Bigfoot DNA

[mikeyx]

I think all of Bigfootry has signed the Ketchum NDA (non-disclosure agreement), they have all agreed not to disclose any example of actual Bigfoot evidence.

I haven't because its a bunch of manure. I know, >>>heretic!!<<

 

[OntarioSquatch]

I think all of Bigfootry has signed the Ketchum NDA (non-disclosure agreement), they have all agreed not to disclose any example of actual Bigfoot evidence.

Hmmm. Richard Stubstad was bragging about how he didn't sign the NDA and how close the DNA from his sample was to our species.

 

[Drewbot]

Hmmm. Richard Stubstad was bragging about how he didn't sign the NDA and how close the DNA from his sample was to our species.

Ooops, you forgot about this part; any example of actual Bigfoot evidence , key word being evidence. How is what Richard Stubstad bragged about related to someone providing evidence?

 

[OntarioSquatch]

ok I'll bite. What would you consider to be evidence?

 

[Drewbot]

Any evidence that is verifiable, I would accept that.

I would also accept evidence from a scientific survey team that snapped a sequence of photos depicting such a creature, of course this could be detailed with DNA from hair catchers at the camera site, so there would be an actual DNA profile, which would be shared with scientists around the world, which is how real science works.

Just the standard classification of species evidence, nothing special.

 

[Drewbot]

I don't think you understand how simple this evidence thing is. Sure it takes a lot of hard work, and commitment, but this stuff about how science doesn't want to help us find Bigfoot, is silly. If any of these field workers on this Wolverine study found a Bigfoot, they would do the same thing they did in this case. http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/publications/Moriarty_et_al/Moriarty_et_al.pdf


1. Photograph the only wolverine in California
2. Collect hair
3. Collect poop
4. Analyse DNA
5. Reach a conclusion that one wolverine had migrated to California

We photo-verified the presence of a wolverine (Gulo gulo) in California for the fir0rst time in 86 years during February 2008. Herein we document the process of determining the origin of this wolverine using genetic, stable carbon (D13C) and stable nitrogen (D15N) isotope information. The wolverine’s origin was significant because it is a state-threatened species and California represents a historically unique genotype of wolverines in North America. We obtained both photographs and noninvasively-collected genetic evidence (scat and hair). DNA analysis revealed the animal was a male and not a remnant of a historical California population. Comparison with available data revealed the individual was most closely related to populations from the western edge of the Rocky Mountains. This represents the first evidence of connectivity between wolverine populations of the Rocky and Sierra Nevada Mountain Ranges.

Were the scientists paid to find the wolverine? No.

Surprisingly, during a study of the American marten (Martes americana) near Truckee, California, we photographed a wolverine at a remotely triggered camera station

Did it take long for the scientists to retask to locate the wolverine? No

This effort began within a week of the first wolverine photograph.

Yes, but the scientists were probably half-assing it, because wolverines haven't lived in California in 86 years right? No.

Immediately after the original wolverine photograph we expanded efforts to re-photograph the animal and collect DNA for genetic analysis. This included establishing a 16-station grid with stations placed approximately 5 km apart over an area of 150 km2
. Detection methods alternated between barbed-wire hair snares (Mulders et al. 2007, Kendall and McKelvey 2008) and carcass stations where portions of deer (Odocoileus
hemionus) were used as bait, all stations were monitored by remote-sensor cameras (Kays and Slauson 2008). Dogs trained to detect wolverine feces (Wasser et al. 2004, MacKay et al. 2008) searched over 100 linear km. Two teams, each consisting of a dog, its handler, and an orienteer, followed transects in areas near the initial photograph and along nearby ridgelines (Figure 2). Observers also searched a 35 km2 area for fecal,
urine, and hair samples (Hedmark 2004, Ulizio et al. 2006). Researchers and volunteers snowshoed or skied along transects such that there were two to four people, each 5 m apart, looking for tracks, scat, urine, and sign

 

[OntarioSquatch]

That my friend would be considered solid proof (published DNA). Evidence is things like footprints, video, unidentifiable primate hairs ect ect

But in the little world of JREF those don't count right?

 

[Drewbot]

A footprint would be great if you could show that it is from a Bigfoot
A video would be great if it wasn't crappy
Primate hairs would be cool since you can get DNA from hair now.

Got anything like that?

 

[OntarioSquatch]

ok lol. If I were to make a fake bear track, take pictures of it, people would believe it no problem, but if I were to take pictures of a real Bigfoot track, you guys would be spitting on it and claiming it doesn't even count as evidence. Do you see what I'm trying to say here? There is a huge hole right now in what you guys call critical thinking.

 

[Vortigern99]

You're out of your depth. You don't understand the scientific method because you won't investigate it. You can't grasp the standards of evidence because you will not read about them to learn what they are. You posit ancient hominins as figboots without the slightest comprehension of those species' traits or the evidence amassed which contradicts your inane "theories", including the extinction of those very species.

 

[GeeMack]

ok lol. If I were to make a fake bear track, take pictures of it, people would believe it no problem, but if I were to take pictures of a real Bigfoot track, you guys would be spitting on it and claiming it doesn't even count as evidence. Do you see what I'm trying to say here?

Yes. You're trying to say you don't have a picture of a real Bigfoot track. Also, although you're probably not trying to say it, you're saying you don't have the slightest understanding of what might constitute objective evidence.

There is a huge hole right now in what you guys call critical thinking.

This is critical thinking: You have yet to objectively demonstrate that Bigfoot exists. And if you did, you'd still have to describe a definitive set of characteristics that allow us to determine if something is or is not a real Bigfoot track. Until you can do that, you can't possibly claim something is a picture of a real Bigfoot track. So your silly hypothetical situation is, well, silly.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Here: The cultishness is dedicated to debunking not consideration of all evidence.

Both have their flaws.

Hahahahahaha! The old "truth is somewhere in-between" canard. The ONLY people who use this idiotic argument are the footers.

Skeptics do not believe in bigfoot, whereas 'footers do - so it is argued that a "reasonable" person takes the "centrist" position that bigfoot exists half-way between those extreme views.

This position is only taken by the footers themselves, for the obvious reason it is nonsense. It is an endless parade of footers peddling this argument, and each new peddler pretends he has the awesome intellectual prowess to the be the first one to disguise himself this way.

This is the most common disguise we see here, so don't flatter yourself.

 

[LTC8K6]

ok lol. If I were to make a fake bear track, take pictures of it, people would believe it no problem, but if I were to take pictures of a real Bigfoot track, you guys would be spitting on it and claiming it doesn't even count as evidence. Do you see what I'm trying to say here? There is a huge hole right now in what you guys call critical thinking.

A bear track is not an extraordinary claim.

It's pretty simple, really. Yet you can't seem to grasp it.

If you claim you saw a bear, I'll probably believe you on your word alone.

If you claim you saw a pink 10' tall bear, I will need more than your word to believe your claim.

BTW, we can compare your fake bear track to known bear tracks.

We can't compare your sasquatch track to anything. No exemplars.

Same for DNA. We have no exemplar. We wouldn't even be able to say it was sasquatch DNA. The best we could say is that we don't know what it is.

 

[Castro]

Here is a bear paw that we can connect to a bear track. We are still waiting for a bigfoot big foot pic.

 

[Jodie]

Hmmm. Richard Stubstad was bragging about how he didn't sign the NDA and how close the DNA from his sample was to our species.

Obviously you ignored this a page back, but it highlights how you do not delve more deeply into the supposition that you are trying to use as evidence. Did you even look at the link for the DNA clip?

What is more incredulous is that an asphalt engineer ( Stubstad) could use an excel spread sheet to run statistics on the mitochondrial sequences and from that determine that we have something unique when it took complex algorithms to figure out where the Neandertal DNA differed from HSS DNA.

I think it was worth repeating in your case.

 

[I am Bigfoot]

you're yelling at me for the wrong thing the debunking argument was much more generalized than just the monkey.

WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE!?

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rules 0 and 12.

 

[Jodie]

thats okay, they say the same thing about this place and both have some funny and ironic points.

There: operate on the presumption the creature exists and can border on cultish belief in certain circles.

Here: The cultishness is dedicated to debunking not consideration of all evidence.

Both have their flaws.

In order to debunk evidence you have to consider it. Where is this evidence that holds up under scrutiny?

I'm waiting on DNA results. I'm waiting on a body. These are verifiable forms of evidence.

I don't see the problem with my thought process.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

I think mikeyx might have a point. Both sides have their goods and bads. Neither have any effect on the truth though.

 

[Jodie]

It doesn't have anything to do with truth OS but with what the evidence suggests.

 

[I am Bigfoot]

I think mikeyx might have a point. Both sides have their goods and bads. Neither have any effect on the truth though.

Where are the good footers? I've looked high and low, they're harder to find than ol' sassy itself.