Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Bigfoot DNA?

Posted Nov 30, '12 at 11:20am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,082 posts

Knight

"suggests that the legendary Sasquatch is a human relative that arose approximately 15,000 years ago as a hybrid cross of modern Homo sapiens with an unknown primate species."

They clearly suggest the hybridisation happened long ago and led to a stable species they call sasquatch and apparently is the origin of the sample. Enough time for both the "sasquatch" and the unknown primate species to go extinct.

 

Posted Nov 30, '12 at 12:17pm

bob5442

bob5442

30 posts

It is possibly true I mean I believe in bigfoot!

 

Posted Nov 30, '12 at 3:18pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,591 posts

It is possibly true I mean I believe in bigfoot!

Something is possibly true just because you believe in it. Things either are or aren't, and while we may not know which is which in every instance, our individual beliefs don't affect reality.

 

Posted Nov 30, '12 at 3:19pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,591 posts

Something is possibly true just because you believe in it.

Isn't*...

Change date stamp 4 times? Check.

Add edit button? Nope.

 

Posted Nov 30, '12 at 4:08pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,691 posts

Knight

They clearly suggest the hybridisation happened long ago and led to a stable species they call sasquatch and apparently is the origin of the sample. Enough time for both the "sasquatch" and the unknown primate species to go extinct.

It also states that they need to be protected from those who will go out to hunt trap and kill them. This indicates they are talking about something still alive today and a belief that there is more than one.

"Government at all levels must recognize them as an indigenous people and immediately protect their human and Constitutional rights against those who would see in their physical and cultural differences a ‘license’ to hunt, trap, or kill them."

 

Posted Nov 30, '12 at 4:24pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,082 posts

Knight

Ya, I think ultimately it all boils down to what that ominous hair sample is exactly, where they got it from and all that. I'm really curious to hear about that, especially keeping in mind that the "yeti scalps" hoarded by tibetian monks where found to be made from local goat hair (distinctly nonhuman, non-ancestral hominin, and non-recent primate).

 

Posted Nov 30, '12 at 8:11pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,691 posts

Knight

This might shed some light as to the source of the hair.

"…we developed a theory of how to subtly take hair off the biped without causing injury and to continue to take their hair without them knowing it was occurring, it worked. It has worked dozens of times in several states across North America. Our system involved getting the root with the hair, as a bigfoot hair without a root is useless for DNA extraction."
http://doubtfulnews.com/2011/11/the-sta … roduce-it/

Sounds to me that they are saying they plucked this hair right off the Bigfoot. (Bigfoots, Bigfeet?)

Melba Ketchum announces Bigfoot DNA results. Without the data.

"What is wrong with story? Oh, where to begin…

We don’t know who the team of scientists is. Melba has been silent. The collected data is suspect, the analysis is suspect, the conclusions are suspect. EVERYTHING is suspect because there is no data for anyone else to examine, the procedure and results have not yet been published and there is NO OTHER reliable physical evidence, traces or history of such an indigenous people.

To make such an extraordinary claim is to put yourself out on such a long, unstable limb! It is not how science is done, it’s how pseudoscience is done. But, let’s just say that Dr. K has results and is confident in them. She sure is in a pickle now because there is still NO paper and no hint of when or where it will be published. Much is going on behind the scenes that the interested public is not privy to. To be practical, this announcement gets us absolutely NO further to a Bigfoot discovery than yesterday or the day before. It’s still vaporware. No paper, no data, no body, no Bigfoot.

As a background, this is a long and horribly confusing and ridiculous story about how and from whom the samples were collected, who is leaking info to whom, Melba’s encounters with a family of Bigfoots, firing of publicists, rumors of publishing in Nature, promises, promises, promises… All of that will be WIPED away if only there is produced actual solid evidence of the incredible claims. The current attitude of many Bigfooters is extreme skepticism of Dr. K’s claims. It’s just been too weird of a trip. It’s also been highly unprofessional the way the whole story has played out. And so this press release continues that trend."

 

Posted Nov 30, '12 at 8:25pm

blk2860

blk2860

4,417 posts

I'm the least skeptical person about ANYTHING and yet I'm skeptical about bigfoot, I'm honestly surprised that they even have the slightest proof. Giant footprints aren't proof, those are easy to fake.

 

Posted Dec 1, '12 at 8:44am

partydevil

partydevil

5,109 posts

Right now they are just making a claim and not showing their work.

no true scientists.
all (most) scientists want to discover something that can change something in the world. if they really would have discovered something like that then they would love to give it to the public. and not hide it.
my guess is that they blow it up. sell some books and stuff on it and are just scammers. that keep the scam of bigfoot going.
people are intrigued by the story of bigfoot to start whit and will want to buy their crap. so they probably will succeed.

 

Posted Dec 4, '12 at 12:27pm

JK12345

JK12345

5 posts

*rofl* Bigfoot DNA *rotflmfao*

(Sorry, but i cannot take this topic serious)

 
Reply to Bigfoot DNA?

You must be logged in to post a reply!