a body from whence the DNA came. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 No, Denisova is recognized from DNA , a tooth, and a small finger tip bone. Since DNA doesn't come from nowhere, it won't be the case with bigfoot either since there is hair , tissue and blood to provide it. SY: you caught me in the process of editing my post. I changed it to what I meant - qualified to "currently living species..." I forgot about Denisova (DER!), but that still doesn't apply to my point.. Which was basically that if BF is currently living there will be a call for a type specimen, even after any DNA studies, I think...The skeptics, and the public at large, will literally need the nail in the coffin...Radford's reply is a testament to that. I would still like to know if there are any examples of living creatures that have been cataloged and classified on mostly DNA evidence. If no (or very few) other living creature has been classified that way, then why would BF (as controversial as it is) be different... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LissingMinx Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 If Ketchum comes back with multiple DNA samples that match on a species level, cladistically great ape, then I have limited choices. 1) Bigfoot is a biological reality 2) There is a population of invisible (or even more elusive than Bigfoot) great apes running around areas where the samples were collected 3) There is a grand conspiracy to collect DNA from unknown great apes elsewhere and submit them as coming from N America 4) Ketchum is far more brilliant than anyone gives her credit for and has been able to manufacture designer DNA fitting Bigfoot reports *shrug* I'm going with invisible apes in Kentucky! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts