Bigfoot DNA

[GT/CS]

I didn't say those animals are rare, I've speculated that whatever the hairs are from must be rare, atleast in that it's hairs are rarely submitted as unknowns to labs.




I said you could argue, but didn't say you would be arguing with me.

Yeah, I spent a couple days there out of curiousity, like many other groups and organizations. I had a look around and found evidence of something large dark and shaggy. I decided to test the hairs. If they are not bigfoot then it might explain the sightings as a misidentification. There's always that for an upside




You are asking the wrong person. If you found hair and was curious enough to have them examined, you wouldn't come asking me. If you want to assemble a comparison using the provided pics, have at it, just don't call it proof of anything without an experts opinion to back it up.

Though, any hair and fiber expert won't make a judgement based on a couple micrographs. There is the cuticle scale pattern, diameter, length, degree of wave, cross sectional shape, color, pigmentation density and distribution and medulla structures, when present to consider. Each species has some unique combination of all these atributes and with each atribute having a range of variability.

If this explanation is still needed after the paper is published then we'll pursue it further.

Sweaty, is that you?

 

[southernyahoo]

Do you really think these statements are true? If so, can you provide evidence that they are? Who makes these claims? What record do they have? There are a lot of tests that have been devised in science, education, medicine etc that just don't turn out to be very useful...they give too many false positives and false negatives to be helpful. And subjective issues are always problematic.
What good is it if the best expert in the world gets 73% correct? What good is it if the worst guy gets 32%? What if he's honest and says i dont know 68% of the time and you gaily pronounce 68% of all sample to be "unknown" wink wink bigfoot....SEND YOUR SAMPLES TO THIS GUY!! Great for business, unlike most fields where competence is valued. how do you know which guy you've got? Is he better on domestics in Oklahoma than wilds in Alaska?

Parn, where morphology is concerned, I'm amased at the extent of knowledge that is used to ID really old and degraded evidence. Here in this article the authors use scale pattern to identify probable human hair in 195k to 257k year old hyaena coprolite deposits from south africa. Thats just the scale pattern and some inference from the cross sectional shape.

I'll admit this is stretching the limits, but these authors would probably be my choice to ID primate hairs found here in the states.

http://unimelb.academia.edu/RobynPi...a_Coprolite_From_Gladysvale_Cave_South_Africa

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

I've noted that skeptics are quick to call "bad science" when any "expert" finds the evidence in favor of BF.

This kind of deceptive wording establishes you as a manipulative discussant instead of having any kind of credibility.

Since there isn't one peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal that supports the existence of bigfoot, there is by construction a 100% correlation between so-called "evidence of bigfoot" and bad science, according to science itself. You've reversed the method of science and the direction of causality in order to insinuate the opposite.

Of course, wording things deceptively and working by insinuation instead of saying it outright gives you plausible deniability. You didn't actually SAY so. It's just an innocent observation of yours. Anyone would be suspicious to see such a high correlation, and naturally it would cause us to suspect there's something really fishy going on.

 

[southernyahoo]

How is that a cryptid?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisova_hominin

Well if you went back in time 40k years and saw one in person, you might call it a cryptic hominid.

 

[DennyT]

so everything new is a cryptid.*
Guess my kids studied the wrong courses in college.

*pretty sure that's a tautology as well as a fallacy.

 

[Resume]

so everything new is a cryptid.*
Guess my kids studied the wrong courses in college.

*pretty sure that's a tautology as well as a fallacy.

How about it southern, are we know redefining cryptid?

 

[southernyahoo]

Is there anything about Denisovans that is still ambiguous difficult to observe or cryptic? How about it's hip joints? Jaw structure? can we reconstruct it's skull even?

 

[DennyT]

Is there anything about Denisovans that is still ambiguous difficult to observe or cryptic? How about it's hip joints? Jaw structure? can we reconstruct it's skull even?

Give it up, SY...

 

[ScannerHead]

This kind of deceptive wording establishes you as a manipulative discussant instead of having any kind of credibility.

Of course, wording things deceptively and working by insinuation instead of saying it outright gives you plausible deniability. You didn't actually SAY so. It's just an innocent observation of yours.

And YET, the skeptic can do exactly the same thing, and it's o.k.

the POINT IS someone or something was unknown to exist, but because of dna extracted from bone(s) showed something previously unknown, it was accepted.

then you all pile on to make a poster look stupid because something unknown has been defined as real, and all this guys point is, that dna CAN be used to find something that hasn't been found before.

call it a cryptid if you want, or don't. you don't disqualify his arguement because it is or isn't a cryptid. this is what makes people look foolish: trying to discredit someone else by pointing out things in other people's arguements that aren't the point. cryptid or not, a new discovery was made by finding NEW dna.

I can't believe the mods here let this kind of bullying go on.

 

[DennyT]

And YET, the skeptic can do exactly the same thing, and it's o.k.

the POINT IS someone or something was unknown to exist, but because of dna extracted from bone(s) showed something previously unknown, it was accepted.

then you all pile on to make a poster look stupid because something unknown has been defined as real, and all this guys point is, that dna CAN be used to find something that hasn't been found before.

call it a cryptid if you want, or don't. you don't disqualify his arguement because it is or isn't a cryptid. this is what makes people look foolish: trying to discredit someone else by pointing out things in other people's arguements that aren't the point. cryptid or not, a new discovery was made by finding NEW dna.

I can't believe the mods here let this kind of bullying go on.

Yeah it's all the fault of the mods and bullies that he came up with that and then tried to defend it. And oh by the way, you are the only one who's calling him stupid. The others just disagreed with his post. Big difference.
Listen, scanner, how about you come up with some body parts eg bones of Bigfoot like they did with Denisovan. Or are you trying to obscure the fact that they had body parts as well as DNA? (Whoops...didn't mean to bully you....)

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

And YET, the skeptic can do exactly the same thing, and it's o.k.

Except that I was quoting an example of a bad faith argument whereas you have not. So it is an empty assertion of yours.

Again, manipulative argumentative tactics, which is what you have to resort to when there is no evidence to support your beliefs. How many times do we hear this refrain that skeptics are "doing the same thing" as 'footers.

I understand perfectly that the hope is to put skeptics on the defensive and hope they are dumb enough to attempt proving a negative when your obligation to provide positive evidence backing your assertion remains unfulfilled. It is also a very, very embarassing tactic when you actually think through the implied logic: It's fine for 'footers to use bogus science, bad faith, logical fallacies, etc - because someone else does it too.

This is again the magic of deceptive wording and insinuation instead of positively stating your argument. When you are forced to make a complete and clearly stated argument - it looks so bad that a child can see through it. "Gee whiz little Johnny, is it OK for the bad man to steal if he can point to someone else who also stole?" It is positively infantile. So the manipulative/bad faith discussant does what the six year old does: "nya nya nya, you do it too..." he doesn't say "Bigfoot exists because you are a hypocrite".


The skeptic, however, when it is pointed out his argument is bad or his evidence poor - he drops the bad argument and bad evidence. He does not say "nya nya nya, you do it too..." Or refuse to acknowledge the deficiency and take up another bad faith argument.

the POINT IS someone or something was unknown to exist, but because of dna extracted from bone(s) showed something previously unknown, it was accepted.

Then there is absolutely no reason to inject bad faith manipulative arguments into anything. So I couldn't disagree more. The whole point is to slip these bad faith arguments in everywhere you can, because this is the theme of 'footery from beginning to end: hoaxes, logical fallacies, preying on ignorance, etc.

then you all pile on... bullying

Playing the victim role, also a manipulative, bad faith argument. The more ridiculous your argument, the more important playing the victim becomes. Because the worse the argument, the more it will be attacked. It is also called "vilifying the victim" in manipulative literature.

In this context, the victim is the skeptic who has had a bad faith manipulative argument levied upon him. He complains. So he is villified by the manipulator when the blame clearly rests on the manipulator for having made a bad faith argument.

 

[southernyahoo]

Give it up, SY...

Nah, don't think I will, I'm just pointing to standards of acceptance of something new, and I do think they can be met with DNA and various bits of physical evidence for BF. Thats my point.

Here's some things you won't be able to claim when the DNA is published.

1. You don't know where any of the evidence comes from.
2. You don't know what sign was found in association with it.
3. You haven't seen the evidence to know it exists.
4. It hasn't been offered for independent testing.
5. Nobody would let you choose who to test it.
6. Nobody else has examined it.
7. The data isn't available for independent review.

 

[LTC8K6]

Nah, don't think I will, I'm just pointing to standards of acceptance of something new, and I do think they can be met with DNA and various bits of physical evidence for BF. Thats my point.

Here's some things you won't be able to claim when the DNA is published.

1. You don't know where any of the evidence comes from.
2. You don't know what sign was found in association with it.
3. You haven't seen the evidence to know it exists.
4. It hasn't been offered for independent testing.
5. Nobody would let you choose who to test it.
6. Nobody else has examined it.
7. The data isn't available for independent review.

History seems to be on the skeptic's side, though. We've seen our share of pronouncements about bigfoot DNA tests. None have amounted to a hill of beans so far, iirc. Same for hair testing.

BTW, is there some reason we should accept what we are told?

For example, do I really know 1 & 2? Or am I just taking your word?

 

[Deacondark]

Nah, don't think I will, I'm just pointing to standards of acceptance of something new, and I do think they can be met with DNA and various bits of physical evidence for BF. Thats my point.

Here's some things you won't be able to claim when the DNA is published.

1. You don't know where any of the evidence comes from.
2. You don't know what sign was found in association with it.
3. You haven't seen the evidence to know it exists.
4. It hasn't been offered for independent testing.
5. Nobody would let you choose who to test it.
6. Nobody else has examined it.
7. The data isn't available for independent review.

Man, people are really putting a ton of faith in this report. I can't wait for it to come out.

 

[Resume]

Man, people are really putting a ton of faith in this report. I can't wait for it to come out.

Right?

 

[DennyT]

Nah, don't think I will, I'm just pointing to standards of acceptance of something new, and I do think they can be met with DNA and various bits of physical evidence for BF. Thats my point.

Here's some things you won't be able to claim when the DNA is published.

1. You don't know where any of the evidence comes from.
2. You don't know what sign was found in association with it.
3. You haven't seen the evidence to know it exists.
4. It hasn't been offered for independent testing.
5. Nobody would let you choose who to test it.
6. Nobody else has examined it.
7. The data isn't available for independent review.

Okay, whatever you say, you don't give it up, you just change it.
Wow, a numbered list. And you are claiming this all as fact?
(just giving you a chance to change it around.)
This list strikes me as somewhat akin to lists of Bigfoot's diet and social customs, except with some extra mind reading.
That aside, I guess you've read the paper? Yes or no?

 

[southernyahoo]

History seems to be on the skeptic's side, though. We've seen our share of pronouncements about bigfoot DNA tests. None have amounted to a hill of beans so far, iirc. Same for hair testing.

Yeah, it's consistent with cryptids until they are proven.

BTW, is there some reason we should accept what we are told?

For example, do I really know 1 & 2? Or am I just taking your word?

Where and what sign. Well you'd expect that if I wanted to be deceptive I'd do better than that place and seemingly unimpressive damage to a cedar right? There is some documentation when it is needed.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yeah, it's consistent with cryptids until they are proven.



Where and what sign. Well you'd expect that if I wanted to be deceptive I'd do better than that place and seemingly unimpressive damage to a cedar right? There is some documentation when it is needed.

What cryptid has been proven?

So far, it's consistently been a load of codswallop with bigfoot.

But I suppose this could be an exception...

 

[southernyahoo]

WP
She has a big series. She seems to have over a hundred specimens submitted by hopeful footers. Even if every one of them was by DNA a readily identified animal or human that would be very publishable. A slam dunk. It would not necessarily be pleasing to footers, but they would not give up. it would be appropriate for a number of journals. If it never appears in print it is totally by her choosing.

No I haven't read the paper parn, but do feel that my bigfoot chasing days atleast in the collection of evidence is nearing a big change. If the paper turns out like you suggest above then so be it. It will affect what faith I may have that there is any physical reality in bigfoot one way or the other. I'm interested in resolution not perpetuation. I also don't accept that bigfoot is 100% sapiens sapiens throughout. I don't think the hair I found came from any ordinary human.

 

[southernyahoo]

What cryptid has been proven?

Reports of sightings of an animal often preceed it's discovery and acceptance no? Don't tell me you need examples of this.