Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

Status
Not open for further replies.
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I'm starting to think you know more about chicken farming than you do about describing species.
Click to expand...
That's because of your hopeless ignorance. If you'd bother to learn biology, you'd see that I actually know quite a bit. There are better folks on this forum (haven't seen the mite guy around for a while, sadly), but I'm not bad, if I do say so myself. Again, I've actually done it--which means while YOU may not like the state of my knowledge, experts in the field do.

First, your observations about DNA from dung. The only things I've determined from dung is diet and parasitic identification or infection.
Click to expand...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/07/980721081204.htm

You are wrong. Demonstrably so.

The fun part will be to see if you admit it--you've made such as stink about skeptics admitting error, after all, that we can only expect you to humbly admit you were wrong. I'm not betting on it.

Second, Blood contains TONS of DNA. Your suggestion otherwise is incompetent.
Click to expand...
Nope. Mammalian blood is predominantly red blood cells, which lack nuclei. Only white blood cells have nuclei, and they aren't nearly as numerous. This is fourth-grade biology stuff; pick up any Health Class textbook in the USA and you'll see it. There IS DNA in blood, but not nearly as much as you suggest. It's not impossible to get DNA out of blood, certainly, but it's just about the last choice for dobily fluids in regards to DNA analysis.

See what I did there? I supported my conclusion with evidence. Please begin to do so in this thread. Your tactic of mere assertions is becoming tiresome.

Incredible if accurate.
Click to expand...
This is standard stuff. It's about as incredible as orbiting a planet--yes, the technological achievement is astounding, but it's hardly new. My boss was doing this stuff in the 1980s, and it was considered routine then.

Drewbot said:
I think we can assume Dr. Sykes has 'sufficient background knowledge' and 'adequate laboratory protocols' in place.
Click to expand...
Probably, regarding the laboratory protocols. As for sufficient background information, you'd be surprised how often people don't. My company routinely ships out samples we simply don't have the expertise to deal with, and many researchers are adverse to admitting they don't know something. Sad, but unfortunately true.

Dr. John Hawks when asked "If you had DNA from an unclassified animal,would you be able to use those results to place where it belongs in phylogenetic tree?"

Answered: 'Yes, that would be no problem at all.'
Click to expand...
Again, biologists tend, in my opinion, to over-estimate the utility of DNA evidence. I'm not saying they WILL in this case; I'm withholding judgement. I'm merely presenting potential problems that may arise. Again, the math WILL return a result; it cannot do otherwise. The issue, as I said, is interpreting the result. And we still have serious trouble placing known species in phylogenetic trees (check out early rodent evolution, for example).
 
None of the sources would tell me this in so many words, but they certainly implied that the findings would be positive. So I am looking forward to publication of the study. On the other hand, it is possible though not likely that the sources are all wrong and the study could be negative.
Click to expand...

The rest of Lindsay's post on Sykes.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Incredible if accurate.

Now, about the snip, Google DNA and Blood and let me know how that goes.
Click to expand...
You googled for it?
You found the articles?
You read them?
You admit your comment on poo and DNA was completely wrong and you had no idea of what you were talking about? You admit it was a comment made out of ignorance, that you assumed, believed you knew enough about the subject to cast a sweeping, definitive statement which was quickly shown to be completely flawed?

Regarding the blood, what about you reading Dimwar's reply and then doing some googling on DNA samples, ids, tusks and see the recent results? Say, of today at BBC Science?

After that, consider also this- what's easier to obtain from a real animal living in the wilderness (or at the 'burbs): dung, hair, bones, teeth or blood?

Just another bigfootery SNAFU. It seems there's an endless supply of them.

Stick your head outside of the mud of bigfootery information swamp. There's a whole real world out there.
 
LTC8K6 said:
It looks like Sykes got at least one sample that was also in Ketchum's study.
Click to expand...

That'll be interesting! I've already heard privately from Prof Sykes regarding Ketchum. I suspect that his paper might be quite a painful experience for the Texas vet.

Mike
 
LTC8K6 said:
Sykes actually took samples from Smeja's boots, which is a little worrisome given the ridiculous story...

Sykes may indeed have gone down the rabbit hole.
Click to expand...

Why do you see the world this way?

If you were in Sykes' position, wouldn't you take every single little piece of stuff put in front of you, particularly if so much weight were attached to it by the proponents? So that when you have slated the whole idea of BF, found absolutely nothing, the footers couldn't turn to you and say....."yebbut, you didn't test this bit of sold-gold evidence", "you didn't do the job properly".

I just sense a campaign to reduce the Prof's credibility, simply because he associated himself with the field. That is counter-productive for the sceptical viewpoint. Don't you want solid information?

As I said before, you can't have it both ways. He can't be of unimpeachable integrity if he supports your viewpoint, and a woo-meister if he comes out in support of the existence of a NA biped other than man. Wreck his reputation now, as some here seem to want to do, and then his destruction of the footer's evidence is utterly worthless.

Mike

Oh, and BTW, I know the results from that boot.
 
MikeG said:
Why do you see the world this way?

If you were in Sykes' position, wouldn't you take every single little piece of stuff put in front of you, particularly if so much weight were attached to it by the proponents? So that when you have slated the whole idea of BF, found absolutely nothing, the footers couldn't turn to you and say....."yebbut, you didn't test this bit of sold-gold evidence", "you didn't do the job properly".

I just sense a campaign to reduce the Prof's credibility, simply because he associated himself with the field. That is counter-productive for the sceptical viewpoint. Don't you want solid information?

As I said before, you can't have it both ways. He can't be of unimpeachable integrity if he supports your viewpoint, and a woo-meister if he comes out in support of the existence of a NA biped other than man. Wreck his reputation now, as some here seem to want to do, and then his destruction of the footer's evidence is utterly worthless.

Mike

Oh, and BTW, I know the results from that boot.
Click to expand...

I never said he was of unimpeachable integrity.

I think I considered him a believer when I first heard of him and his activities.

If I were Sykes, I would not waste valuable resources on samples that are unlikely to be productive.

My guess is that the boot sample was not selected for DNA testing.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
Anyone read the latest Bigfoot news from Robert Lindsay? He claims to have sources that say Sykes will prove Bigfoot beyond a shadow of a doubt this fall. He also has sources that say Dyer shot a Bigfoot and that a team of scientists have inspected it :D
Click to expand...


You haven't learned this yet? It's always right around the corner! lol
 
Which samples were not selected? Who got their samples returned? Sykes must have weeded out a few and returned them. No reason for this to be a secret as the samples are not involved in the report.
 
I wonder if he used the finger bone from the yeti that was smuggled out by Jimmy Stewart.
 
Correa Neto said:
You googled for it?
You found the articles?
You read them?
You admit your comment on poo and DNA was completely wrong and you had no idea of what you were talking about? You admit it was a comment made out of ignorance, that you assumed, believed you knew enough about the subject to cast a sweeping, definitive statement which was quickly shown to be completely flawed?

Regarding the blood, what about you reading Dimwar's reply and then doing some googling on DNA samples, ids, tusks and see the recent results? Say, of today at BBC Science?

After that, consider also this- what's easier to obtain from a real animal living in the wilderness (or at the 'burbs): dung, hair, bones, teeth or blood?

Just another bigfootery SNAFU. It seems there's an endless supply of them.

Stick your head outside of the mud of bigfootery information swamp. There's a whole real world out there.
Click to expand...

Whoa Nellie. OK I was willing to let it slide but let's get some stuff clear right now.

Dinwar said:
Snip We can rule out blood; it's a horrible source for DNA, and if Sykes used it I'd feel comfortable dismissing it without further consideration (the issue is the paucity of nuclei in mammalian blood). The mere fact that the guy has DNA in no way ensures that he has some identifiable remains.
Click to expand...

Bolding mine. My reply:

Second, Blood contains TONS of DNA. Your suggestion otherwise is incompetent. There is no other excuse. There's not alot you're gonna tell me about blood or bloodborne diseases my friend. That's just the way it is. I think you stepped in that "Dung" on this one.
Click to expand...

This is funny. He really thinks "blood is a horrible source for DNA" ? He'd "feel comfortable dismissing" Sykes' findings if he used blood huh?

This is rich indeed. He has absolutely slipped and exposed either a complete lack of scientific knowledge or completely incompetent as a scientist. (even a self proclaimed one) Period. Maybe if he had paid more attention to what he was typing on the subjects covered instead of concentrating on petty insults toward me it may have been a longer lasting ruse.

I'm sorry but the ruse is up. You and he are officially wrong. Period. It's impossible for him to be a competent scientist. Fact. Sling mud all you want but his statements are incompetent.

I normally don't like to catch people in "gotcha" moments, but I've learned something here and this time it's a real treat.

"Gotcha"

To refresh your memory so there can be no error, I said:

First, your observations about DNA from dung. The only things I've determined from dung is diet and parasitic identification or infection. From my understanding dung is a poor choice for DNA extraction as the degradation is accelerated.
Click to expand...

Dung is a poor choice for DNA extraction, blood is much better. The fact you've been able to Google a study about some ancient poop supposedly had some historical DNA recovered. Doesn't change this.

In fact I'll bet the "dung" samples were contaminated with modern human DNA or animal DNA. Likely the study is bogus.

I've only used "dung" for the previous mentioned tests to determine the health and diet of a subject only. And it is a poor choice for DNA sampling due to rapid degradation. As science progresses I'm sure better techniques will become available.

This last reply by me is fact look it up. I base my posts on my experience, past and present knowledge. The man is obviously grasping at straws to portay something he's not.

Second, Blood contains TONS of DNA. Your suggestion otherwise is incompetent. There is no other excuse. There's not alot you're gonna tell me about blood or bloodborne diseases my friend. That's just the way it is. I think you stepped in that "Dung" on this one.
Click to expand...

This is the one that says it all. There's a reason I'm able to spot "self proclaimed scientists" as being knowledgeable or full of "dung."
 
Last edited:
Blood contains mostly red-blood cells.
Red Blood cells do not contain DNA.

Tissue is the easiest way to do what you want. That is why DNA labs use cheek swabs to test humans for DNA. This is why Herpetologists take a scale from a snake, it is why Ichthyologists take a core sample from a shark. You are incredibly mistaken again. And calling out a respected biologist with your BFF-learned DNA expertise.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
Anyone read the latest Bigfoot news from Robert Lindsay? He claims to have sources that say Sykes will prove Bigfoot beyond a shadow of a doubt this fall. He also has sources that say Dyer shot a Bigfoot and that a team of scientists have inspected it :D
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah, blahlbah, proof available in janury blahblah.

Why not now, filmed and photographied and shown ? welllllllll he needs time to make up an excuse on why the men in black stole his big foot corpse, or he needs time time to make up a good hoax from various body animals part, or fake furs. take your pick.
 
Drewbot said:
Blood contains mostly red-blood cells.
Red Blood cells do not contain DNA.

Tissue is the easiest way to do what you want. That is why DNA labs use cheek swabs to test humans for DNA. This is why Herpetologists take a scale from a snake, it is why Ichthyologists take a core sample from a shark. You are incredibly mistaken again. And calling out a respected biologist with your BFF-learned DNA expertise.
Click to expand...

I'm mistaken? Try these on for size:

http://www.ehow.com/about_5098709_dna-blood-testing.html

http://www.protocol-online.org/prot...Blood-Stored-at-4-C-for-Long-Period-4175.html

http://www.lifetechnologies.com/us/...tion-protocols/dna-extraction-from-blood.html

http://www.ehow.com/how_5744259_separate-dna-white-blood-cells.html

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00590.htm

Need I say more? Respected Biologist? And you have proof of this? I'd really like to see the credentials of a Biologist that would make such statements.

No, when one makes such claims it is either from a lack of education in the field or complete incompetence of the subject. There is no third way.

You have been taken for a ride. I will not be. When I am mistaken I will admit it. When I am not, I stand my ground. It's a fact set in concrete that my position on Blood is set in concrete. Whether you acknowledge that fact or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom