Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

[William Parcher]

Sykes may turn out to be a gullible nutjob like Krantz was.

 

[Resume]

Yes, I understand why the need to be skeptical.

Then you should so do.

Do you understand how to be skeptical?

Yes, I understand, as you clearly do not. Accepting the Lindsay claim out of hand is certainly not skeptical. Not would acceptance of any claims made by Sykes before his data is thoroughly examined.

Your eagerness to serve a meal disserves you.

 

[Dinwar]

One primate sample that is not presently in the species DNA/Gene bank will do.

A sample of primate DNA that is unknown will do.

Bovine byproduct.

Bigfoot has, according to believers, specific traits. You need to demonstrate that the creature yeilding hte DNA has those traits. If it's a 4' tall monkey with a long prehensile tail and a strictly vegitarian diet, it may be new but it's not bigfoot. Furthermore, you need to prove it's native--if someone left an as-yet unknown ape out into the woods, it's not bigfoot.

There are strict rules to the game you're trying to play. They are outlined in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. You need to either follow them, or admit that you're not doing science. No middle ground is possible.

s, I understand why the need to be skeptical.

Do you understand how to be skeptical?

Good thing for me I'm not a skeptic. I'm merely a scientist who's described new species. I've done what you're trying to do (only with fossils rather than living things). And I can assure you you are making SERIOUS errors.

 

[tsig]

I invited all skeptics to a crow banquet but it seems like there are no takers? Why is that? There's something I vaguely remember about folks that won't admit being wrong, what was that? I can't remember.

Have fork, will travel.

 

[Resume]

One primate sample that is not presently in the species DNA/Gene bank will do.

A sample of primate DNA that is unknown will do.

That depends on the provenance of that sample. Primate doesn't = bigfoot. Dinwar can expand on this I'm sure.

ETA: He did.

 

[tsig]

No way!

The footers love losing. Every time. lol

As soon as the monkey is found there goes the fun out of footin'.

That's why the rule is "see bigfoot, flee bigfoot".

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Sykes may turn out to be a gullible nutjob like Krantz was.

It's a good thing Dr Sykes' field is DNA research. Although Dr. Krantz may have been mistaken about the Bossberg casts, he had a theory that Bigfoot is a modern relative of Giganto. I guess one with the type of views displayed on this forum may see him as gullible. The facts will determine whether or not that's a valid opinion.

 

[Drewbot]

I know everything I need to know about Lindsay. I'm not defending Robert Lindsay, only Dr. Sykes. And I stand by my statement. It's coming.

If the paper comes out titled:

UNKNOWN CRYPTID DNA SAMPLES YIELD RESULTS OF COMMON CREATURES

Will you then eat crow?

This will be a 'Positive' result. Positive in the sense that they confirmed their hypothesis.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Bovine byproduct.

Bigfoot has, according to believers, specific traits. You need to demonstrate that the creature yeilding hte DNA has those traits. If it's a 4' tall monkey with a long prehensile tail and a strictly vegitarian diet, it may be new but it's not bigfoot. Furthermore, you need to prove it's native--if someone left an as-yet unknown ape out into the woods, it's not bigfoot.

There are strict rules to the game you're trying to play. They are outlined in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. You need to either follow them, or admit that you're not doing science. No middle ground is possible.

Good thing for me I'm not a skeptic. I'm merely a scientist who's described new species. I've done what you're trying to do (only with fossils rather than living things). And I can assure you you are making SERIOUS errors.

If you're a scientist that has described new species then I'm sure you already know DNA will describe specific traits of the individual it came from.

I can tell the masses have pressed the worry button and are now attempting to discredit Dr Sykes even before the results are in.

So, how does that work if Sykes declares there is no Bigfoot? Then he becomes credible because he shares your view? Tricky isn't it.

 

[MikeG]

Sykes may turn out to be a gullible nutjob like Krantz was.

I'm afraid this says an awful lot more about you than it does about Sykes, who is one of the leading scientists in his field in the world. Very highly respected. Frankly, you ought to do better than this. If Sykes says he's found something, then he's found something, and the whole world will take notice.

Of course, this isn't going to be what he says, but you can't have it both ways. You can't respect him if he produces something that confirms your viewpoint, and disrespect him if he finds something which shows you, me, and the world, that we were wrong.

 

[Resume]

If you're a scientist that has described new species then I'm sure you already know DNA will describe specific traits of the individual it came from.

I can tell the masses have pressed the worry button and are now attempting to discredit Dr Sykes even before the results are in. So, how does that work if Sykes declares there is no Bigfoot? Then he becomes credible because he shares your view? Tricky isn't it.

How does the highlighted respond to Dinwar's post in any way?

ETA: One could also blame Melba Ketchum (DVM) for distrust regarding the DNA issue.

 

[Resume]

I'm afraid this says an awful lot more about you than it does about Sykes, who is one of the leading scientists in his field in the world. Very highly respected.

Wouldn't you agree though that you could say that about many folks in many fields who then come crashing down to earth due to human foibles? Not saying this is the case here but you see it often enough to wonder.

 

[MikeG]

Wouldn't you agree though that you could say that about many folks in many fields who then come crashing down to earth due to human foibles? Not saying this is the case here but you see it often enough to wonder.

Oh it's possible........but so is it possible that Richard Dawkins might declare himself a creationist. Or Robert Winston might come out in favour of divinely instigated virgin births. Vanishingly unlikely, in my view.

 

[Resume]

Oh it's possible........but so is it possible that Richard Dawkins might declare himself a creationist. Or Robert Winston might come out in favour of divinely instigated virgin births. Vanishingly unlikely, in my view.

What I'd like to know is how ChrisBFRPKY would react to a no-footie verdict from Sykes.

So Chris, what-what?

 

[The Shrike]

Krantz was at the top of his game when he got caught up in bigfootery, Mike. No one is immune to clouded woo-think, no matter how accomplished they might be. As James Randi can explain with multiple examples, great scientists can actually be more prone than other folks to being duped by the unscrupulous because the scientists assume everyone is as honest as they are. If you consider the provenance of whatever sources of alleged bigfoot DNA Sykes has in his possession, it's pretty easy to see that he's been in contact with some less than reputable characters on this project.

When and if Sykes ever publishes a paper on his bigfoot work I'll pass some actual judgment. Until then, I consider it very much a possibility that he could be duped by bigfooters or himself have been sucked into the woo vortex.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

How does the highlighted respond to Dinwar's post in any way?

ETA: One could also blame Melba Ketchum (DVM) for distrust regarding the DNA issue.

The portion you highlighted wasn't intended to specifically answer the post from Dinwar.

The first paragraph that was not highlighted was for Dinwar. DNA will provide the traits of the species in question. I didn't go much further because as a scientist, Dinwar should know the rest by heart.

I will go ahead and add:

The only thing missing for science will be the type specimen. So one may argue the DNA does not come from Bigfoot specifically, then the only fact left is one must admit there is DNA evidence to confirm that another as yet unknown primate besides Bigfoot is roaming the forests of North America and elsewhere in the World.

 

[Drewbot]

Shrike brings up a point
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/03/opinion-randi-magic-scientists/

Why magicians should be involved in science.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

What I'd like to know is how ChrisBFRPKY would react to a no-footie verdict from Sykes.

So Chris, what-what?

Well, that would seem to be tied directly to the evidence that was submitted wouldn't it. I can't comment on it one way or the other at this time. I guess when the study is finished we'll see the reactions from both sides won't we.

 

[MikeG]

.......Until then, I consider it very much a possibility that he could be duped by bigfooters or himself have been sucked into the woo vortex.

All fair points, The Shrike, but I just don't get this bit: How do you fake DNA?

It doesn't matter what on earth people say to him, or what they give him. He is looking at DNA, and that isn't fake-able. And of course it isn't just him. He not only has colleagues working on this, but he also has to go through a proper peer review process. Even if he were duped, and even if he misread something in the DNA, there will be half a dozen incredulous and able minds looking at it quizzically before it ever gets published. It's right to keep your powder dry on this one, but ultimately DNA is a whole different ball game to any other form of science that has ever been done in bigfootery.

Mike

 

[dmaker]

Well, that would seem to be tied directly to the evidence that was submitted wouldn't it. I can't comment on it one way or the other at this time. I guess when the study is finished we'll see the reactions from both sides won't we.

Can't comment one way or the other at this time? Except for your earlier insinuation that skeptics will not admit when they are wrong? I guess you should retract that earlier statement until the study is finished, no?