Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

[JoeMorgue]

So Chris where is your evidence for Bigfoot?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

This is a bizarre bit of (il)logic.

YOU claimed that scientists said that all the giganto bones were eaten by porcupines. I ask you to back that up, and you ask me to tell you about bones that haven't been chewed by porcupines.

You made the claim, you have been asked to provide some evidence in support, and you have singularly failed. You have also failed to understand on whom the onus lies. Let me give you a clue: of the two of us, it isn't me.

Mike, I don't mean to seriously imply there were ravenous groups of bone munching porcupines roving the ancient wilds hunting down and devouring Giganto and their skeletons whole as the reason for the lack of any notable finds.

Based on currently accepted scientific theory, (the previous links) I pointed out that the Giganto specimens we have were gnawed on by porcupines prior to fossilization.

That's why it's viewed that the reason we have Giganto fossils can be attributed to porcupine bone caches. This theory seems to be accepted by most. (largely due to the type specimens having been gnawed by porcupines)

The only Giganto bones to be found so far, are the ones the porcupines couldn't eat. These were left behind for us to find. (once again thank you Mr Porcupine) I'm certain there were other bones gathered into these bone caches besides those of Giganto as well.

Those with alternate theories of Giganto decomposing and the remains washing into the watershed rather than having been "collected" by porcupines have yet to address how some of these finds were located on high plateaus. So the porcupine theory is the more acceptable. Water supposedly ran down hill in the past just as it does today. Chris B.

 

[Resume]

Actually, the "mystery" DNA was found in the Denisovan remains, not the Neanderthal toe bone. Because otherwise the sentence would not be "(b)etween 2.7 and 5.8% of the Denisovan genome comes from this enigmatic species", but would be "(b)etween 2.7 and 5.8% of the Neanderthal genome comes from this enigmatic species".

The article is clearly discussing two distinct DNA sequencing events. One on a Neanderthal toe bone and the other on the Denisovan finger and tooth.

Now...how about that DNA analysis of the spit?

One can imagine his exaltation in finally finding his neanderthal toe link; also his sheepishness in discovering he'd not read it carefully.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Actually, the "mystery" DNA was found in the Denisovan remains, not the Neanderthal toe bone. Because otherwise the sentence would not be "(b)etween 2.7 and 5.8% of the Denisovan genome comes from this enigmatic species", but would be "(b)etween 2.7 and 5.8% of the Neanderthal genome comes from this enigmatic species".

The article is clearly discussing two distinct DNA sequencing events. One on a Neanderthal toe bone and the other on the Denisovan finger and tooth.

Now...how about that DNA analysis of the spit?

Let's try this another way. No matter how you wish to break down the article, would you agree there is a mention of "mystery DNA" found?
Chris B.

 

[Resume]

Let's try some bigfoot evidence in this bigfoot evidence thread.

 

[carlitos]

One can imagine his exaltation in finally finding his neanderthal toe link; also his sheepishness in discovering he'd not read it carefully.

You can imagine, but that's all you'll get. Sheepishness isn't on the table here.

Let's try this another way. No matter how you wish to break down the article, would you agree there is a mention of "mystery DNA" found?
Chris B.

 

[Drewbot]

Chris is in so far over his head on the DNA talk.

Clearly Chris said that a mystery DNA was found in the toe bone.

The Toe bone is Neandertal.

The 'Mystery DNA' is from the 8 year old finger bone of the Denisovan girl.

You sat there and posted an excerpt from the article, and the excerpt ITSELF proved you didn't know what you were talking about.

Denisovans harbour ancestry from an unknown archaic population, unrelated to Neanderthals

The Neanderthal toe bone was found in the same cave in 2010

EPIC fail bro. I don't think you're lying, I think you are unable to comprehend what happened.

To clear it up for you, The Finger bone and tooth were Denisovans, The Toe was Neandertal. The Denisovan DNA included a portion of Archaic human DNA, which the Neandertal TOE did not contain.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So Chris where is your evidence for Bigfoot?

 

[Giordano]

Chris, if you want to take about the Denisovans, a fascinating topic, I would be happy to start a thread for this in the Science section. I understand why you might prefer to talk about these finds. But as has been mentioned multiple times, this thread is about Bigfoot evidence, and the Denisovan finds only prove the opposite of your prior posts. They prove that DNA alone can identify the presence of a previously unknown primate.

The Densisovan/hybrid DNA sequencing results made headline news in some of the top scientific and popular journals and magazines. I am certain the Bigfoot spit sequencing, if it proved to be a previously unknown North American primate, would do the same, and would greatly encourage efforts to obtain clear Bigfoot pictures and other physical evidence.

Your Bigfoot spit story reminds me of the popular cat-in-a-box meme for the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. But do you know that Heisenberg was very much in love with his cat. So he couldn't bear to look inside the box to determine if it was alive or dead. He preferred just not knowing.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Chris is in so far over his head on the DNA talk.

Clearly Chris said that a mystery DNA was found in the toe bone.

The Toe bone is Neandertal.

The 'Mystery DNA' is from the 8 year old finger bone of the Denisovan girl.

You sat there and posted an excerpt from the article, and the excerpt ITSELF proved you didn't know what you were talking about.





EPIC fail bro. I don't think you're lying, I think you are unable to comprehend what happened.

To clear it up for you, The Finger bone and tooth were Denisovans, The Toe was Neandertal. The Denisovan DNA included a portion of Archaic human DNA, which the Neandertal TOE did not contain.

The article outlines clearly the first mystery DNA sequence came from the Neanderthal toe bone. The same sequence being found in the Denisovan type specimen (finger) although in a smaller percentage.

I wonder, if you comprehend that all the finds at the Denisova dig were labelled as "Denisovan" including the Neanderthal finds, yet there was a finger bone and some teeth found that also led to a new type specimen being named "Denisovan"? Are you possibly confusing the two?

You seem to be going to great lengths to prove me wrong about the Neanderthal toe bone yielding mystery DNA for some reason. Why is that? You have yet to do so at any rate. But I suppose the important thing to come of this circus is at least you now know the "mystery DNA" exists, which was my point from the beginning.
Chris B.

 

[Cervelo]

Chris
Where is the Bigfoot in this pic?
Did you see it and then photograph it?
Is this a photograph or a screen capture from a vid?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Chris, if you want to take about the Denisovans, a fascinating topic, I would be happy to start a thread for this in the Science section. I understand why you might prefer to talk about these finds. But as has been mentioned multiple times, this thread is about Bigfoot evidence, and the Denisovan finds only prove the opposite of your prior posts. They prove that DNA alone can identify the presence of a previously unknown primate.

The Densisovan/hybrid DNA sequencing results made headline news in some of the top scientific and popular journals and magazines. I am certain the Bigfoot spit sequencing, if it proved to be a previously unknown North American primate, would do the same, and would greatly encourage efforts to obtain clear Bigfoot pictures and other physical evidence.

Your Bigfoot spit story reminds me of the popular cat-in-a-box meme for the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. But do you know that Heisenberg was very much in love with his cat. So he couldn't bear to look inside the box to determine if it was alive or dead. He preferred just not knowing.

I seem to remember we were in a discussion of "mystery DNA". Though unlikely, it may be related to Bigfoot. It would certainly be exciting if we could match a modern sample to that unknown DNA. If you don't wish to have a conversation about it, then why engage one as you clearly have? It looks like you now wish to retreat into a "show me the monkey" stance. I don't have a monkey to show you.
Chris B.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The article outlines clearly the first mystery DNA sequence came from the Neanderthal toe bone. The same sequence being found in the Denisovan type specimen (finger) although in a smaller percentage.

What does any of that have to do with Bigfoot?

I wonder, if you comprehend that all the finds at the Denisova dig were labelled as "Denisovan" including the Neanderthal finds, yet there was a finger bone and some teeth found that also led to a new type specimen being named "Denisovan"? Are you possibly confusing the two?

I wonder if you comprehend that none of this has anything to do with Bigfoot. Are you possibly confusing the two?

You seem to be going to great lengths to prove me wrong about the Neanderthal toe bone yielding mystery DNA for some reason. Why is that? You have yet to do so at any rate. But I suppose the important thing to come of this circus is at least you now know the "mystery DNA" exists, which was my point from the beginning.
Chris B.

And you seem to be going to great lengths to not provide evidence for Bigfoot. Why is that? You have yet to so so at any rate. But I suppose the important thing to come of this circus is at least we all know that you have zero evidence for the existence of Bigfoot, which was our point from the beginning.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I seem to remember we were in a discussion of "mystery DNA".

I remember that discussion of "mystery DNA" was started by you to try and distract us from the fact that you've shown zero evidence for the existence of Bigfoot.

Though unlikely, it may be related to Bigfoot.

And your stat points for "We don't know, therefore Woo" go up another point.

It would certainly be exciting if we could match a modern sample to that unknown DNA.

Yes. It would also have absolutely nothing to do with Bigfoot.

If you don't wish to have a conversation about it, then why engage one as you clearly have?

If you don't wish to have a conversation about providing evidence for Bigfoot, then why engage one as you clearly have?

It looks like you now wish to retreat into a "show me the monkey" stance.

You mean the actual topic of the discussion?

I don't have a monkey to show you.

Because there isn't one, you know it, and this is all BLAARG.

 

[comncents]

The best explanation is that the Denisovans interbred with an unidentified species, and picked up some of their DNA. Or as Reich puts it: "Denisovans harbour ancestry from an unknown archaic population, unrelated to Neanderthals[/B]."

So the long and short of it is that you think the "mystery DNA" is bigfoot rather than some yet undiscovered branch of our ancestry that went extinct like all the others (except us).

I guess your saliva could solve this mystery, too!

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Chris
Where is the Bigfoot in this pic?
Did you see it and then photograph it?
Is this a photograph or a screen capture from a vid?
[qimg]http://i796.photobucket.com/albums/yy242/RCM944/4A3C22AA-9CC0-497D-BB23-4B52442DC8FA.jpg[/qimg]

I've already covered this pic previously. It's not worthy of debate.

What does any of that have to do with Bigfoot?



I wonder if you comprehend that none of this has anything to do with Bigfoot. Are you possibly confusing the two?



And you seem to be going to great lengths to not provide evidence for Bigfoot. Why is that? You have yet to so so at any rate. But I suppose the important thing to come of this circus is at least we all know that you have zero evidence for the existence of Bigfoot, which was our point from the beginning.

I remember that discussion of "mystery DNA" was started by you to try and distract us from the fact that you've shown zero evidence for the existence of Bigfoot.



And your stat points for "We don't know, therefore Woo" go up another point.



Yes. It would also have absolutely nothing to do with Bigfoot.



If you don't wish to have a conversation about providing evidence for Bigfoot, then why engage one as you clearly have?



You mean the actual topic of the discussion?



Because there isn't one, you know it, and this is all BLAARG.

It seems you are under the false impression I'm here only to prove Bigfoot for you. I've not accepted that task for presentation here. I'd simply like to read and post same as everyone else that enjoys the forum. If you do not want to participate in a conversation with me personally, then simply don't engage one. Chris B.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It seems you are under the false impression I'm here only to prove Bigfoot for you.

And you seem to be under the false impression that providing evidence for Bigfoot is simply a step you can skip.

Whatever impression you or I are under is irrelevant. You have claimed to know Bigfoot exists. Everything you have poorly attempted to prove or excuse away as been to that end. I will therefore remind you that evidence for Bigfoot's existence has not been provided for every point you try to make.

There is no Bigfoot. You and I both know this fully well. I believe you honestly believe in Bigfoot about as much as I believe there is a steampunk civilization of spotted turtle/turkey hybrids on the far side of the moon.

But I am not required to play your game. Neither do I have a copy of your BLAARGing script nor would I be obligated to follow it if I did.

 

[Drewbot]

The article outlines clearly the first mystery DNA sequence came from the Neanderthal toe bone. The same sequence being found in the Denisovan type specimen (finger) although in a smaller percentage.

I wonder, if you comprehend that all the finds at the Denisova dig were labelled as "Denisovan" including the Neanderthal finds, yet there was a finger bone and some teeth found that also led to a new type specimen being named "Denisovan"? Are you possibly confusing the two?

You seem to be going to great lengths to prove me wrong about the Neanderthal toe bone yielding mystery DNA for some reason. Why is that? You have yet to do so at any rate. But I suppose the important thing to come of this circus is at least you now know the "mystery DNA" exists, which was my point from the beginning.
Chris B.

no.

The Neanderthals were already well known, but DNA analysis of a finger bone and a tooth excavated at the cave revealed evidence of a human type living 40,000 years ago that was distinct both from Neanderthals and modern humans.

This is the DNA that revealed a newly discovered population of humans, whose DNA contained that of the mystery archaic human you are referring to. They named these people, the Denisovan Population.

When this work was published in 2010, the team behind the discovery dubbed this human species the "Denisovans" after the Siberian site.

Then they were digging some more, and found a Toe Bone, amazingly, it turned out to be Neandertal. But it doesn't have anything to do with the Denisovan Population (With the Archaic DNA found in the finger and tooth). Other than it was found in the same cave.

The Neanderthal toe bone was found in the same cave in 2010, though in a deeper layer of sediment that is thought to be about 10,000-20,000 years older. The cave also contains modern human artefacts, meaning that at least three groups of people occupied the cave at different times.

 

[carlitos]

I'm embarrassed for him, but he's not embarrassed himself. How does that happen? I mean, this stuff is all in the thread, you just have to read the words.

 

[LTC8K6]

I'm embarrassed for him, but he's not embarrassed himself. How does that happen? I mean, this stuff is all in the thread, you just have to read the words.

You would think that the Neanderthal Genome Project would have noted mystery DNA.