Bigfoot DNA

[William Parcher]

In Washington, the Olympic Project got a sample from a flesh witch.

At a later date a search was carried out at the site and a piece of flesh was recovered. NOT A BODY, only a small piece of flesh witch was later cut in two pieces, hence the cut line.

 

[DennyT]

In Washington, the Olympic Project got a sample from a flesh witch.

do witches do communion?

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

We agree what DNA "can" (being the operative word) do, yet when testing suspect samples they are often not subjected to the level of testing that could distinguish two very closely related organisms.

Bloviation is an art form you see applied mostly in politics, where the objective is to fill up all of the alloted time with long sentences containing big words but saying nothing of substance.

I really love this part:

"can" (being the operative word)

Really? Like some other word you have not written would be "operative" instead of the word you wrote? Thanks for grounding us in this way, because not one of us understood the words you wrote are the words we should use to understand what you wrote. Usually we use other words altogether. I pick them randomly from the phone book. Parnasus uses comic books, and parcher uses a French translation of "Gone with the Wind".

I love zeroing in on all the tactics of the charletan because the closer the scrutiny, the more ridiculous they prove to be. The only mistake you can make with a bloviator is trying to find meaning in what he is saying.

 

[southernyahoo]

SY
But you have no evidence that this has ever happened? ie a sample that is truly unknown was discarded?

Seriously, do you always blame the lack of proof of Bigfoot on "skeptics" ?

SY, let's talk about something related to the idea of falsifiability... please outline what Ketchum would have to say/do/publish (or not do, by some future date) for you to give up your faith in a flesh and blood Bigfoot (FBBF).

I'll say that if Dr. Ketchum doesn't have real BF DNA then I'll never see it. I don't identify skepticism with any particular person, everyone has skepticism in some way. I just don't feel that skepticism by itself in the from of dismissivness actually finds truth. I look at theoretical possibilities how bigfoot could exist and not be proven. One is that biological evidence could be confused with human. Another is that an assay on suspected bigfoot biological samples has never been done before.

 

[Resume]

I'll say that if Dr. Ketchum doesn't have real BF DNA then I'll never see it. I don't identify skepticism with any particular person, everyone has skepticism in some way. I just don't feel that skepticism by itself in the from of dismissivness actually finds truth. I look at theoretical possibilities how bigfoot could exist and not be proven. One is that biological evidence could be confused with human. Another is that an assay on suspected bigfoot biological samples has never been done before.

I think you mean hair-brained (ha) hypotheses. Of course all you really need is a bigfoot body. None of those pending though.

 

[southernyahoo]

We agree what DNA "can" (being the operative word) do, yet when testing suspect samples they are often not subjected to the level of testing that could distinguish two very closely related organisms. Methods known as barcode or genetic fingerprinting have their pitfalls. The DNA sequences are too short. They work well on knowns, but if an unknown falls to close, skepticism that it "is" new could cause it to be overlooked.

http://www.bolinfonet.org/pdf/Hajibabaei_et_al_2006_Benchmarking_DNA_barcodes.pdf

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

I don't identify skepticism with any particular person, everyone has skepticism in some way. I just don't feel that skepticism by itself in the from of dismissivness actually finds truth.

I don't identify physics with any specific, single, uniquely identifiable, sole, solitary, one person. Because physics affects everyone. At least in some way - I mean like partially or possibly for some people quite a lot even. That's the way physics is, at least when it is being the kind of physics that we are talking about here and now at this moment and point in time.

I don't find physics, by itself, I mean alone and in conjunction with no other thing, in the form of religion actually and in reality finds or discovers truth. By truth I mean the things that are, in fact, not false but instead the things that are bona-fide and valid. The invalid truths are not the ones we should follow, as these lead us astray from the other kinds of truths that are more beneficially sound.


Who would look in a dictionary for the definition of a word like skepticism? Worse yet, who would actually USE that definition instead of making up some other word to talk about like "dismissivism"

Certainly not a bloviator. Because then there's nothing to talk through our hat about. Variants on bloviated skepticologists:


Dissmissivism

Dissmissivist

Dissmissivator

Dissmissivation

Dissmissivology

Dissmissivologist


Anyone can do this.

 

[DennyT]

Now the weirdo Todd Standing also seems to be touting DNA results:

" “We’ve had exceptional results and we’re working with people doing DNA analysis,” said Standing.

He says preliminary results from hair samples sent in for testing suggest an unknown species of primate, while video and photographs suggest a creature larger than a gorilla, with human-like features. "

http://www.bigfootlunchclub.com/2011/08/todd-standing-entertains-finding.html?m=1

 

[mustbeso]

I'll say that if Dr. Ketchum doesn't have real BF DNA then I'll never see it. I don't identify skepticism with any particular person, everyone has skepticism in some way. I just don't feel that skepticism by itself in the from of dismissivness actually finds truth. I look at theoretical possibilities how bigfoot could exist and not be proven. One is that biological evidence could be confused with human. Another is that an assay on suspected bigfoot biological samples has never been done before.

Do you think that absolute belief finds truth? You seem to want those who are skeptical of a giant ape like creature that leaves no trace of itself to somehow prove it's existence to you. That biological proof could be confused with human is nonsense and completely well stated by Correa Neto. If you think you have evidence, submit it for testing to a lab that has no dog in this hunt. Have you even considered that Dr. Melba Ketchum is a complete fraud? William Partcher, Parnassus and Alaska Bush Pilot have provided you with ample reason to dismiss this nonsense out of hand, please consider it.

 

[ScannerHead]

Variants on bloviated skepticologists:


Dissmissivism

Dissmissivist

Dissmissivator

Dissmissivation

Dissmissivology

Dissmissivologist


Anyone can do this.

Clearly, as you just did it yourself.

 

[Correa Neto]

We agree what DNA "can" (being the operative word) do, yet when testing suspect samples they are often not subjected to the level of testing that could distinguish two very closely related organisms. Methods known as barcode or genetic fingerprinting have their pitfalls. The DNA sequences are too short. They work well on knowns, but if an unknown falls to close, skepticism that it "is" new could cause it to be overlooked.

As another poster asked, do you actually have examples where what you wrote below actually happened?
"when testing suspect samples they are often not subjected to the level of testing that could distinguish two very closely related organisms."

This put, lets move on. Ask yourself what's more likely:

1. Our DNA signature is virtually identical to the one from a 2.5 to 3m tall hominid which looks like an overgrown Homo erectus or australopithecine (remembering that DNA signature from other Homo subspecies which looks much more like us can be identified).

or

2. The DNA signatures you folks are getting are actually from Homo sapiens; its there by sample contamination, misidentification and hoaxing (or any combination of the above).

 

[Drewbot]

Clearly, as you just did it yourself.

Wow. you caught that? ABP can get nothing past you Scannerhead!

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

southernyahoo,

Given how they confirmed that a "bigfoot hair" said to be real by other labs was actually artificial in nature, I would like to see the lab mentioned here take a crack at those hairs you were talking about.

 

[southernyahoo]

As another poster asked, do you actually have examples where what you wrote below actually happened?
"when testing suspect samples they are often not subjected to the level of testing that could distinguish two very closely related organisms."

I've supported my contention that in dealing with two very closely related organisms that the short sequences tested in a barcode analysis is fallable and the potential exists for both false negatives and false positives. Thats why you won't see them used to prove bigfoot. Proof of the false negative goes in hand with proof of the true positive.

This put, lets move on. Ask yourself what's more likely:

1. Our DNA signature is virtually identical to the one from a 2.5 to 3m tall hominid which looks like an overgrown Homo erectus or australopithecine (remembering that DNA signature from other Homo subspecies which looks much more like us can be identified).

or

2. The DNA signatures you folks are getting are actually from Homo sapiens; its there by sample contamination, misidentification and hoaxing (or any combination of the above).

I intend to let the published DNA explain where you may be wrong or have other choices than the two above. The question will be whether you can accept that science is right. Is that likely?

 

[HarryHenderson]

...I intend to let the published DNA explain where you may be wrong or have other choices than the two above. The question will be whether you can accept that science is right. Is that likely?

Likely? That we 'can accept science is right'? Really? You're clinically delusional if you truly believe we wouldn't appreciate or accept what 'science' has to say on the matter. Anyone who pays any attention here would know that nothing could be further from the truth. Although to be clear, it has to be legitimate science. Not agenda driven 'hopeful but inconclusive results' type science done by marginal practitioners of such who have serious little motivation to seek 'scientific truth' but a whole lot o' motivation to chase dreams of Bigfoot fame and fortune.

Soooooooo...before I opine myself into AAH hell by declaring your presence here is of dubious motives, and in a perhaps mostly feeble but legit attempt at obtaining a better understanding of what the **** you're really talking about, could you please state again exactly what it is you're wanting from us or what you want us to do?

 

[LTC8K6]

I've supported my contention that in dealing with two very closely related organisms that the short sequences tested in a barcode analysis is fallable and the potential exists for both false negatives and false positives. Thats why you won't see them used to prove bigfoot. Proof of the false negative goes in hand with proof of the true positive.



I intend to let the published DNA explain where you may be wrong or have other choices than the two above. The question will be whether you can accept that science is right. Is that likely?

I don't think I can be blamed for thinking it likely that the results won't be legitimate, given the history of bigfoot DNA testing...

 

[Correa Neto]

I've supported my contention that in dealing with two very closely related organisms that the short sequences tested in a barcode analysis is fallable and the potential exists for both false negatives and false positives. Thats why you won't see them used to prove bigfoot. Proof of the false negative goes in hand with proof of the true positive.

Uh actually no. At least not from my POV. You actually just made a claim and used another one to back it.

I intend to let the published DNA explain where you may be wrong or have other choices than the two above. The question will be whether you can accept that science is right. Is that likely?

If the science behind it is sound, it will be accepted. However, for this to happen, the following questions (among others) will have to be answered:

1. Explain how you can dismiss the possibility that the DNA signatures you folks are getting are actually from Homo sapiens; be it by sample contamination, misidentification and hoaxing (or any combination of the above).

2. Remember DNA signature from other Homo subspecies which looks much more like us can be identified. Now explain how is it possible that our DNA signature is virtually identical to the one from a 2.5 to 3m tall hominid which looks like an overgrown Homo erectus or australopithecine or an upright gorilla (OK, actually bloke in gorilla suit).

 

[southernyahoo]

Uh actually no. At least not from my POV. You actually just made a claim and used another one to back it.

Where exactly does the linked article not support my contention that barcode analysis should not be used to ID cryptic species due to short sequences that fail to delineate closely related species?

http://www.bolinfonet.org/pdf/Hajibabaei_et_al_2006_Benchmarking_DNA_barcodes.pdf

If the science behind it is sound, it will be accepted. However, for this to happen, the following questions (among others) will have to be answered:

\
Yes they would, but why would you ask that I give the explanation when I'm not the PHD? I'm testing both mine and your understanding of the science. We couldn't begin to debate the legitamacy of the results, without first visiting published papers to understand the standards of proof.

1. Explain how you can dismiss the possibility that the DNA signatures you folks are getting are actually from Homo sapiens; be it by sample contamination, misidentification and hoaxing (or any combination of the above).

I don't actually deny the possibility that BF is a type of human.

2. Remember DNA signature from other Homo subspecies which looks much more like us can be identified. Now explain how is it possible that our DNA signature is virtually identical to the one from a 2.5 to 3m tall hominid which looks like an overgrown Homo erectus or australopithecine or an upright gorilla (OK, actually bloke in gorilla suit).

Yes the other ancient hominids can be identified with their known genetic sequences. Those sequences were not mapped with a single barcode test of 600 some odd base pairs.

 

[Drewbot]

I don't actually deny the possibility that BF is a type of human.

Human as in the same DNA?

Because there are a few differences.
A. Lack of tool/fire use
B. A completely different foot (see MTB, achilles tendon)
C. Gigantic size
D. Pointed Head
E. Ability to both bipedally and quadrupedally travel.
F. Super-stealth ability

 

[southernyahoo]

Human as in the same DNA?

Not exactly, no.