Bigfoot DNA

[DennyT]

Cal,
let me give you some of my thoughts as background. The first and foremost thing one must understand is that proof is not paramount in a faith-based belief system. Rather, maintenance of the belief system is paramount. One has to understand that, in order to understand cults in general and bigfootery in particular. They have done (and will do) just fine without proof of the existence of bigfoot, because they think they already have the proof. If one doesn't understand that, one won't understand the whole thing. They are just fine with "you can't prove a negative."

 

[calwaterbear]

Don't know who is funding it. Why don't you contact Dr. Sykes dirrectly and ask him. i find him easily accessable and amicable! I can tell you that the costs of running a bunch of samples through his lab, since he already has all the equipment, is pretty minimal.

I'm not picking words apart, I pointed out that it is patently ridiculous to think that someone has a previously unkown primate in the congo, and is hiding that information because they want to use samples to "prove" there is a bigfoot. even if that were the case, it is easy to detect multiple samples from a single individual animal, so in order for this desception to work, they would have to have multiple samples from multiple animals, and even that would show that all the samples were from the same "tribe" in a specific area.
You seem completely fixated on the idea that this study is all about hoaxing for thew existance of bigfoot. You seem convinced that you already know the outcome! So stop for a minute and look at that ! that is exactly the thought process the BF believers go through on a daily basis. Starting with a pre concieved conclusion, building up straw men, looking for any excuse to ignore any real information that conflicts with their core belief. Thats what you are doing. I on the other hand see this as a legitimate attempt to identify with certainty the animal that provided the so called bigfoot DNA. So if it is a cat or rat or beaver or dog or whatever, the results will be clear - no bigfoot here. And thats what will most likely happen, and the result of that will be numerous well known "provenanced" Bigfoot stories will all be shot down!! and the credibility of the people who provided those stories and samples, well there credibility will take a serious hit as well! What more could you want?

So let me ask you, what outcome of this study would you like to see? And what would that prove?

and what outcome are you expecting to see? and what would that prove?


If it's unknown primate - well thats all it is, and that result would indicate that there is still more work to do. It would not indicate bigfoot, just simply that we don't know what it is!

I guess I just don't understand why you think one of the most resopected researchers in his field, with a long estabished career would throw all that away to hoax non believers. REMEMBER, THIS IS SCIENCE, AND ANY RESULTS HE HAS WILL BE EXAMINED MINUTELY, AND DUPLICATED BY OTHERS TO VERIFY HIS RESULTS. THATS THE WAY IT IS DONE!

Calwater, my argument was a scenario that you could argue that the spread of an unknown primate would be unknown, because there is no way to control the sample collection. If you want to sit here and pick apart words, great. With the scenario I stated, the conspirator is trying to "prove" the existence of Bigfoot, not an unknown primate in the Congo. It really doesn't create the same "stir" to find a primate in the Congo versus the United States does it ? The issue is that you can create any number of scenarios around provenance to discredit almost any result. That was the point of the post. Nothing more, nothing less.

Since you dodged the question .... who is funding the study ?

 

[DennyT]

Now, what about the Sykes project; hoaxers and plain ole bleevers know that submitting animal hairs is worthless. (At least they would, if Ketchum would stop with her masquerade party.) Back in the old days of looking at hairs under a microscope by a local fish and game guy, hoaxers submitted anything and everything, and fooled some people; "unknown" was the usual result, sometimes "unknown primate". But now things are different. I doubt that many of the submissions and results are going to be bears and skunks and raccoons. Forget about them.

 

[Drewbot]

I'm sure Dr. Sykes or Dr. Hawks could look at an 'unkown primate' DNA, and tell you where it fits on the primate family tree. They can ID any species with a strand of hair, if you happen to get a result that doesn't match an existing species, they can tell you where it falls on the tree of life.

 

[calwaterbear]

Cal,
let me give you some of my thoughts as background. The first and foremost thing one must understand is that proof is not paramount in a faith-based belief system. Rather, maintenance of the belief system is paramount. One has to understand that, in order to understand cults in general and bigfootery in particular. They have done (and will do) just fine without proof of the existence of bigfoot, because they think they already have the proof. If one doesn't understand that, one won't understand the whole thing. They are just fine with "you can't prove a negative."

Not only "just fine" with can't prove a negative, they depend on it.
This study will do nothing to change their beliefs, i understand that. But to those with an open mind, it will produce numberous examples of things held up to be BF, and presented as "proof" are not in fact BF! The more examples of this the more sure we can be that BF does not exist, but I do recognize that none of that matters to a true believer. And the trouble is they conjure up more blurry photos and tissue samples that we can keep up with. You prove one in not BF, and 10 more new "evidences' will pop up!

 

[DennyT]

The important issue is the modern human DNA. You (and Sykes) may think that modern human DNA is, well, not bigfoot. Surprise. Modern human DNA is what the footers are hanging their hats and hopes on. Ketchum's disinformation campaign (and their own special brand of pseudoscience) has made them think that bigfoot can have modern human mtDNA, through some sort of precise sequence of rape of modern human women by some ???"bigger-foots"??. These postulated hybrids, according to their wishful pseudoscience, have certain polymorphisms in the nuclear DNA that would account for any phenotypic differences between modern humans and what I call "the popular bigfoot" (8 feet tall, 600 lbs, runs like the wind on two or four feet, bizarre feet, glowing eyes, the abilities needed to evade humans and cameras, without use of tools, shelter, fire or clothing, etc etc.).

You see, for a veterinarian like Ketchum who does DNA analysis that, let's say, distinguishes a Great Dane from a Pomeranian, or a bay from a chestnut, or a Maine Coon from an Abyssininan, that makes some sense. These pairs of dogs, horses and cats are the same species, and the differences may lie in one or two differences in one or two genes, which have been selected for, over a short period, by human breeders. This domestic animal/pet model of DNA is what (apparently) drives the Ketchum adventure.

So, for the footers, and this is the beauty of modern human DNA for them, "science" will never be able to say that modern human DNA isn't from bigfoot, because all the nuances and expressions of modern human nuclear DNA will not be explained in our lifetimes.

Thus, for them, the only modern human DNA that can be excluded as possibly from a bigfoot is that which is paired with a known individual modern human. I hope I am making myself clear. So for them, this is like the contrapositive of what you would expect. They don't need a bigfoot body paired with the DNA to maintain their belief system, they just need the absence of a modern human body paired with a submitted specimen of modern human DNA. I will restate this because it is will be the essence of bigfootery claims for the next 50 years: unless a specimen yields a complete nuclear DNA sequence which can be linked to a known person (a modern human who is phenotypically not a bigfoot), then it is possible that this DNA comes from a bigfoot. In essence, this requires that every person on the planet have a complete nuclear DNA sequence on file for comparison, because every person (other than identical siblings) has unique nuclear DNA.

So you see, Sykes project of 20 specimens is like trying to prove that God doesn't exist by showing that some bad things happen to some good people.

 

[calwaterbear]

I'm sure Dr. Sykes or Dr. Hawks could look at an 'unkown primate' DNA, and tell you where it fits on the primate family tree. They can ID any species with a strand of hair, if you happen to get a result that doesn't match an existing species, they can tell you where it falls on the tree of life.

You are exactly right, thats what makes this study good news. They have that capability, assuming they actually got an unknown primate sequence.

And they can identify any other sequence to the species, typically!

 

[calwaterbear]

Parn you are right about this stuff, however there are some things in this study and process that can counteract some of the Ketchum BS. None of that matters to them of course, because we are all in the business of threatening her etc.

But first of all mDNA vrs nDNA. So you do the mDNA first, if it comes up possum - you are done with the sample. not BF, not human.

however, if it comes up unknown, then you go after the nDNA from the same sample. There is at least one gene in my opinion that even if BF were "human" the gene would have to be different. So if you actually has a sample come up "human" you could look at that specific gene. It controls for long hair , and is inactive in modern humans, but active in all other mammals. so essentially, if your human gene had the active form, you could argue that BF are in fact human, but if the gene is the inactive form, then you have a hairless human, no different than any other human, except his buddies call him bigfoot!
so essentially, If you want all of the stories over the past 8K years to be true, no matter what your other genes say, you need that long coarse hair badboy to keep you bigfoot, otherwise, you are nothing but a lowly human (or a contaminated sample)

 

[TheJackal]

Cal, I don't know the outcome, but I can speculate. Lighten up a bit. What do I think the result of the study will be, probably dog, cat, bear, beaver, racoon, possum, nutria, moose, deer, chimpanzee, gorilla, and probably a host of synthetic fibers. Will they get an actual unknown primate sample, who knows. Am I "fixated" on one solution, no. It's called speculation. Am I attacking science or Dr. Sykes? No. Would Sykes be a stooge for the Bleevers, hopefully not. What ramifications do I anticipate from the study ? None. If it's inconclusive, well you discredited some Bleevers. That's never stopped them from believing in the past, even in the light of admitted hoaxing. If it comes back "unknown primate", well that's interesting, and I agree that more true investigation would be forthcoming. So, I will continue to speculate, create strawmen arguments and conspiracy theories for your reading entertainment. That's the point, this is a distraction from my daily grind. If I wanted to go post scientific stuff, I would meander over to boards in my area of expertise, and not speculate, create strawmen, and conspiracy theories. But what fun would that be discussing concrete, steel, or aluminum ?

 

[DennyT]

....
So at most, is mtDNA all he will be able to extract from the hair samples?
....

See, here is a bleever expressing the bleever's "out" on Sykes' project. 'All he has is mtDNA?'

 

[DennyT]

deleted

 

[DennyT]

I think you are now seeing the obstacles a real scientist, attempting to find DNA samples of a non-existent beast must overcome.

Now let's try to guess what his paper title will be:

ALLEGED 'CRYPTOZOOLOGICAL' HAIR SAMPLES ARE OF EXISTING CREATURES INCLUDING HUMAN.

ABSTRACT: Reviews multiple submissions from witnesses claiming they have samples from various Unclassified, bipedal primates, classifies results of DNA testing on these samples, shows the relationship between possible hoaxes, and blatant misidentifications. Why were the bulk of the samples of human origin? Evaluates submissions based on geographical location of alleged samples.


or another:

SHOULD SCIENCE TAKE SIGHTINGS OF UNCLASSIFIED BIPEDAL PRIMATES MORE SERIOUSLY?

ABSTRACT: Analyses multiple samples of alleged Unclassified Bipedal Primates, for DNA, attempts to correlate the stories of the samples' provenance with how the DNA test resulted for each sample. Some of the stories of the collection of the sample involve incredible encounters with upright hairy bipedal creatures, but the DNA results came back as common animals or indeed simply human. Quantifies the results of the DNA testing with regard to geographic location, distribution of actual sample results with regard to resultant species, and examines whether scientific resources should continue to be devoted to finding these mythological creatures.

I think the first is closer to what it will be entitled. It sounds as if he is going to use the accompanying story as the criterion for which specimens get tested. LOL. What, does spelling count? syntax? punctuation? Does size matter?

 

[DennyT]

deleted

 

[Drewbot]

I think Sykes is going to say- we asked for the evidence, and none was provided.

 

[calwaterbear]

I think Sykes is going to say- we asked for the evidence, and none was provided.

I think he is going to say:
We have had many samples submitted, accompanied by stories that , if taken at face value, would indicate that the samples were clearly from bigfoot. However, carefull DNA analysis revealed that each and every sample was unequivically positively identified as another mammal!

He will then put in the obligatory, this does not prove that Bigfoot does not exist, it mearly invalidates several accounts .

 

[DennyT]

I think he should specifically ask the Kings of Bigfootery* for their strongest, best documented, most likely samples. Someone should tell him this. Seriously.

*you know who they are.

 

[TheJackal]

And, Cal, I can get in line with your potential conclusion of the test resulting in nothing but invalidation of supposed encounters. It's just not as sexy as a conspiracy theory !!

 

[Drewbot]

If he asked Meldrum for his best sample of Bigfoot DNA, do you think Meldrum would snicker, or come up with something?

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

some sort of precise sequence of rape of modern human women by some ???"bigger-foots"??.

Finally getting this thread on track. By the way, where are those photos of Peter Byrne's assistant?

They don't need a bigfoot body paired with the DNA to maintain their belief system, they just need the absence of a modern human body paired with a submitted specimen of modern human DNA.

I think you called this correctly some time ago, and is the best working hypothesis. It would be suicidal to submit tissue from a guinea pig with a detailed story of seeing a bigfoot.

That proposition is like saying 'footers will submit up-close, clear, steady high-definition videos of their buddies in gorilla suits instead of what they actually do. The entire point is to submit evidence that can't be used to falsify their claim. "Bigfoot is human with slight genetic variation" is the game now.

 

[DennyT]

Finally getting this thread on track. By the way, where are those photos of Peter Byrne's assistant?

.

Deborah Wolman was her name-o. Trim indeed.Can you pick her out?

Now, just because I called him Petey, don't be thinkin any unclean thoughts. But I always check out what people in photos are doing with their hands.