Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

[Giordano]

My main "interest" was in getting you up to speed on the mystery DNA. Regardless of the method used, I think I've achieved that goal. You're welcome.
Chris B.

Thank you for "getting me up to speed." The fact that you tried to point us in the wrong direction is irrelevant, I guess.

It is usually best to not comment on things that you don't know very well, and it is especially important to avoid "double-downing" or trying to rationalize your prior incorrect statements least you dig yourself deeper.

 

[Garrette]

--snip--

It seems I have an advantage on my side of the fence though. Since we do have an unknown partial DNA sequence confirmed to have existed at some point in the past we know nothing about.

--snip--.

Interesting that here you admit that knowing some DNA sequence is unknown provides an advantage yet on the other hand you claim there is no point in submitting your saliva sample for DNA sequencing because it will merely be unknown.

This contradiction has been apparent since you brought up the saliva sample and made excuses for not having it sequenced, but I thank you for making it so clear.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Uhm, let's see if I got this straight. Because you were confused and unable to articulate your point properly you are now attributing that to tactics and conflict? The very same nasty tactics and conflict that prevent you from properly proving that bigfoot exists? Something you have repeatedly stated is not your purpose here?

Do you just like to ramble?

I think the confusion was due to others pointing the discussion away from the unknown DNA toward the Denisovan DNA.

Regardless, my point was made even if the only way I could have it accepted here is to be proven wrong about something by a skeptic. Whatever it takes to get everyone on board to the fact the unknown DNA sequence exists. In certain situations I enjoy being wrong, this is certainly one such case.

And no, I'm not here to prove Bigfoot exists for you. Please keep that in mind when addressing a post to or about me. Thanks, Chris B.

 

[Resume]

Adding to increasing evidence of a tangled human family tree, the new Neanderthal genome study released by the journal Nature also suggests that another previously unknown archaic human species shared its genes with some of our ancestors. The study authors suggest that it was Homo erectus, one of the earliest human species, which first arose around 1.8 million years ago. (See also "Why Am I a Neanderthal?")"

Not all that unknown, then. Not footie, either.

No soup for you, two years.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Interesting that here you admit that knowing some DNA sequence is unknown provides an advantage yet on the other hand you claim there is no point in submitting your saliva sample for DNA sequencing because it will merely be unknown.

This contradiction has been apparent since you brought up the saliva sample and made excuses for not having it sequenced, but I thank you for making it so clear.

I don't know if this would qualify for the DNA thread or not, but if you have information on exactly what the mystery DNA sequence was or is, I'm sure that thread would be a good place for it.

I have no idea what the mystery DNA found at the Denisova site is, so I cannot comment with certainty. My samples, valid or not are not up for discussion. The only sample I mentioned in a reply to Shrike outlined specifically the sample was invalid. Anything made of that has been entirely speculation by others for whatever reason they may have. Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Not all that unknown, then. Not footie, either.

No soup for you, two years.

I suppose if the author had suggested it was Bigfoot, you'd accept that as well?
Gullibility doesn't suit you. And, I don't like soup. Chris B.

 

[Garrette]

I don't know if this would qualify for the DNA thread or not, but if you have information on exactly what the mystery DNA sequence was or is, I'm sure that thread would be a good place for it.

I have no idea what the mystery DNA found at the Denisova site is, so I cannot comment with certainty. My samples, valid or not are not up for discussion. The only sample I mentioned in a reply to Shrike outlined specifically the sample was invalid. Anything made of that has been entirely speculation by others for whatever reason they may have. Chris B.

I find it difficult to believe, given how well spoken you generally are, that you truly fail to see the point.

Your reasoning for keeping the sample "not up for discussion" (despite you being the one to bring it into the discussion) was that a finding of unknown DNA would not be helpful. Yet with the DNA involved in the Denisovan discussion the opposite is apparently true.

I have no idea what the Denisovan DNA is. That's the point; not any speculation I have on the matter.

 

[Resume]

I suppose if the author had suggested it was Bigfoot, you'd accept that as well?
Gullibility doesn't suit you. And, I don't like soup. Chris B.

The study's authors suggested it; you know, the scientists. It's your frikken link, didn't you read it?

Keep trying to pound a non-existent monkey into reality, it's fun to watch.

Also, it's intellectually dishonest to reference a link in an attempt to make some sort of obscure (dare I say confused) point, then disavow that reference when it's clearly obvious it doesn't make that point, but sorta the opposite. Just acqueisce already.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Thank you for "getting me up to speed." The fact that you tried to point us in the wrong direction is irrelevant, I guess.

It is usually best to not comment on things that you don't know very well, and it is especially important to avoid "double-downing" or trying to rationalize your prior incorrect statements least you dig yourself deeper.

Yep, you guys are smarter than me. Remember, you're dealing with a Hillbilly from KY, I just try to do the best with what I have.

It's a lucky thing for me the mystery DNA was at the bottom of the hole I dug.
Chris B.

 

[Garrette]

Yep, you guys are smarter than me. Remember, you're dealing with a Hillbilly from KY, I just try to do the best with what I have.

Playing the insulted victim doesn't fly. I'm a hillbilly from Kentucky. Born there, work there, have lots of relatives there. Currently living just across the border.

You know it's not about being smarter or claiming someone is not as smart. It's about evidence. The start of your appearance here was about such evidence. It's only when it became apparent that your claims of evidence did not withstand scrutiny that you retreated to where you are now: Not here to convince anybody or to provide any evidence.

It wasn't your game all along; you merely pretend it is now.

It's a lucky thing for me the mystery DNA was at the bottom of the hole I dug.
Chris B.

Nah. It was tossed in on top of you as you kept digging to find it. "Is this the stuff you mean? Even though it isn't where you said it was, and it isn't what you said it was?"

 

[Resume]

Yep, you guys are smarter than me. Remember, you're dealing with a Hillbilly from KY, I just try to do the best with what I have.

Hurt feelings card again.

It's a lucky thing for me the mystery DNA was at the bottom of the hole I dug.
Chris B.

No, it isn't.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

The study's authors suggested it; you know, the scientists. It's your frikken link, didn't you read it?

Keep trying to pound a non-existent monkey into reality, it's fun to watch.

Also, it's intellectually dishonest to reference a link in an attempt to make some sort of obscure (dare I say confused?) point, then disavow that reference when it's clearly obvious it doesn't make that point, but sorta the opposite.

I think there may be other "suggestions" about an identity too, but nobody knows for sure do they?

What's you accepting the author's speculation have to do with Bigfoot? To me, it has to do with being gullible.

I think you're getting back to Denisovan DNA VS unknown DNA again. I'm not interested in going back there, we've already arrived. Chris B.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I think the confusion was due to others pointing the discussion away from the unknown DNA toward the Denisovan DNA.

Are you actually trying to take us to task for trying to hijack your hijack back on topic?

"Gentleman can't a man talk about 15th Century Baroque Music in the 2016 Presidential Election Thread without a bunch of meanies trying to get me talk about the election?"

And no, I'm not here to prove Bigfoot exists for you. Please keep that in mind when addressing a post to or about me. Thanks, Chris B.

THEN WHY ARE YOU IN THE 'LATEST BIGFOOT EVIDENCE' THREAD!?

You spend half the thread claiming you know Bigfoot exists, get argued into a corner, and we supposed to believe that this whole Devonian Porcupine Nibbled Toe Mystery DNA sidetrack has nothing to do with it?

 

[Resume]

I think there may be other "suggestions" about an identity too, but nobody knows for sure do they?

Science is provisional.

What's you accepting the author's speculation have to do with Bigfoot? To me, it has to do with being gullible.

What's gullible about provisional acceptance of a hypothesis offered by experts? It's not like it's a campfire story about 9-ft monkey wandering around a third-growth Kentucky holler. Nothing like that.

I think you're getting back to Denisovan DNA VS unknown DNA again. I'm not interested in going back there, we've already arrived. Chris B.

What we're getting at is a confused point, poorly made.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Playing the insulted victim doesn't fly. I'm a hillbilly from Kentucky. Born there, work there, have lots of relatives there. Currently living just across the border.

You know it's not about being smarter or claiming someone is not as smart. It's about evidence. The start of your appearance here was about such evidence. It's only when it became apparent that your claims of evidence did not withstand scrutiny that you retreated to where you are now: Not here to convince anybody or to provide any evidence.

It wasn't your game all along; you merely pretend it is now.


Nah. It was tossed in on top of you as you kept digging to find it. "Is this the stuff you mean? Even though it isn't where you said it was, and it isn't what you said it was?"

I presented my pics/video here a very long time ago. You guys win, I completely admit they are not evidence of Bigfoot as they are too ambiguous to positively identify the subjects. What else do you expect from me? I don't have anything else to present here for your review. As far as what's been presented in the past here, you win.

As far as the unknown DNA sequence existing, I win. If you need to concentrate on the statement I made that the Neanderthal toe bone contained the unknown sequence first by all means please do. I was wrong about the Neanderthal toe bone containing the sequence and freely admit it. The Neanderthal toe bone sequencing simply allowed for the comparison to find the mystery DNA. Is there any doubt now a mystery DNA sequence was found other than the Denisovan type specimen DNA? Nope.
Chris B.

 

[carlitos]

What else do you expect from me?

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal » Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

 

[Garrette]

I presented my pics/video here a very long time ago. You guys win, I completely admit they are not evidence of Bigfoot as they are too ambiguous to positively identify the subjects. What else do you expect from me? I don't have anything else to present here for your review. As far as what's been presented in the past here, you win.

That's fair; I have no problem with that.

As far as the unknown DNA sequence existing, I win. If you need to concentrate on the statement I made that the Neanderthal toe bone contained the unknown sequence first by all means please do. I was wrong about the Neanderthal toe bone containing the sequence and freely admit it. The Neanderthal toe bone sequencing simply allowed for the comparison to find the mystery DNA. Is there any doubt now a mystery DNA sequence was found other than the Denisovan type specimen DNA? Nope.
Chris B.

First time you've admitted error here, but you still ignore my point. If there is mystery DNA (I don't care where it came from), its existence is of value regardless if we know what it represents.

Which gets to your saliva sample. Your defense of not submitting that sample because there is no value in getting back mystery DNA does not fly, and it does not fly based on your own arguments regarding the Denisovan issue.

It's not a complex issue. Unless you are now saying that the saliva sample isn't even possibly from Bigfoot, then submitting it for sequencing is the smart and scientific thing to do.

 

[Giordano]

Yep, you guys are smarter than me. Remember, you're dealing with a Hillbilly from KY, I just try to do the best with what I have.

It's a lucky thing for me the mystery DNA was at the bottom of the hole I dug.
Chris B.

Nope, I didn't question your "smarts" at all! Only your knowledge in this one area, in which you already noted that you got stuff wrong, even after denying repeated attempts by others to correct you. But I have no information on your knowledge basis in other areas.

I can't help but notice that you continue to post about the Denisovan DNA here, rather than in the relevant thread in Science. Perhaps we should just move the entire discussion to there?

 

[JoeMorgue]

You guys win, I completely admit they are not evidence of Bigfoot as they are too ambiguous to positively identify the subjects. What else do you expect from me? I don't have anything else to present here for your review. As far as what's been presented in the past here, you win.

What do we expect? For you to act like you actually believe that.

Giving you the Non-BLAARGing benefit of the doubt for the moment you were obviously trying to backdoor in some evidence for Bigfoot. You were playing the "Here's this mystery science can't solve... therefore Woo!" game. We've seen it a hundred times here on this board, we aren't gonna fall for it.

In your head the script went:

Ted: There is no evidence for Bigfoot.
Bob: Well here is this super mystery DNA... it could be anything...
Ted: Anything? You mean... OMG I totally get it! It could be anything... *gasp* Even Bigfoot! I understand now!

And you got frustrated when we didn't follow the script.

Again this isn't new to us. We've done this dance so many times I've lost count.

Assuming anything you've said in this thread has been on the up and up what it is you came in here claiming to have seen a Bigfoot and when the rest of us big mean skeptics didn't just take your word for it you tried harder and harder to dig yourself out of the whole, badly.

What we expect from someone who goes into a thread named "Latest Bigfoot Evidence" claiming to know for sure that Bigfoot exists is to actually provide some evidence for the existence of Bigfoot. Soooo unreasonable on our part.

 

[dmaker]

I have no idea what the mystery DNA found at the Denisova site is, so I cannot comment with certainty. My samples, valid or not are not up for discussion. The only sample I mentioned in a reply to Shrike outlined specifically the sample was invalid. Anything made of that has been entirely speculation by others for whatever reason they may have. Chris B.

My bold.

Chris, do you forget there is a search function here and some of us have memories? When you first mentioned this DNA sample, you said:

" I myself posses DNA samples that are possibly collected from a Bigfoot..."
(http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=223659&page=61)

You introduce it as possible bigfoot DNA and then accuse everyone else of doing so and with ulterior motive.

Try a little more honesty please.