Bigfoot DNA

Status
Not open for further replies.
Drewbot said:
Yes.
I am banned though, they caught me sneaking up on an Oryx and pistol whipping it. (they are very tame, no need to waste ammo).
Click to expand...

I am thinking Sykes will have to deal with some gorilla/chimp/baboon specimens (don't look at me, I have better things to do than snatch zoo detritus).
 
Not to mention that you might end up with a missing appendage if you tried to collect any yourself. Of course you could always ask the zoo for primate hair.... I would love to be a fly on the wall to hear the explanation for why you would need or want it.
 
The lack of provenance will be the downfall of their DNA study. It's easy to mail the same stuff from a bunch of different spots.

On a related note, I notice that their publication schedule seems to be less of a national secret than the Ketchum Hokum paper, and that their pace is downright fast compared to the glacial pace of thePaper. I think that is pretty much a kick in the junk for the Ketchum Hokum. Also, I will guess that if they have a paper ready for publication, we will know which journal it was submitted to and an approximate publication date. No double secret embargoes will be in place.
 
I like how they are going to vet the samples before requesting them.

So whoever makes up the best stories will get their sample accepted into the study.

Tease the monkeys at the zoo until they throw a hunk of poo at you, then write a story about how Bigfoot was tossing rocks and howling at you, at your cabin in Wawa Ontario during the blue berry harvest, tell them you are a Native American Elder, a former Army Officer, and work in law enforcement, and have a biology graduate degree. Tell them how it swayed back and forth, broke branches, and howled like a coyote. Your langur doo will be requested stat.
 
Reuters had a report today from London on the Sykes/Sartori testing project. Not much to the story other than it seems to follow a "more traditional route" for these sort of things ?

In other breaking news... Queen Elizabeth's panties sold for $18,000.00 at Auction today.. Definitely a Royal Flush.. back to you Geoffrey !
 
Last edited:
Well your notice led me to a Fox News article that had almost as much information as one of those bubble-gum factoids on the inside wrapper.

It is not clear what they are testing the DNA for. I think it should be at a minimum all of the subjects on the ACT/SAT exams.
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
Well your notice led me to a Fox News article that had almost as much information as one of those bubble-gum factoids on the inside wrapper.

It is not clear what they are testing the DNA for. I think it should be at a minimum all of the subjects on the ACT/SAT exams.
Click to expand...

I am thinking a 25 would make me proud, ABP !
 
a face to face real encounter yesterday!

To bad it wasn't Bigfoot. But it was the next best thing, a group of 4 true believers, who told me all sorts of great stories (or information).

I have agreed to run some DNA samples for them, for some reason they figure having me do it will give them the credibility/ seperation from melbadrum.

The know i am a complete skeptic, but I am willing to shoot straight with them, go through the process, inform them, whatever. I think if the samples come back for what I think it is, they will be disapointed, but it will never shake their true beliefs.

These guys have all had personal encounters with Bigfoot, and they truely believe that with every fiber of their body! Thats fine by me, i can respect their belief and conviction, even though i am pretty sure that it is a result of how the brain stores and recalls memories, and each time it recalls a memory, it edits and rebuilds that memory, in essence the tape is written over every time that memory is accessed.

while there stories are pretty run of the mill, the friend of a friend in high government places stories are way out there. for whatever reason, i guess their BS detectors get defeated by the personally told by FOF !

So I don't mind talking with these guys, and hearing their stories, I just am in no way convinced by them, but it is interesting how as they lay out their "facts" I often come to a completely different conclusion that they do, looking at the same set of facts.

Interesting that the Sykes thing just blew up, I was contacting him asking about protocols and gene suites, now i will see if he wants to run one set of my samples, while I use the same processes to run another set of samples here, like a blind study, to see if our results match up!

Don't know if he will be willing to do that, but we could not compare results unless we are using the same protocols and genes! So i guess we shall see!

Cal WB
 
So this is the big wave now in 'footery. It is so odd because everyone with a brain in their head knows that you have to secure a bigfoot first. A type specimen.

It is a living laboratory of the absurd - we have to watch and take notes because it isn't possible to use normal behavior to predict what they're going to do.
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
So this is the big wave now in 'footery. It is so odd because everyone with a brain in their head knows that you have to secure a bigfoot first. A type specimen.

It is a living laboratory of the absurd - we have to watch and take notes because it isn't possible to use normal behavior to predict what they're going to do.
Click to expand...
You are right that it needs to have a type specimen to completely nail it down. however, if you had 30 samples from all over the world, and all of them were showing the same mutations at the same spots, and were all outside human and other known hominids, that would move them much further down the road. I would get a bit more interesting scientifically.

Instead, what they will find is a bunch of bear and cow and yak and giant anteater DNA. That to is instructive, unfortunately it will never be conclusive. You all know we can't prove a negative, but at least it moves the meter a bit from woo land! The interesting part will be when the study is published, and negative, then all of the true believers scrambling to discredit the study, with all sorts of gobbltygook and nonsence!
 
How is this study different than Melba's? The only thing I see that might possibly be different based on the rumor mill is the hypothesis. Wouldn't the process of elimination essentially be the same whether you are looking for an extent primate in NA or at the genetic relationship between hominids and primates?

Why primarily hair? Is it because you can eliminate contamination more easily? I found this article so it makes me question once again what primers are going to be used.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8435317.stm

"To take animal studies on cave bears, for example, if we use PCR primers specific for human DNA on cave bear bones, we can retrieve modern human DNA on almost every one. That has made me think: 'how can I trust anything on this'."

Ahhh , here it is, it says hair is less prone to fungal growth. Maybe that is why hair was chosen.

httphttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ancient-human-genome
 
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