• 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.
MikeG said:
Guys 'n gals.

Thanks for all the explanations, but none of you are really addressing the fundamental point. Claiming to have seen a bigfoot is not inconsistant with claiming to have DNA from the species. All I am saying is that her claim to have seen them isn't the thing that "removes all her credibility", as was claimed. No, the thing that removes her credibility is that she hasn't produced her claimed evidence.

Mike
Click to expand...

01/12/2010
I have been hired to do a DNA study on dragons. I have never considered dragons to be real, but I decide that as a scientist I will give it due diligence and follow the scientific method to the letter for my clients.

01/12/2011

I have proven that dragons are real! All will be revealed when the paper is through peer review! The Skeptics will eat crow! I am forming a group for the protection of these blessed creatures!!! SOON THE WORLD WILL KNOW THE TRUTH!

05/15/2011

I have just come from my first dragon visitation!! They are calm and gentle creatures!(I saw one making wood burnings in a tree stump!) I cannot reveal where as I want them to be protected. I didn't take any pictures as I didn't want to betray their trust

07/24/2012

This peer review sure is a bear! But SOON ALL WILL BE REVEALED!

10/12/2012

(this space for rent due to lack of paid taxes)



:rolleyes:


you don't think that my saying that I got to frolic with the dragons hurts my credibility in any way? Don't you think that when taken in conjunction with the above timeline of events it makes my credibility even worse?
 
Mike,
I'll play the game.

If she has bigfoot DNA her sighting story still doesn't fly because she had numerous opportunities to take photos and/or video and she failed to do so.
With a couple phone calls she also could have had scientists lined up at her door asking to see the creatures and she failed to do so.

No, there is no chance she saw anything even if she has DNA.
 
Mike...Claiming to have seen little green men is consistent with seeing UFOs.
Claiming to find pots of gold at the end of rainbows is consistent with seeing leprechauns guarding that gold.
Claiming to see a haunted house is consistent with seeing a ghost in that haunted house.

What you are doing Mike - is trying to pretend that there is one tiny scintilla bit of evidence that Sasquatches exist so seeing them is a possibility and not a mistake or a lie or delusional.
There is absolutely no evidence that Sasquatches exist. Period.
Trying to say that seeing them is consistent with anything is not logical at all.
 
Yes, IF Bigfoot exists THEN Melba is within logical parameters for claiming to see them and IF she has Bigfoot DNA THEN ditto. But she has to first prove she has Bigfoot DNA and that they exist before the logic follows in anything but a theoretical manner.
 
MikeG said:
Guys 'n gals.

Thanks for all the explanations, but none of you are really addressing the fundamental point. Claiming to have seen a bigfoot is not inconsistant with claiming to have DNA from the species. All I am saying is that her claim to have seen them isn't the thing that "removes all her credibility", as was claimed. No, the thing that removes her credibility is that she hasn't produced her claimed evidence.

Mike
Click to expand...

Yes! she failed to provide DNA so it looks like she lost some credibility with the footers. On the other hand she claimed to see BF and that most likely gave her credibility with the footers, footers eat up anything they are told and can not be relied on to make logical judgements on even the smallest of obvious hoaxes.

Mike: Here in this forum she never had any credibility to start with. Anything to do with BF is taken as a joke, 10/20 Years ago I think there was some hope BF was real but that time has passed, if it was real it would have been found with today's technology, ( Not forgetting the lack of other evidence) It's a scam for $ and nothing else.
 
In claiming she saw bigfoot groups, areas of habituation, Melba set herself up for the put up or shut up, show me the monkey moment.

She hasn't. She can't. The DNA ain't.
 
StankApe said:
another fine trait of footery, it can turn a 54 yr old janitor into a leading DNA expert who will take his tiny bit of knowledge and fight to the death with a tenured biologist.....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I don't think SY is a janitor but your point is well made just the same.
 
Jodie said:
It's the hunt for bigfoot that has become the joke.
Click to expand...

It went from some really dedicated people in the 60's trying to solve the sightings, story's, prints, etc. To a bunch of yahoo's that twist the many years of previous work into their own version of the phenomenon so they can profit from it.
 
Sonny2 said:
Yes, IF Bigfoot exists THEN Melba is within logical parameters for claiming to see them and IF she has Bigfoot DNA THEN ditto. But she has to first prove she has Bigfoot DNA and that they exist before the logic follows in anything but a theoretical manner.
Click to expand...

BINGO!

That's all I was trying to say.....
 
I couldn't agree more, and more often than not that profit has to do with strokes for ego/self esteem. How one is perceived by fellow bigfoot researchers seems to be a big deal to a few, despite what they might say otherwise. They are the first ones to post rebuttals for anything they do that comes into question. It isn't hard to pick up on who pursues the topic for the sake of genuine curiosity versus props for the ego/or monetary gain.
 
Mike G,
My impression was that she lost cred even among the bleevers with the stories of multiple sightings. ie she became a quasi habituator. I get the feeling that zero or one encounters is fine, but once you get into the multiple sightings/up close and personal, the bigfooter people start to think you're either nuts or lying. I don't know whether this is logical or even true, but I get that impression. You'd have to ask them. But there is something, even to me, that says a person can make one mistake in the dark, and be convinced by others that the person saw a bigfoot. But the claims of multiple bigfoots cannot be given that tolerance.

As far as science is concerned, it definitely makes her less credible with me, as, before that, I was willing to accept the idea that she just misinterpreted the sequences out of ignorance (that is what her copyright documents tell us); ...that wouldn't require that she be lying, crazy or exceedingly gullible.

Of course there are many other reasons to doubt her veracity, if she was the one who posted the Facebook stuff.

I don't know why you are flogging this dead horse, but this is my last response on the subject. If you are still looking for the Thursday pony, have fun.
 
MikeG said:
Guys 'n gals.

Thanks for all the explanations, but none of you are really addressing the fundamental point. Claiming to have seen a bigfoot is not inconsistant with claiming to have DNA from the species. All I am saying is that her claim to have seen them isn't the thing that "removes all her credibility", as was claimed. No, the thing that removes her credibility is that she hasn't produced her claimed evidence.

Mike
Click to expand...

Edited by LashL: 
Edited for moderated thread.


It's too bad you can't place any emphasis whatsoever on the difference between an insignificant error and a fatal error.

You are using a logical fallacy called "begging the question". You start by assuming the conclusion is true. It is a fallacy to claim her observation of bigfoot is reasonable because you assumed it exists to make that claim.

Yes we absolutely can use the record of evidence before us for the last millenia to demonstrate your assumption is unreasonable. The fact you are willing to make such an unreasonable assumption with no physical evidence of bigfoot whatsoever means you are not evidence-based as you claim.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I know you are being sarcastic, as I, and many of you have said before, let's see a paper with some universal critique by true experts, then, and only then,will I eat crow pie.
 
Jerrywayne, the article you linked to has the title in the present tense (New DNA Evidence Identifies Bigfoot Species!) while the article itself is in future tense (the test results, to be publicly announced in coming weeks, will once and for all end any speculation or doubt that the mysterious ape-like mammal exists only in the wild imaginations of a few frightened campers.)

LOL
 
First thing I do when I come across any new news on BF or any thing I am interested in, is do a search and see if it has been posted anyplace else, then keep digging until I am satisfied that I can post knowing something on the subject.
BF DNA would be big news and not just on some dreamers blog or web page.

But then again! I know BF is just a myth so why bother in the first place ~ lol
Isn't this BF stuff so much fun :)
 
jerrywayne said:
Well, I guess we who are skeptical will have to eat believer's crow afterall:
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternativ...dence-identifies-bigfoot-species-2496990.html
Click to expand...

we might have to eat crow. i have heard vauge references to melba doing the whole genome. Of course that is about 3 billion base pairs, if it is anything like the human genome. I wonder where it will be posted to make it accessable to researchers!

10 to 1 it will be posted in a secret place that only the priveledged true believers can access. no sense in doing actual science - right? why start now!
 
I can't think of anywhere other than a science journal where something of such magnitude should go. The science community wouldn't accept it any other way. Especially if the aim is to prove the existence of this totally unrecognized branch of human beings.
 
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