• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Bigfoot DNA

Status
Not open for further replies.
Indeed. If you, southernyahoo, told me you sent the hairs out for analysis and a DNA lab returned that they were definitively from an alpaca, then your own word would be fine. I would have no reason to doubt an outcome of relatively high probability.

If you, however, told me that the DNA lab responded to you that the signature indicated a new species of extant hominin I might believe that that's what you were told, but I would withhold my final judgment on the reliability of that result until I got to read the paper myself in Science or Nature.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Well, wait a minute...

A DNA report of a camelid would not be unusual in this case...

So, the verification standard would be considerably lower.

Bigfoot is quite the extraordinary claim, even from a DNA lab. It demands a lot more scrutiny.
Click to expand...

I generally agree, in that when dealing with a known sample of hair, there is alot less DNA work required to ID it and sometimes it can be identified without the DNA work. You can't prove an unknown with the same level of testing, so treating the potential new species samples in that way is fallable, as this would be a real problem when an unknown sample falls too close to a known and one can't justify testing it further.
 
southernyahoo said:
The search for bigfoot evidence isn't any different than any other animal.
Click to expand...

Drewbot already busted you on this in general terms, seeing how the 'footers use anything except productive methods.

But I am not letting this manipulative part escape attention: you were asked specifically how YOU do it, not 'footer's in general. So how they do it in general has nothing to do with what you do specifically, and seeing no answer it is obvious you do nothing. Not even faking it, apparently.

It reminds me of the Big Lubowski. He was the laziest in LA, which made him a candidate for the laziest in the entire world. So here we have the laziest amongst 'footers telling us his inability to find something is proof it does not exist.

hahahhahah!! When my wife tells me to take out the garbage I am going to tell her I used your bigfoot methodology. I looked for the garbage honey, and I can't find any.

I didn't take the question was in good faith, since you lable my position as bad faith.
Click to expand...

It is uncanny how coincidental the list of 'footer tactics is with manipulative behavior. For example, blaming the victim: it is your fault that I refuse to explain how I look for bigfoot.
 
this would be a real problem when an unknown sample falls too close to a known and one can't justify testing it further.

Sorry, but whoever pulls this one is standing on very shaky grounds. Be it from ignorance, be it from dishonesty, be it from bias, whatever is the source, the argument is flawed and it doesn't take a specialist on genetics to see that.

DNA tests are "razor-sharp" enough to distinguish between individuals; they can tell who are your parents, relatives and where your ancestors came from. They can separate genus, species and subspecies. If bigfoot existed, a good DNA assay would result, for example, in:

If bigfoot is related to Gigantopithecus:
Animalia, Chordata, Mammalia, Primate, Hominidae, Ponginae, unidentified genus

If bigfoot is, as some footers are now claiming, from our own genus:
Animalia, Chordata, Mammalia, Primates, Hominidae, Homo, unidentified species

DNA assays returning just "unknown" and/or "inconclusive" can not back bigfoot as a real critter; they only back bigfootery's methodologic incompetence. Sorry if it sounds harsh, but its the truth.
 
The pace of bigfoot dna testing is positively glacial and always results in nothing. The Erickson Project has been at it for six years without publishing anything and, when interest among the faithful wains, they throw them another dog bisquit ala the sleeping bigfoot photo currently making the rounds. I think they mapped the Neanderthal genome faster than this.
 
Correa Neto said:
this would be a real problem when an unknown sample falls too close to a known and one can't justify testing it further.

Sorry, but whoever pulls this one is standing on very shaky grounds. Be it from ignorance, be it from dishonesty, be it from bias, whatever is the source, the argument is flawed and it doesn't take a specialist on genetics to see that.

DNA tests are "razor-sharp" enough to distinguish between individuals; they can tell who are your parents, relatives and where your ancestors came from. They can separate genus, species and subspecies. If bigfoot existed, a good DNA assay would result, for example, in:

If bigfoot is related to Gigantopithecus:
Animalia, Chordata, Mammalia, Primate, Hominidae, Ponginae, unidentified genus

If bigfoot is, as some footers are now claiming, from our own genus:
Animalia, Chordata, Mammalia, Primates, Hominidae, Homo, unidentified species

DNA assays returning just "unknown" and/or "inconclusive" can not back bigfoot as a real critter; they only back bigfootery's methodologic incompetence. Sorry if it sounds harsh, but its the truth.
Click to expand...

That's what I have been trying to say. Thanks for properly putting it into words. :D
 
LTC8K6 said:
That's what I have been trying to say. Thanks for properly putting it into words. :D
Click to expand...

I've been trying to explain this on the BFF for a long time. A lot of folks don't like to hear this. They prefer to be at some kind of a stalemate with the scientific mainstream in which they contend that bigfoot can't be proven from DNA because there's no DNA from a known bigfoot to which it can be matched. Ergo, "only a body will do for those scoftics" which is 'footer speak for "there's a massive anti-bigfoot conspiracy."

How dare those closed-minded scientists demand a body to examine before recognizing a new species!
 
"Unknown" is not the same as "Undocumented Species".

It could be an Irish Setter or Indian Rhinoceros or Herring Gull or even an Atlantic Salmon. Unknown literally means not known, it does not mean a species that has not yet been documented by science.
 
Correa Neto said:
this would be a real problem when an unknown sample falls too close to a known and one can't justify testing it further.

Sorry, but whoever pulls this one is standing on very shaky grounds. Be it from ignorance, be it from dishonesty, be it from bias, whatever is the source, the argument is flawed and it doesn't take a specialist on genetics to see that.

DNA tests are "razor-sharp" enough to distinguish between individuals; they can tell who are your parents, relatives and where your ancestors came from. They can separate genus, species and subspecies. If bigfoot existed, a good DNA assay would result, for example, in:

If bigfoot is related to Gigantopithecus:
Animalia, Chordata, Mammalia, Primate, Hominidae, Ponginae, unidentified genus

If bigfoot is, as some footers are now claiming, from our own genus:
Animalia, Chordata, Mammalia, Primates, Hominidae, Homo, unidentified species

DNA assays returning just "unknown" and/or "inconclusive" can not back bigfoot as a real critter; they only back bigfootery's methodologic incompetence. Sorry if it sounds harsh, but its the truth.
Click to expand...

We agree what DNA "can" (being the operative word) do, yet when testing suspect samples they are often not subjected to the level of testing that could distinguish two very closely related organisms. Methods known as barcode or genetic fingerprinting have their pitfalls. The DNA sequences are too short. They work well on knowns, but if an unknown falls to close, skepticism that it "is" new could cause it to be overlooked.
 
Supposedly they have a fairly fresh chunk of a bigfoot along with quite a bit of fairly fresh blood* for DNA testing.

If they can't ID those, it would be very suspicious, and not simply because it might be bigfoot's DNA...

*(or Jello Pudding)

vermont-blood-and-tissue.jpg
 
Last edited:
The stripes make it look like a food plate. Is this the plate that held the pancakes in Kentucky? Is that syrup?
 
southernyahoo said:
We agree what DNA "can" (being the operative word) do, yet when testing suspect samples they are often not subjected to the level of testing that could distinguish two very closely related organisms. Methods known as barcode or genetic fingerprinting have their pitfalls. The DNA sequences are too short. They work well on knowns, but if an unknown falls to close, skepticism that it "is" new could cause it to be overlooked.
Click to expand...

SY
But you have no evidence that this has ever happened? ie a sample that is truly unknown was discarded?

Seriously, do you always blame the lack of proof of Bigfoot on "skeptics" ?

SY, let's talk about something related to the idea of falsifiability... please outline what Ketchum would have to say/do/publish (or not do, by some future date) for you to give up your faith in a flesh and blood Bigfoot (FBBF).
 
LTC8K6 said:
...maybe a paper bowl?
Click to expand...

I think it's a plate. It seems too shallow to be a bowl. The stripes run around the rim. The inner edge of the rim shows a reflection.

The image is titled "Vermont blood and tissue", so I guess it isn't the Kentucky pancake syrup. It doesn't look like blood to me. Still moist and reflective and yet it's brown.

Maybe the DNA analysis will reveal that it is Aunt Jemima or one of her descendents.


033497c4.png
 
William Parcher said:
I think it's a plate. It seems too shallow to be a bowl. The stripes run around the rim. The inner edge of the rim shows a reflection.

The image is titled "Vermont blood and tissue", so I guess it isn't the Kentucky pancake syrup. It doesn't look like blood to me. Still moist and reflective and yet it's brown.

Maybe the DNA analysis will reveal that it is Aunt Jemima or one of her descendents.


[qimg]http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/033497c4.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...

or one of HIS descendants:
Witt suggests that Rutt might have witnessed a performance by the vaudeville performer Pete F. Baker, who played a character described in newspapers of that era as "Aunt Jemima". If this is correct, the original inspiration for the Aunt Jemima character was a white male in blackface, whom some have described as a German immigrant.
Click to expand...
 
William Parcher said:
I think it's a plate. It seems too shallow to be a bowl. The stripes run around the rim. The inner edge of the rim shows a reflection.

The image is titled "Vermont blood and tissue", so I guess it isn't the Kentucky pancake syrup. It doesn't look like blood to me. Still moist and reflective and yet it's brown.

Maybe the DNA analysis will reveal that it is Aunt Jemima or one of her descendents.


[qimg]http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/033497c4.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...

I think it's a coated paper plate or small bowl, imo. Most likely plate.

Why is bigfoot's blood on a paper plate? Did it attack them while camping?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom