FREE TAPATALK APP

calwaterbear · 24th May 2012, 07:48 AM

first it's different than Melbas, because it is open. Heres the dates, heres what we plan, heres our standards etc. beyond that, the results will be the results, not a protracted muddled attempt to try and crowbar unwanted results into some sort of suitable explanation that fits your preconcieved biases!

In my communication with Sykes, he is going after hair because it is the easiest sample to "sterilize" (My term) it, ie you need to remove the human DNA contamination. essentially you can think of the hair as a natural test tube, the human handlers DNA is all over the outside of the tube, the specimens DNA is inside. So if you can strip off all the human DNA, then get inside the hair, you will get the DNA. While this is the advantage of using hair, it is also the weakpoint, as the hair is much more likely to be contaminated than tissue or fluid samples that have been collected properly.

Sykes did bring up a very valid point, with contamination being an issue, how many times has a sample been declared human because of unknown contamination? Of course he just provided every BF believer the newest Immediate response if their samples come out wrong! To bad Melba never thought of that one - she could have blamed the collectors of her data.

In this case however, using hair will pretty much eliminate the human DNA explanation, both because of cleaning techniques, but also just the hair morphology!
Alot of these hair samples probably originate from museum collections of mammals where someone clipped of a bit of hair from a maned wolf or a mooses dew lap. That specimen has been in the museum being touched and moved for 50 years, so it accumulates alot of human DNA.

The other good part of this study is that typically the results will be known for what it is. sykes will get gorrilla and yak and bear (lots of bear) results.

Anyway, i hope that answers your questions Jodie. Will this study prove there is a bigfoot? nope, never will without a type specimen. will it put a dagger in the heart of many BF legends - yes, but only to those with open minds and logical thought processes!
The other alternative - most interesting, but also extremely unlikely, would be a set of many samples from all over the world that have consistencies in the DNA sequences, that are not known from other animals. Would that prove Bigfoot? Nope! but it would start us wondering, and looking for more actual evidence.

So we swill have to wait and see, but at least we know how long we have to wait!
WB

Originally Posted by Jodie

How is this study different than Melba's? The only thing I see that might possibly be different based on the rumor mill is the hypothesis. Wouldn't the process of elimination essentially be the same whether you are looking for an extent primate in NA or at the genetic relationship between hominids and primates?

Why primarily hair? Is it because you can eliminate contamination more easily? I found this article so it makes me question once again what primers are going to be used.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8435317.stm

"To take animal studies on cave bears, for example, if we use PCR primers specific for human DNA on cave bear bones, we can retrieve modern human DNA on almost every one. That has made me think: 'how can I trust anything on this'."

Ahhh , here it is, it says hair is less prone to fungal growth. Maybe that is why hair was chosen.

httphttp://www.scientificamerican.co...t-human-genome

parnassus · 24th May 2012, 08:22 AM

CalWB:

if you happen to get a chance, please ask Dr. Sykes to confirm the story that

Quote:

One well publicized expedition to Bhutan reported that a hair sample had been obtained that, after DNA analysis by Professor Bryan Sykes, could not be matched to any known animal. Analysis completed after the media release, however, clearly showed that the samples were from the Brown bear (Ursus arctos) and the Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus), which was documented in : Chandler, H.C. (2003). Using Ancient DNA to Link Culture and Biology in Human Populations. Unpublished D.Phil. thesis. University of Oxford, Oxford.

calwaterbear · 24th May 2012, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by parnassus

CalWB:

if you happen to get a chance, please ask Dr. Sykes to confirm the story that

Hey Parn,
actually that very case came up as we talked (typed ) about contamination. His grad student did the work. early on they had all sorts of issues with human contamination, precisely because it had been handled so much. Once they finally got it stripped off, the DNA was clearly from the 2 species of bear!
CWB.

PS Parn, check your PM. If you can send me an email, I will fill you in a bit on this case!

TheJackal · 24th May 2012, 09:40 AM

Even if they determine that there is a common characteristic of an unknown primate in several of the samples they collect, that doesn't necessarily indicate that we are looking at a broadly distributed species. The problem the study will still have is provenance. As devil's advocate, one could argue that someone has obtained a hair sample of a yet discovered primate from Southeast Asia or the Republic of Congo. That same individual is passing the hair sample off as "Bigfoot" with incredible stories of habituation, etc. There is nothing that prevents said individual from sending portions of the sample to his other "Squatch Bretheren" and having them submit it from elsewhere in the US or World with another incredible story of shooting one on a forest road, for instance. Yes, maybe they truly have an interesting hair sample, but it's meaningless in terms of discovering a new species, because you have no control over the collection or provenance of the sample. Without the body, all of this would essentially result in an unknown primate, and for most scientists would be met with a collective yawn. Now, this whole scenario is based upon the fact that they obtain even one unusual sample.

The end game of the study is obviously to support an upcoming Meldrum Bigfoot special as additional "proof" of an unknown North American Primate. Otherwise, there really isn't much point in the study without a body.

Jodie · 24th May 2012, 09:50 AM

Yes, you answered my questions very well, thank you, and I agree on the provenance issue.

So at most, is mtDNA all he will be able to extract from the hair samples?

I guess it remains to be seen if he stays on schedule. If he can't, I'ld prefer he not use the word "soon" in any explanation that might be forthcoming.

calwaterbear · 24th May 2012, 09:51 AM

You may be right on this. However, In my opinion, you are committing the same scientific methodology fallacy as BF believers in your declaration: The end game of the study is obviously to support an upcoming Meldrum Bigfoot special as additional "proof" of an unknown North American Primate.
You have projected your personal bias and have already indicated that you will have no regard for the results of the study, unless presumambly it helps you support your personal agenda.

Lets wait and see how this turns out. And if it turns out like I think it might, you will be reminded of this post! by me! as an example of putting your personal agenda front and center, without any evidence!

Originally Posted by TheJackal

Even if they determine that there is a common characteristic of an unknown primate in several of the samples they collect, that doesn't necessarily indicate that we are looking at a broadly distributed species. The problem the study will still have is provenance. As devil's advocate, one could argue that someone has obtained a hair sample of a yet discovered primate from Southeast Asia or the Republic of Congo. That same individual is passing the hair sample off as "Bigfoot" with incredible stories of habituation, etc. There is nothing that prevents said individual from sending portions of the sample to his other "Squatch Bretheren" and having them submit it from elsewhere in the US or World with another incredible story of shooting one on a forest road, for instance. Yes, maybe they truly have an interesting hair sample, but it's meaningless in terms of discovering a new species, because you have no control over the collection or provenance of the sample. Without the body, all of this would essentially result in an unknown primate, and for most scientists would be met with a collective yawn. Now, this whole scenario is based upon the fact that they obtain even one unusual sample.

The end game of the study is obviously to support an upcoming Meldrum Bigfoot special as additional "proof" of an unknown North American Primate. Otherwise, there really isn't much point in the study without a body.

TheJackal · 24th May 2012, 10:03 AM

Yes, it is my personal bias, and opinion. What other end result do you anticipate ? They publish a paper that states unknown primate. It neither proves nor disproves the existence of Bigfoot. It neither proves or disproves a large geographical dispersion of said unknown primate. All I can figure, and yes, this is my bias and opinion, is that it's something Bleevers can point at and say "look, they proved Bigfoot exists". Feel free to bring up my words when the paper is published. It's one man's opinion. Plus, I will read the report along with everyone else and draw my own conclusion. Will it be personally biased, sure. Will it change my mind, maybe. The problem is that everyone will draw their own conclusion, especially if all that is proven is "unknown primate."

calwaterbear · 24th May 2012, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by Jodie

Yes, you answered my questions very well, thank you, and I agree on the provenance issue.

So at most, is mtDNA all he will be able to extract from the hair samples?

I guess it remains to be seen if he stays on schedule. If he can't, I'ld prefer he not use the word "soon" in any explanation that might be forthcoming.

Well he is specifically going after mDNA because it is more plentiful and easier to get, and it does contain the genes he wants, which are in all mammals , just dirrerent forms (other animals too). if he found something of interest, he could go back to the same sample (good form to only use part of a sample, usually even a small sample can be worked with, so you use some, and save some, anyway if there was something of interest you would go back to that sample - first to confirm your results, then to move on. You could get nDNA just for this study, at least the prelims, no real need for it!

Jodie · 24th May 2012, 10:15 AM

I hope people have better things to do than mail hair samples all over the world to each other claiming they are from bigfoot.

To me seeing bigfoot and then finding a hair ball in the vicinity is questionable in regards to provenance. What exactly does Dr. Sykes mean when he says he will establish provenance?

Is he only taking samples where they see the bigfoot rub up on something that could possibly snag hair? Or samples only from some kind of hair trap?

Drewbot · 24th May 2012, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by Jodie

What exactly does Dr. Sykes mean when he says he will establish provenance?

I think you are now seeing the obstacles a real scientist, attempting to find DNA samples of a non-existent beast must overcome.

Now let's try to guess what his paper title will be:

ALLEGED 'CRYPTOZOOLOGICAL' HAIR SAMPLES ARE OF EXISTING CREATURES INCLUDING HUMAN.

ABSTRACT: Reviews multiple submissions from witnesses claiming they have samples from various Unclassified, bipedal primates, classifies results of DNA testing on these samples, shows the relationship between possible hoaxes, and blatant misidentifications. Why were the bulk of the samples of human origin? Evaluates submissions based on geographical location of alleged samples.

or another:

SHOULD SCIENCE TAKE SIGHTINGS OF UNCLASSIFIED BIPEDAL PRIMATES MORE SERIOUSLY?

ABSTRACT: Analyses multiple samples of alleged Unclassified Bipedal Primates, for DNA, attempts to correlate the stories of the samples' provenance with how the DNA test resulted for each sample. Some of the stories of the collection of the sample involve incredible encounters with upright hairy bipedal creatures, but the DNA results came back as common animals or indeed simply human. Quantifies the results of the DNA testing with regard to geographic location, distribution of actual sample results with regard to resultant species, and examines whether scientific resources should continue to be devoted to finding these mythological creatures.

TheJackal · 24th May 2012, 11:10 AM

Cal, I am not arguing to be an ass, but I have to wonder, what hypothesis is he testing ? Also, who is providing funding for the study ? That to me would indicate what the endgame of the study. I just can't see starting out testing a bunch of hair knowing that all you will likely end up with, if lucky, is an unknown primate of unknown origin of unknown distribution that shares many DNA characteristics with other large modern primates. I just don't see how that turns science on it's ear. Yes, that is my bias and opinion.

parnassus · 24th May 2012, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by calwaterbear

You may be right on this. However, In my opinion, you are committing the same scientific methodology fallacy as BF believers in your declaration: The end game of the study is obviously to support an upcoming Meldrum Bigfoot special as additional "proof" of an unknown North American Primate.
You have projected your personal bias and have already indicated that you will have no regard for the results of the study, unless presumambly it helps you support your personal agenda.

Lets wait and see how this turns out. And if it turns out like I think it might, you will be reminded of this post! by me! as an example of putting your personal agenda front and center, without any evidence!

With all due respect, Jackal, I think your crystal ball is cloudy. Mine, and the tea leaves, together with my rapier-like intellect and many years of experience in matters of science and experiment design, predict a rather different outcome.

TheJackal · 24th May 2012, 11:33 AM

Parn, you're killing me. I apparently will be returning my now defective crystal ball, and will resort to my Tarot Cards.

RayG · 24th May 2012, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by calwaterbear

If you can send me an email, I will fill you in a bit on this case!

Can you post it here? Time and again bigfoot proponents have trumpeted the Bhutan 'unknown' hair as though it were indisputable fact.

That seems to happen a lot in Bigfootery.

RayG

calwaterbear · 24th May 2012, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by RayG

Can you post it here? Time and again bigfoot proponents have trumpeted the Bhutan 'unknown' hair as though it were indisputable fact.

That seems to happen a lot in Bigfootery.

RayG

Ray, i really don't think I can, professional courtesies. I have no difficulty in telling you what he says, I do not however feel empowered to release his email to the public, that would have to be his call.

He's not hard to find, have you tried contacting him directly?

But it would be really simple to track down. Anyone could walk into Oxfords library, pull the thesis in question off the shelf and read it/ copy it. or It could also be obtained from Interlibrary loan.

You are right, it happens alot, mostly because the believers don't want to know, and many of the non belivers would rather bitch and philosophize and listen to themselves talk, instead of doing a bit of leg work.
CWB

calwaterbear · 25th May 2012, 07:37 AM

Several of you have brought up concerns for the provenance issue. Where did this sample come from, how was it obtained, who had custody of it, how do you know it is bigfoot etc.

Many seem to be concerned that this is an avenue that could be expoited by hoaxers.

In my opinion, this is one of the best parts of Sykes study. The providers of the sample provide the backstory of the sample. This would seem to be a real flaw.

But we need to think a bit deeper on this. so lets say you get 15 smples where people are acertaining that they know it's BF DNA. They saw them laying in the bed, watched em playing etc - whatever. The more concrete and certain the story is, the bigger the fall when the sample comes back bear, or giant anteater, whatever. The result would directly discredit the provenance story. Essentially, science disproves their story. In that case of course, they will have to blame Dr. Sykes, accusing him of hoax, thats strange, a guy working with Meldrum is covering up evidence of Big Foot? how and why would that happen?

I think this is a brilliant study!

Jackal,
In response to your question, of how I thought this study might turn out, I thought I had been quite clear on that, but then again, that would require reading 2 or even 3 posts to figure it out. So I think sykes will get several good samples with people being sure their samples are bigfoot, because they saw it with their own 2 eyes etc. those will all be systematically shot down, IDed as dog or bear or Yak, or whatever.

More interesting to me however is your scenario! let me get this straight. You think someone who is sitting on an unknown primate, from some other continent, will sneak samples of their animal to various people and ask them to submit it? huh? to prove some unknown primate in North America?
wow! pretty spectacular conspiracy theory.

First of all multiple samples from the same individual animal are easily detected. So it would be very easy to figure out that many people are sending in the same sample, that alone would expose the hoax!

why wouldn't the possesor of such sample simply write up their discovery in a scientific journal? The finding of a previously unknown primate is pretty big, particularly when it is not a simple splitting off a sub species or discovering a cryptic species (essentially a group that based on morphology has been previously lumped into one species, but current DNA and new information would identify that the group is in fact 2 distinct species).

In your scenario they give up their credibility, and their truely significant scientific discovery to become part of a big foot hoax?
wow!

Drewbot · 25th May 2012, 07:40 AM

Evidently Calwaterbear has me on ignore...

TheJackal · 25th May 2012, 07:48 AM

Calwater, my argument was a scenario that you could argue that the spread of an unknown primate would be unknown, because there is no way to control the sample collection. If you want to sit here and pick apart words, great. With the scenario I stated, the conspirator is trying to "prove" the existence of Bigfoot, not an unknown primate in the Congo. It really doesn't create the same "stir" to find a primate in the Congo versus the United States does it ? The issue is that you can create any number of scenarios around provenance to discredit almost any result. That was the point of the post. Nothing more, nothing less.

Since you dodged the question .... who is funding the study ?

Drewbot · 25th May 2012, 07:52 AM

Finding Bigfoot probably. Dr. John Hawks says:

Originally Posted by Dr. John Hawks at his weblog

Neither the BBC nor the Oxford website report on whether a new television program or other media enterprise is helping to fund their work, as has often been the case with cryptozoology investigations involving geneticists in the U.S.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/c...nter-2012.html

calwaterbear · 25th May 2012, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

Evidently Calwaterbear has me on ignore...

what do you want drewbot? i was planning on dealing with you personally when i visit the Detroit area in early/mid july. assuming the humidity doesn't kill me.
I'm going to spend several days looking for bigfoot in the forests of northern LP. after that i'm going out on some island looking for them! You might think i was only riding dirt bikes on the Michigan CCC trail, and camping out with family, but thats where you would be wrong! thats my cover story!

I didn't know you wanted me to comment on something? so I guess I need to go back and see what chu talking about Willis!

parnassus · 25th May 2012, 08:39 AM

Cal,
let me give you some of my thoughts as background. The first and foremost thing one must understand is that proof is not paramount in a faith-based belief system. Rather, maintenance of the belief system is paramount. One has to understand that, in order to understand cults in general and bigfootery in particular. They have done (and will do) just fine without proof of the existence of bigfoot, because they think they already have the proof. If one doesn't understand that, one won't understand the whole thing. They are just fine with "you can't prove a negative."

calwaterbear · 25th May 2012, 08:59 AM

Don't know who is funding it. Why don't you contact Dr. Sykes dirrectly and ask him. i find him easily accessable and amicable! I can tell you that the costs of running a bunch of samples through his lab, since he already has all the equipment, is pretty minimal.

I'm not picking words apart, I pointed out that it is patently ridiculous to think that someone has a previously unkown primate in the congo, and is hiding that information because they want to use samples to "prove" there is a bigfoot. even if that were the case, it is easy to detect multiple samples from a single individual animal, so in order for this desception to work, they would have to have multiple samples from multiple animals, and even that would show that all the samples were from the same "tribe" in a specific area.
You seem completely fixated on the idea that this study is all about hoaxing for thew existance of bigfoot. You seem convinced that you already know the outcome! So stop for a minute and look at that ! that is exactly the thought process the BF believers go through on a daily basis. Starting with a pre concieved conclusion, building up straw men, looking for any excuse to ignore any real information that conflicts with their core belief. Thats what you are doing. I on the other hand see this as a legitimate attempt to identify with certainty the animal that provided the so called bigfoot DNA. So if it is a cat or rat or beaver or dog or whatever, the results will be clear - no bigfoot here. And thats what will most likely happen, and the result of that will be numerous well known "provenanced" Bigfoot stories will all be shot down!! and the credibility of the people who provided those stories and samples, well there credibility will take a serious hit as well! What more could you want?

So let me ask you, what outcome of this study would you like to see? And what would that prove?

and what outcome are you expecting to see? and what would that prove?

If it's unknown primate - well thats all it is, and that result would indicate that there is still more work to do. It would not indicate bigfoot, just simply that we don't know what it is!

I guess I just don't understand why you think one of the most resopected researchers in his field, with a long estabished career would throw all that away to hoax non believers. REMEMBER, THIS IS SCIENCE, AND ANY RESULTS HE HAS WILL BE EXAMINED MINUTELY, AND DUPLICATED BY OTHERS TO VERIFY HIS RESULTS. THATS THE WAY IT IS DONE!

Originally Posted by TheJackal

Calwater, my argument was a scenario that you could argue that the spread of an unknown primate would be unknown, because there is no way to control the sample collection. If you want to sit here and pick apart words, great. With the scenario I stated, the conspirator is trying to "prove" the existence of Bigfoot, not an unknown primate in the Congo. It really doesn't create the same "stir" to find a primate in the Congo versus the United States does it ? The issue is that you can create any number of scenarios around provenance to discredit almost any result. That was the point of the post. Nothing more, nothing less.

Since you dodged the question .... who is funding the study ?

parnassus · 25th May 2012, 09:02 AM

Now, what about the Sykes project; hoaxers and plain ole bleevers know that submitting animal hairs is worthless. (At least they would, if Ketchum would stop with her masquerade party.) Back in the old days of looking at hairs under a microscope by a local fish and game guy, hoaxers submitted anything and everything, and fooled some people; "unknown" was the usual result, sometimes "unknown primate". But now things are different. I doubt that many of the submissions and results are going to be bears and skunks and raccoons. Forget about them.

Drewbot · 25th May 2012, 09:04 AM

I'm sure Dr. Sykes or Dr. Hawks could look at an 'unkown primate' DNA, and tell you where it fits on the primate family tree. They can ID any species with a strand of hair, if you happen to get a result that doesn't match an existing species, they can tell you where it falls on the tree of life.

calwaterbear · 25th May 2012, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by parnassus

Cal,
let me give you some of my thoughts as background. The first and foremost thing one must understand is that proof is not paramount in a faith-based belief system. Rather, maintenance of the belief system is paramount. One has to understand that, in order to understand cults in general and bigfootery in particular. They have done (and will do) just fine without proof of the existence of bigfoot, because they think they already have the proof. If one doesn't understand that, one won't understand the whole thing. They are just fine with "you can't prove a negative."

Not only "just fine" with can't prove a negative, they depend on it.
This study will do nothing to change their beliefs, i understand that. But to those with an open mind, it will produce numberous examples of things held up to be BF, and presented as "proof" are not in fact BF! The more examples of this the more sure we can be that BF does not exist, but I do recognize that none of that matters to a true believer. And the trouble is they conjure up more blurry photos and tissue samples that we can keep up with. You prove one in not BF, and 10 more new "evidences' will pop up!

parnassus · 25th May 2012, 09:09 AM

The important issue is the modern human DNA. You (and Sykes) may think that modern human DNA is, well, not bigfoot. Surprise. Modern human DNA is what the footers are hanging their hats and hopes on. Ketchum's disinformation campaign (and their own special brand of pseudoscience) has made them think that bigfoot can have modern human mtDNA, through some sort of precise sequence of rape of modern human women by some ???"bigger-foots"??. These postulated hybrids, according to their wishful pseudoscience, have certain polymorphisms in the nuclear DNA that would account for any phenotypic differences between modern humans and what I call "the popular bigfoot" (8 feet tall, 600 lbs, runs like the wind on two or four feet, bizarre feet, glowing eyes, the abilities needed to evade humans and cameras, without use of tools, shelter, fire or clothing, etc etc.).

You see, for a veterinarian like Ketchum who does DNA analysis that, let's say, distinguishes a Great Dane from a Pomeranian, or a bay from a chestnut, or a Maine Coon from an Abyssininan, that makes some sense. These pairs of dogs, horses and cats are the same species, and the differences may lie in one or two differences in one or two genes, which have been selected for, over a short period, by human breeders. This domestic animal/pet model of DNA is what (apparently) drives the Ketchum adventure.

So, for the footers, and this is the beauty of modern human DNA for them, "science" will never be able to say that modern human DNA isn't from bigfoot, because all the nuances and expressions of modern human nuclear DNA will not be explained in our lifetimes.

Thus, for them, the only modern human DNA that can be excluded as possibly from a bigfoot is that which is paired with a known individual modern human. I hope I am making myself clear. So for them, this is like the contrapositive of what you would expect. They don't need a bigfoot body paired with the DNA to maintain their belief system, they just need the absence of a modern human body paired with a submitted specimen of modern human DNA. I will restate this because it is will be the essence of bigfootery claims for the next 50 years: unless a specimen yields a complete nuclear DNA sequence which can be linked to a known person (a modern human who is phenotypically not a bigfoot), then it is possible that this DNA comes from a bigfoot. In essence, this requires that every person on the planet have a complete nuclear DNA sequence on file for comparison, because every person (other than identical siblings) has unique nuclear DNA.

So you see, Sykes project of 20 specimens is like trying to prove that God doesn't exist by showing that some bad things happen to some good people.

calwaterbear · 25th May 2012, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

I'm sure Dr. Sykes or Dr. Hawks could look at an 'unkown primate' DNA, and tell you where it fits on the primate family tree. They can ID any species with a strand of hair, if you happen to get a result that doesn't match an existing species, they can tell you where it falls on the tree of life.

You are exactly right, thats what makes this study good news. They have that capability, assuming they actually got an unknown primate sequence.

And they can identify any other sequence to the species, typically!

calwaterbear · 25th May 2012, 09:25 AM

Parn you are right about this stuff, however there are some things in this study and process that can counteract some of the Ketchum BS. None of that matters to them of course, because we are all in the business of threatening her etc.

But first of all mDNA vrs nDNA. So you do the mDNA first, if it comes up possum - you are done with the sample. not BF, not human.

however, if it comes up unknown, then you go after the nDNA from the same sample. There is at least one gene in my opinion that even if BF were "human" the gene would have to be different. So if you actually has a sample come up "human" you could look at that specific gene. It controls for long hair , and is inactive in modern humans, but active in all other mammals. so essentially, if your human gene had the active form, you could argue that BF are in fact human, but if the gene is the inactive form, then you have a hairless human, no different than any other human, except his buddies call him bigfoot!
so essentially, If you want all of the stories over the past 8K years to be true, no matter what your other genes say, you need that long coarse hair badboy to keep you bigfoot, otherwise, you are nothing but a lowly human (or a contaminated sample)

TheJackal · 25th May 2012, 09:35 AM

Cal, I don't know the outcome, but I can speculate. Lighten up a bit. What do I think the result of the study will be, probably dog, cat, bear, beaver, racoon, possum, nutria, moose, deer, chimpanzee, gorilla, and probably a host of synthetic fibers. Will they get an actual unknown primate sample, who knows. Am I "fixated" on one solution, no. It's called speculation. Am I attacking science or Dr. Sykes? No. Would Sykes be a stooge for the Bleevers, hopefully not. What ramifications do I anticipate from the study ? None. If it's inconclusive, well you discredited some Bleevers. That's never stopped them from believing in the past, even in the light of admitted hoaxing. If it comes back "unknown primate", well that's interesting, and I agree that more true investigation would be forthcoming. So, I will continue to speculate, create strawmen arguments and conspiracy theories for your reading entertainment. That's the point, this is a distraction from my daily grind. If I wanted to go post scientific stuff, I would meander over to boards in my area of expertise, and not speculate, create strawmen, and conspiracy theories. But what fun would that be discussing concrete, steel, or aluminum ?

parnassus · 25th May 2012, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by Jodie

....
So at most, is mtDNA all he will be able to extract from the hair samples?
....

See, here is a bleever expressing the bleever's "out" on Sykes' project. 'All he has is mtDNA?'

parnassus · 25th May 2012, 09:55 AM

deleted

parnassus · 25th May 2012, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

I think you are now seeing the obstacles a real scientist, attempting to find DNA samples of a non-existent beast must overcome.

Now let's try to guess what his paper title will be:

ALLEGED 'CRYPTOZOOLOGICAL' HAIR SAMPLES ARE OF EXISTING CREATURES INCLUDING HUMAN.

ABSTRACT: Reviews multiple submissions from witnesses claiming they have samples from various Unclassified, bipedal primates, classifies results of DNA testing on these samples, shows the relationship between possible hoaxes, and blatant misidentifications. Why were the bulk of the samples of human origin? Evaluates submissions based on geographical location of alleged samples.

or another:

SHOULD SCIENCE TAKE SIGHTINGS OF UNCLASSIFIED BIPEDAL PRIMATES MORE SERIOUSLY?

ABSTRACT: Analyses multiple samples of alleged Unclassified Bipedal Primates, for DNA, attempts to correlate the stories of the samples' provenance with how the DNA test resulted for each sample. Some of the stories of the collection of the sample involve incredible encounters with upright hairy bipedal creatures, but the DNA results came back as common animals or indeed simply human. Quantifies the results of the DNA testing with regard to geographic location, distribution of actual sample results with regard to resultant species, and examines whether scientific resources should continue to be devoted to finding these mythological creatures.

I think the first is closer to what it will be entitled. It sounds as if he is going to use the accompanying story as the criterion for which specimens get tested. LOL. What, does spelling count? syntax? punctuation? Does size matter?

parnassus · 25th May 2012, 10:15 AM

deleted

Drewbot · 25th May 2012, 10:24 AM

I think Sykes is going to say- we asked for the evidence, and none was provided.

calwaterbear · 25th May 2012, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

I think Sykes is going to say- we asked for the evidence, and none was provided.

I think he is going to say:
We have had many samples submitted, accompanied by stories that , if taken at face value, would indicate that the samples were clearly from bigfoot. However, carefull DNA analysis revealed that each and every sample was unequivically positively identified as another mammal!

He will then put in the obligatory, this does not prove that Bigfoot does not exist, it mearly invalidates several accounts .

parnassus · 25th May 2012, 11:20 AM

I think he should specifically ask the Kings of Bigfootery* for their strongest, best documented, most likely samples. Someone should tell him this. Seriously.

*you know who they are.

TheJackal · 25th May 2012, 11:55 AM

And, Cal, I can get in line with your potential conclusion of the test resulting in nothing but invalidation of supposed encounters. It's just not as sexy as a conspiracy theory !!

Drewbot · 25th May 2012, 12:14 PM

If he asked Meldrum for his best sample of Bigfoot DNA, do you think Meldrum would snicker, or come up with something?

AlaskaBushPilot · 25th May 2012, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by parnassus

some sort of precise sequence of rape of modern human women by some ???"bigger-foots"??.

Finally getting this thread on track. By the way, where are those photos of Peter Byrne's assistant?

Quote:

They don't need a bigfoot body paired with the DNA to maintain their belief system, they just need the absence of a modern human body paired with a submitted specimen of modern human DNA.

I think you called this correctly some time ago, and is the best working hypothesis. It would be suicidal to submit tissue from a guinea pig with a detailed story of seeing a bigfoot.

That proposition is like saying 'footers will submit up-close, clear, steady high-definition videos of their buddies in gorilla suits instead of what they actually do. The entire point is to submit evidence that can't be used to falsify their claim. "Bigfoot is human with slight genetic variation" is the game now.

parnassus · 25th May 2012, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot

Finally getting this thread on track. By the way, where are those photos of Peter Byrne's assistant?

.

Deborah Wolman was her name-o. Trim indeed.Can you pick her out?

Now, just because I called him Petey, don't be thinkin any unclean thoughts. But I always check out what people in photos are doing with their hands.

24th May 2012, 07:48 AM	#1281
calwaterbear Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 239	first it's different than Melbas, because it is open. Heres the dates, heres what we plan, heres our standards etc. beyond that, the results will be the results, not a protracted muddled attempt to try and crowbar unwanted results into some sort of suitable explanation that fits your preconcieved biases! In my communication with Sykes, he is going after hair because it is the easiest sample to "sterilize" (My term) it, ie you need to remove the human DNA contamination. essentially you can think of the hair as a natural test tube, the human handlers DNA is all over the outside of the tube, the specimens DNA is inside. So if you can strip off all the human DNA, then get inside the hair, you will get the DNA. While this is the advantage of using hair, it is also the weakpoint, as the hair is much more likely to be contaminated than tissue or fluid samples that have been collected properly. Sykes did bring up a very valid point, with contamination being an issue, how many times has a sample been declared human because of unknown contamination? Of course he just provided every BF believer the newest Immediate response if their samples come out wrong! To bad Melba never thought of that one - she could have blamed the collectors of her data. In this case however, using hair will pretty much eliminate the human DNA explanation, both because of cleaning techniques, but also just the hair morphology! Alot of these hair samples probably originate from museum collections of mammals where someone clipped of a bit of hair from a maned wolf or a mooses dew lap. That specimen has been in the museum being touched and moved for 50 years, so it accumulates alot of human DNA. The other good part of this study is that typically the results will be known for what it is. sykes will get gorrilla and yak and bear (lots of bear) results. Anyway, i hope that answers your questions Jodie. Will this study prove there is a bigfoot? nope, never will without a type specimen. will it put a dagger in the heart of many BF legends - yes, but only to those with open minds and logical thought processes! The other alternative - most interesting, but also extremely unlikely, would be a set of many samples from all over the world that have consistencies in the DNA sequences, that are not known from other animals. Would that prove Bigfoot? Nope! but it would start us wondering, and looking for more actual evidence. So we swill have to wait and see, but at least we know how long we have to wait! WB Originally Posted by Jodie How is this study different than Melba's? The only thing I see that might possibly be different based on the rumor mill is the hypothesis. Wouldn't the process of elimination essentially be the same whether you are looking for an extent primate in NA or at the genetic relationship between hominids and primates? Why primarily hair? Is it because you can eliminate contamination more easily? I found this article so it makes me question once again what primers are going to be used. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8435317.stm "To take animal studies on cave bears, for example, if we use PCR primers specific for human DNA on cave bear bones, we can retrieve modern human DNA on almost every one. That has made me think: 'how can I trust anything on this'." Ahhh , here it is, it says hair is less prone to fungal growth. Maybe that is why hair was chosen. httphttp://www.scientificamerican.co...t-human-genome
calwaterbear Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 239

24th May 2012, 08:22 AM	#1282
parnassus Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: California Posts: 2,565	CalWB: if you happen to get a chance, please ask Dr. Sykes to confirm the story that Quote: One well publicized expedition to Bhutan reported that a hair sample had been obtained that, after DNA analysis by Professor Bryan Sykes, could not be matched to any known animal. Analysis completed after the media release, however, clearly showed that the samples were from the Brown bear (Ursus arctos) and the Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus), which was documented in : Chandler, H.C. (2003). Using Ancient DNA to Link Culture and Biology in Human Populations. Unpublished D.Phil. thesis. University of Oxford, Oxford.
	__________________ Never let the data encumber the plausibility. ---paraphrased from David Paulides "It will be politically charged though, I am sure as anytime something like this happens, it will get interesting".---TheMelba

24th May 2012, 09:26 AM	#1283
calwaterbear Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 239	Originally Posted by parnassus CalWB: if you happen to get a chance, please ask Dr. Sykes to confirm the story that Hey Parn, actually that very case came up as we talked (typed ) about contamination. His grad student did the work. early on they had all sorts of issues with human contamination, precisely because it had been handled so much. Once they finally got it stripped off, the DNA was clearly from the 2 species of bear! CWB. PS Parn, check your PM. If you can send me an email, I will fill you in a bit on this case!
calwaterbear Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 239	Last edited by calwaterbear; 24th May 2012 at 09:29 AM.

24th May 2012, 09:50 AM	#1285
Jodie Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,919	Yes, you answered my questions very well, thank you, and I agree on the provenance issue. So at most, is mtDNA all he will be able to extract from the hair samples? I guess it remains to be seen if he stays on schedule. If he can't, I'ld prefer he not use the word "soon" in any explanation that might be forthcoming.
Jodie Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,919

24th May 2012, 09:51 AM	#1286
calwaterbear Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 239	You may be right on this. However, In my opinion, you are committing the same scientific methodology fallacy as BF believers in your declaration: The end game of the study is obviously to support an upcoming Meldrum Bigfoot special as additional "proof" of an unknown North American Primate. You have projected your personal bias and have already indicated that you will have no regard for the results of the study, unless presumambly it helps you support your personal agenda. Lets wait and see how this turns out. And if it turns out like I think it might, you will be reminded of this post! by me! as an example of putting your personal agenda front and center, without any evidence! Originally Posted by TheJackal Even if they determine that there is a common characteristic of an unknown primate in several of the samples they collect, that doesn't necessarily indicate that we are looking at a broadly distributed species. The problem the study will still have is provenance. As devil's advocate, one could argue that someone has obtained a hair sample of a yet discovered primate from Southeast Asia or the Republic of Congo. That same individual is passing the hair sample off as "Bigfoot" with incredible stories of habituation, etc. There is nothing that prevents said individual from sending portions of the sample to his other "Squatch Bretheren" and having them submit it from elsewhere in the US or World with another incredible story of shooting one on a forest road, for instance. Yes, maybe they truly have an interesting hair sample, but it's meaningless in terms of discovering a new species, because you have no control over the collection or provenance of the sample. Without the body, all of this would essentially result in an unknown primate, and for most scientists would be met with a collective yawn. Now, this whole scenario is based upon the fact that they obtain even one unusual sample. The end game of the study is obviously to support an upcoming Meldrum Bigfoot special as additional "proof" of an unknown North American Primate. Otherwise, there really isn't much point in the study without a body.
calwaterbear Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 239

24th May 2012, 09:40 AM	#1284
TheJackal Thinker Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Downtown Hollow Earth Posts: 153	Even if they determine that there is a common characteristic of an unknown primate in several of the samples they collect, that doesn't necessarily indicate that we are looking at a broadly distributed species. The problem the study will still have is provenance. As devil's advocate, one could argue that someone has obtained a hair sample of a yet discovered primate from Southeast Asia or the Republic of Congo. That same individual is passing the hair sample off as "Bigfoot" with incredible stories of habituation, etc. There is nothing that prevents said individual from sending portions of the sample to his other "Squatch Bretheren" and having them submit it from elsewhere in the US or World with another incredible story of shooting one on a forest road, for instance. Yes, maybe they truly have an interesting hair sample, but it's meaningless in terms of discovering a new species, because you have no control over the collection or provenance of the sample. Without the body, all of this would essentially result in an unknown primate, and for most scientists would be met with a collective yawn. Now, this whole scenario is based upon the fact that they obtain even one unusual sample. The end game of the study is obviously to support an upcoming Meldrum Bigfoot special as additional "proof" of an unknown North American Primate. Otherwise, there really isn't much point in the study without a body.

24th May 2012, 10:03 AM	#1287
TheJackal Thinker Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Downtown Hollow Earth Posts: 153	Yes, it is my personal bias, and opinion. What other end result do you anticipate ? They publish a paper that states unknown primate. It neither proves nor disproves the existence of Bigfoot. It neither proves or disproves a large geographical dispersion of said unknown primate. All I can figure, and yes, this is my bias and opinion, is that it's something Bleevers can point at and say "look, they proved Bigfoot exists". Feel free to bring up my words when the paper is published. It's one man's opinion. Plus, I will read the report along with everyone else and draw my own conclusion. Will it be personally biased, sure. Will it change my mind, maybe. The problem is that everyone will draw their own conclusion, especially if all that is proven is "unknown primate."
	Last edited by TheJackal; 24th May 2012 at 10:06 AM.

24th May 2012, 10:12 AM	#1288
calwaterbear Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 239	Originally Posted by Jodie Yes, you answered my questions very well, thank you, and I agree on the provenance issue. So at most, is mtDNA all he will be able to extract from the hair samples? I guess it remains to be seen if he stays on schedule. If he can't, I'ld prefer he not use the word "soon" in any explanation that might be forthcoming. Well he is specifically going after mDNA because it is more plentiful and easier to get, and it does contain the genes he wants, which are in all mammals , just dirrerent forms (other animals too). if he found something of interest, he could go back to the same sample (good form to only use part of a sample, usually even a small sample can be worked with, so you use some, and save some, anyway if there was something of interest you would go back to that sample - first to confirm your results, then to move on. You could get nDNA just for this study, at least the prelims, no real need for it!
calwaterbear Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 239

24th May 2012, 10:15 AM	#1289
Jodie Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,919	I hope people have better things to do than mail hair samples all over the world to each other claiming they are from bigfoot. To me seeing bigfoot and then finding a hair ball in the vicinity is questionable in regards to provenance. What exactly does Dr. Sykes mean when he says he will establish provenance? Is he only taking samples where they see the bigfoot rub up on something that could possibly snag hair? Or samples only from some kind of hair trap?
Jodie Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,919

24th May 2012, 11:04 AM	#1290
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,874	Originally Posted by Jodie What exactly does Dr. Sykes mean when he says he will establish provenance? I think you are now seeing the obstacles a real scientist, attempting to find DNA samples of a non-existent beast must overcome. Now let's try to guess what his paper title will be: ALLEGED 'CRYPTOZOOLOGICAL' HAIR SAMPLES ARE OF EXISTING CREATURES INCLUDING HUMAN. ABSTRACT: Reviews multiple submissions from witnesses claiming they have samples from various Unclassified, bipedal primates, classifies results of DNA testing on these samples, shows the relationship between possible hoaxes, and blatant misidentifications. Why were the bulk of the samples of human origin? Evaluates submissions based on geographical location of alleged samples. or another: SHOULD SCIENCE TAKE SIGHTINGS OF UNCLASSIFIED BIPEDAL PRIMATES MORE SERIOUSLY? ABSTRACT: Analyses multiple samples of alleged Unclassified Bipedal Primates, for DNA, attempts to correlate the stories of the samples' provenance with how the DNA test resulted for each sample. Some of the stories of the collection of the sample involve incredible encounters with upright hairy bipedal creatures, but the DNA results came back as common animals or indeed simply human. Quantifies the results of the DNA testing with regard to geographic location, distribution of actual sample results with regard to resultant species, and examines whether scientific resources should continue to be devoted to finding these mythological creatures.
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,874	__________________ "I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

24th May 2012, 11:10 AM	#1291
TheJackal Thinker Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Downtown Hollow Earth Posts: 153	Cal, I am not arguing to be an ass, but I have to wonder, what hypothesis is he testing ? Also, who is providing funding for the study ? That to me would indicate what the endgame of the study. I just can't see starting out testing a bunch of hair knowing that all you will likely end up with, if lucky, is an unknown primate of unknown origin of unknown distribution that shares many DNA characteristics with other large modern primates. I just don't see how that turns science on it's ear. Yes, that is my bias and opinion.

24th May 2012, 11:24 AM	#1292
parnassus Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: California Posts: 2,565	Originally Posted by calwaterbear You may be right on this. However, In my opinion, you are committing the same scientific methodology fallacy as BF believers in your declaration: The end game of the study is obviously to support an upcoming Meldrum Bigfoot special as additional "proof" of an unknown North American Primate. You have projected your personal bias and have already indicated that you will have no regard for the results of the study, unless presumambly it helps you support your personal agenda. Lets wait and see how this turns out. And if it turns out like I think it might, you will be reminded of this post! by me! as an example of putting your personal agenda front and center, without any evidence! With all due respect, Jackal, I think your crystal ball is cloudy. Mine, and the tea leaves, together with my rapier-like intellect and many years of experience in matters of science and experiment design, predict a rather different outcome.
	__________________ Never let the data encumber the plausibility. ---paraphrased from David Paulides "It will be politically charged though, I am sure as anytime something like this happens, it will get interesting".---TheMelba

24th May 2012, 11:33 AM	#1293
TheJackal Thinker Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Downtown Hollow Earth Posts: 153	Parn, you're killing me. I apparently will be returning my now defective crystal ball, and will resort to my Tarot Cards.

24th May 2012, 05:06 PM	#1294
RayG Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada Posts: 2,367	Originally Posted by calwaterbear If you can send me an email, I will fill you in a bit on this case! Can you post it here? Time and again bigfoot proponents have trumpeted the Bhutan 'unknown' hair as though it were indisputable fact. That seems to happen a lot in Bigfootery. RayG
	__________________ Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts. -------------------- Scrutatio Et Quaestio

24th May 2012, 07:23 PM	#1295
calwaterbear Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 239	Originally Posted by RayG Can you post it here? Time and again bigfoot proponents have trumpeted the Bhutan 'unknown' hair as though it were indisputable fact. That seems to happen a lot in Bigfootery. RayG Ray, i really don't think I can, professional courtesies. I have no difficulty in telling you what he says, I do not however feel empowered to release his email to the public, that would have to be his call. He's not hard to find, have you tried contacting him directly? But it would be really simple to track down. Anyone could walk into Oxfords library, pull the thesis in question off the shelf and read it/ copy it. or It could also be obtained from Interlibrary loan. You are right, it happens alot, mostly because the believers don't want to know, and many of the non belivers would rather bitch and philosophize and listen to themselves talk, instead of doing a bit of leg work. CWB
calwaterbear Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 239

25th May 2012, 07:37 AM	#1296
calwaterbear Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 239	Several of you have brought up concerns for the provenance issue. Where did this sample come from, how was it obtained, who had custody of it, how do you know it is bigfoot etc. Many seem to be concerned that this is an avenue that could be expoited by hoaxers. In my opinion, this is one of the best parts of Sykes study. The providers of the sample provide the backstory of the sample. This would seem to be a real flaw. But we need to think a bit deeper on this. so lets say you get 15 smples where people are acertaining that they know it's BF DNA. They saw them laying in the bed, watched em playing etc - whatever. The more concrete and certain the story is, the bigger the fall when the sample comes back bear, or giant anteater, whatever. The result would directly discredit the provenance story. Essentially, science disproves their story. In that case of course, they will have to blame Dr. Sykes, accusing him of hoax, thats strange, a guy working with Meldrum is covering up evidence of Big Foot? how and why would that happen? I think this is a brilliant study! Jackal, In response to your question, of how I thought this study might turn out, I thought I had been quite clear on that, but then again, that would require reading 2 or even 3 posts to figure it out. So I think sykes will get several good samples with people being sure their samples are bigfoot, because they saw it with their own 2 eyes etc. those will all be systematically shot down, IDed as dog or bear or Yak, or whatever. More interesting to me however is your scenario! let me get this straight. You think someone who is sitting on an unknown primate, from some other continent, will sneak samples of their animal to various people and ask them to submit it? huh? to prove some unknown primate in North America? wow! pretty spectacular conspiracy theory. First of all multiple samples from the same individual animal are easily detected. So it would be very easy to figure out that many people are sending in the same sample, that alone would expose the hoax! why wouldn't the possesor of such sample simply write up their discovery in a scientific journal? The finding of a previously unknown primate is pretty big, particularly when it is not a simple splitting off a sub species or discovering a cryptic species (essentially a group that based on morphology has been previously lumped into one species, but current DNA and new information would identify that the group is in fact 2 distinct species). In your scenario they give up their credibility, and their truely significant scientific discovery to become part of a big foot hoax? wow!
calwaterbear Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 239	Last edited by calwaterbear; 25th May 2012 at 07:45 AM. Reason: incredulous reasoning?

25th May 2012, 07:40 AM	#1297
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,874	Evidently Calwaterbear has me on ignore...
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,874	__________________ "I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic Last edited by Drewbot; 25th May 2012 at 07:54 AM.

25th May 2012, 07:48 AM	#1298
TheJackal Thinker Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Downtown Hollow Earth Posts: 153	Calwater, my argument was a scenario that you could argue that the spread of an unknown primate would be unknown, because there is no way to control the sample collection. If you want to sit here and pick apart words, great. With the scenario I stated, the conspirator is trying to "prove" the existence of Bigfoot, not an unknown primate in the Congo. It really doesn't create the same "stir" to find a primate in the Congo versus the United States does it ? The issue is that you can create any number of scenarios around provenance to discredit almost any result. That was the point of the post. Nothing more, nothing less. Since you dodged the question .... who is funding the study ?

25th May 2012, 07:52 AM	#1299
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,874	Finding Bigfoot probably. Dr. John Hawks says: Originally Posted by Dr. John Hawks at his weblog Neither the BBC nor the Oxford website report on whether a new television program or other media enterprise is helping to fund their work, as has often been the case with cryptozoology investigations involving geneticists in the U.S. http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/c...nter-2012.html
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,874	__________________ "I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic Last edited by Drewbot; 25th May 2012 at 07:53 AM.

25th May 2012, 08:36 AM	#1300
calwaterbear Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 239	Originally Posted by Drewbot Evidently Calwaterbear has me on ignore... what do you want drewbot? i was planning on dealing with you personally when i visit the Detroit area in early/mid july. assuming the humidity doesn't kill me. I'm going to spend several days looking for bigfoot in the forests of northern LP. after that i'm going out on some island looking for them! You might think i was only riding dirt bikes on the Michigan CCC trail, and camping out with family, but thats where you would be wrong! thats my cover story! I didn't know you wanted me to comment on something? so I guess I need to go back and see what chu talking about Willis!
calwaterbear Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 239

25th May 2012, 08:39 AM	#1301
parnassus Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: California Posts: 2,565	Cal, let me give you some of my thoughts as background. The first and foremost thing one must understand is that proof is not paramount in a faith-based belief system. Rather, maintenance of the belief system is paramount. One has to understand that, in order to understand cults in general and bigfootery in particular. They have done (and will do) just fine without proof of the existence of bigfoot, because they think they already have the proof. If one doesn't understand that, one won't understand the whole thing. They are just fine with "you can't prove a negative."
	__________________ Never let the data encumber the plausibility. ---paraphrased from David Paulides "It will be politically charged though, I am sure as anytime something like this happens, it will get interesting".---TheMelba

25th May 2012, 08:59 AM	#1302
calwaterbear Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 239	Don't know who is funding it. Why don't you contact Dr. Sykes dirrectly and ask him. i find him easily accessable and amicable! I can tell you that the costs of running a bunch of samples through his lab, since he already has all the equipment, is pretty minimal. I'm not picking words apart, I pointed out that it is patently ridiculous to think that someone has a previously unkown primate in the congo, and is hiding that information because they want to use samples to "prove" there is a bigfoot. even if that were the case, it is easy to detect multiple samples from a single individual animal, so in order for this desception to work, they would have to have multiple samples from multiple animals, and even that would show that all the samples were from the same "tribe" in a specific area. You seem completely fixated on the idea that this study is all about hoaxing for thew existance of bigfoot. You seem convinced that you already know the outcome! So stop for a minute and look at that ! that is exactly the thought process the BF believers go through on a daily basis. Starting with a pre concieved conclusion, building up straw men, looking for any excuse to ignore any real information that conflicts with their core belief. Thats what you are doing. I on the other hand see this as a legitimate attempt to identify with certainty the animal that provided the so called bigfoot DNA. So if it is a cat or rat or beaver or dog or whatever, the results will be clear - no bigfoot here. And thats what will most likely happen, and the result of that will be numerous well known "provenanced" Bigfoot stories will all be shot down!! and the credibility of the people who provided those stories and samples, well there credibility will take a serious hit as well! What more could you want? So let me ask you, what outcome of this study would you like to see? And what would that prove? and what outcome are you expecting to see? and what would that prove? If it's unknown primate - well thats all it is, and that result would indicate that there is still more work to do. It would not indicate bigfoot, just simply that we don't know what it is! I guess I just don't understand why you think one of the most resopected researchers in his field, with a long estabished career would throw all that away to hoax non believers. REMEMBER, THIS IS SCIENCE, AND ANY RESULTS HE HAS WILL BE EXAMINED MINUTELY, AND DUPLICATED BY OTHERS TO VERIFY HIS RESULTS. THATS THE WAY IT IS DONE! Originally Posted by TheJackal Calwater, my argument was a scenario that you could argue that the spread of an unknown primate would be unknown, because there is no way to control the sample collection. If you want to sit here and pick apart words, great. With the scenario I stated, the conspirator is trying to "prove" the existence of Bigfoot, not an unknown primate in the Congo. It really doesn't create the same "stir" to find a primate in the Congo versus the United States does it ? The issue is that you can create any number of scenarios around provenance to discredit almost any result. That was the point of the post. Nothing more, nothing less. Since you dodged the question .... who is funding the study ?
calwaterbear Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 239

25th May 2012, 09:02 AM	#1303
parnassus Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: California Posts: 2,565	Now, what about the Sykes project; hoaxers and plain ole bleevers know that submitting animal hairs is worthless. (At least they would, if Ketchum would stop with her masquerade party.) Back in the old days of looking at hairs under a microscope by a local fish and game guy, hoaxers submitted anything and everything, and fooled some people; "unknown" was the usual result, sometimes "unknown primate". But now things are different. I doubt that many of the submissions and results are going to be bears and skunks and raccoons. Forget about them.
	__________________ Never let the data encumber the plausibility. ---paraphrased from David Paulides "It will be politically charged though, I am sure as anytime something like this happens, it will get interesting".---TheMelba Last edited by parnassus; 25th May 2012 at 09:04 AM.

25th May 2012, 09:04 AM	#1304
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,874	I'm sure Dr. Sykes or Dr. Hawks could look at an 'unkown primate' DNA, and tell you where it fits on the primate family tree. They can ID any species with a strand of hair, if you happen to get a result that doesn't match an existing species, they can tell you where it falls on the tree of life.
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,874	__________________ "I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

25th May 2012, 09:09 AM	#1305
calwaterbear Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 239	Originally Posted by parnassus Cal, let me give you some of my thoughts as background. The first and foremost thing one must understand is that proof is not paramount in a faith-based belief system. Rather, maintenance of the belief system is paramount. One has to understand that, in order to understand cults in general and bigfootery in particular. They have done (and will do) just fine without proof of the existence of bigfoot, because they think they already have the proof. If one doesn't understand that, one won't understand the whole thing. They are just fine with "you can't prove a negative." Not only "just fine" with can't prove a negative, they depend on it. This study will do nothing to change their beliefs, i understand that. But to those with an open mind, it will produce numberous examples of things held up to be BF, and presented as "proof" are not in fact BF! The more examples of this the more sure we can be that BF does not exist, but I do recognize that none of that matters to a true believer. And the trouble is they conjure up more blurry photos and tissue samples that we can keep up with. You prove one in not BF, and 10 more new "evidences' will pop up!
calwaterbear Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 239	Last edited by calwaterbear; 25th May 2012 at 10:25 AM.

25th May 2012, 09:09 AM	#1306
parnassus Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: California Posts: 2,565	The important issue is the modern human DNA. You (and Sykes) may think that modern human DNA is, well, not bigfoot. Surprise. Modern human DNA is what the footers are hanging their hats and hopes on. Ketchum's disinformation campaign (and their own special brand of pseudoscience) has made them think that bigfoot can have modern human mtDNA, through some sort of precise sequence of rape of modern human women by some ???"bigger-foots"??. These postulated hybrids, according to their wishful pseudoscience, have certain polymorphisms in the nuclear DNA that would account for any phenotypic differences between modern humans and what I call "the popular bigfoot" (8 feet tall, 600 lbs, runs like the wind on two or four feet, bizarre feet, glowing eyes, the abilities needed to evade humans and cameras, without use of tools, shelter, fire or clothing, etc etc.). You see, for a veterinarian like Ketchum who does DNA analysis that, let's say, distinguishes a Great Dane from a Pomeranian, or a bay from a chestnut, or a Maine Coon from an Abyssininan, that makes some sense. These pairs of dogs, horses and cats are the same species, and the differences may lie in one or two differences in one or two genes, which have been selected for, over a short period, by human breeders. This domestic animal/pet model of DNA is what (apparently) drives the Ketchum adventure. So, for the footers, and this is the beauty of modern human DNA for them, "science" will never be able to say that modern human DNA isn't from bigfoot, because all the nuances and expressions of modern human nuclear DNA will not be explained in our lifetimes. Thus, for them, the only modern human DNA that can be excluded as possibly from a bigfoot is that which is paired with a known individual modern human. I hope I am making myself clear. So for them, this is like the contrapositive of what you would expect. They don't need a bigfoot body paired with the DNA to maintain their belief system, they just need the absence of a modern human body paired with a submitted specimen of modern human DNA. I will restate this because it is will be the essence of bigfootery claims for the next 50 years: unless a specimen yields a complete nuclear DNA sequence which can be linked to a known person (a modern human who is phenotypically not a bigfoot), then it is possible that this DNA comes from a bigfoot. In essence, this requires that every person on the planet have a complete nuclear DNA sequence on file for comparison, because every person (other than identical siblings) has unique nuclear DNA. So you see, Sykes project of 20 specimens is like trying to prove that God doesn't exist by showing that some bad things happen to some good people.
	__________________ Never let the data encumber the plausibility. ---paraphrased from David Paulides "It will be politically charged though, I am sure as anytime something like this happens, it will get interesting".---TheMelba Last edited by parnassus; 25th May 2012 at 09:20 AM.

25th May 2012, 09:12 AM	#1307
calwaterbear Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 239	Originally Posted by Drewbot I'm sure Dr. Sykes or Dr. Hawks could look at an 'unkown primate' DNA, and tell you where it fits on the primate family tree. They can ID any species with a strand of hair, if you happen to get a result that doesn't match an existing species, they can tell you where it falls on the tree of life. You are exactly right, thats what makes this study good news. They have that capability, assuming they actually got an unknown primate sequence. And they can identify any other sequence to the species, typically!
calwaterbear Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 239

25th May 2012, 09:25 AM	#1308
calwaterbear Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 239	Parn you are right about this stuff, however there are some things in this study and process that can counteract some of the Ketchum BS. None of that matters to them of course, because we are all in the business of threatening her etc. But first of all mDNA vrs nDNA. So you do the mDNA first, if it comes up possum - you are done with the sample. not BF, not human. however, if it comes up unknown, then you go after the nDNA from the same sample. There is at least one gene in my opinion that even if BF were "human" the gene would have to be different. So if you actually has a sample come up "human" you could look at that specific gene. It controls for long hair , and is inactive in modern humans, but active in all other mammals. so essentially, if your human gene had the active form, you could argue that BF are in fact human, but if the gene is the inactive form, then you have a hairless human, no different than any other human, except his buddies call him bigfoot! so essentially, If you want all of the stories over the past 8K years to be true, no matter what your other genes say, you need that long coarse hair badboy to keep you bigfoot, otherwise, you are nothing but a lowly human (or a contaminated sample)
calwaterbear Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 239

25th May 2012, 09:35 AM	#1309
TheJackal Thinker Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Downtown Hollow Earth Posts: 153	Cal, I don't know the outcome, but I can speculate. Lighten up a bit. What do I think the result of the study will be, probably dog, cat, bear, beaver, racoon, possum, nutria, moose, deer, chimpanzee, gorilla, and probably a host of synthetic fibers. Will they get an actual unknown primate sample, who knows. Am I "fixated" on one solution, no. It's called speculation. Am I attacking science or Dr. Sykes? No. Would Sykes be a stooge for the Bleevers, hopefully not. What ramifications do I anticipate from the study ? None. If it's inconclusive, well you discredited some Bleevers. That's never stopped them from believing in the past, even in the light of admitted hoaxing. If it comes back "unknown primate", well that's interesting, and I agree that more true investigation would be forthcoming. So, I will continue to speculate, create strawmen arguments and conspiracy theories for your reading entertainment. That's the point, this is a distraction from my daily grind. If I wanted to go post scientific stuff, I would meander over to boards in my area of expertise, and not speculate, create strawmen, and conspiracy theories. But what fun would that be discussing concrete, steel, or aluminum ?

25th May 2012, 09:49 AM	#1310
parnassus Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: California Posts: 2,565	Originally Posted by Jodie .... So at most, is mtDNA all he will be able to extract from the hair samples? .... See, here is a bleever expressing the bleever's "out" on Sykes' project. 'All he has is mtDNA?'
	__________________ Never let the data encumber the plausibility. ---paraphrased from David Paulides "It will be politically charged though, I am sure as anytime something like this happens, it will get interesting".---TheMelba

25th May 2012, 09:55 AM	#1311
parnassus Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: California Posts: 2,565	deleted
	__________________ Never let the data encumber the plausibility. ---paraphrased from David Paulides "It will be politically charged though, I am sure as anytime something like this happens, it will get interesting".---TheMelba Last edited by parnassus; 25th May 2012 at 10:29 AM.

25th May 2012, 10:10 AM	#1312
parnassus Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: California Posts: 2,565	Originally Posted by Drewbot I think you are now seeing the obstacles a real scientist, attempting to find DNA samples of a non-existent beast must overcome. Now let's try to guess what his paper title will be: ALLEGED 'CRYPTOZOOLOGICAL' HAIR SAMPLES ARE OF EXISTING CREATURES INCLUDING HUMAN. ABSTRACT: Reviews multiple submissions from witnesses claiming they have samples from various Unclassified, bipedal primates, classifies results of DNA testing on these samples, shows the relationship between possible hoaxes, and blatant misidentifications. Why were the bulk of the samples of human origin? Evaluates submissions based on geographical location of alleged samples. or another: SHOULD SCIENCE TAKE SIGHTINGS OF UNCLASSIFIED BIPEDAL PRIMATES MORE SERIOUSLY? ABSTRACT: Analyses multiple samples of alleged Unclassified Bipedal Primates, for DNA, attempts to correlate the stories of the samples' provenance with how the DNA test resulted for each sample. Some of the stories of the collection of the sample involve incredible encounters with upright hairy bipedal creatures, but the DNA results came back as common animals or indeed simply human. Quantifies the results of the DNA testing with regard to geographic location, distribution of actual sample results with regard to resultant species, and examines whether scientific resources should continue to be devoted to finding these mythological creatures. I think the first is closer to what it will be entitled. It sounds as if he is going to use the accompanying story as the criterion for which specimens get tested. LOL. What, does spelling count? syntax? punctuation? Does size matter?
	__________________ Never let the data encumber the plausibility. ---paraphrased from David Paulides "It will be politically charged though, I am sure as anytime something like this happens, it will get interesting".---TheMelba Last edited by parnassus; 25th May 2012 at 10:11 AM.

25th May 2012, 10:15 AM	#1313
parnassus Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: California Posts: 2,565	deleted
	__________________ Never let the data encumber the plausibility. ---paraphrased from David Paulides "It will be politically charged though, I am sure as anytime something like this happens, it will get interesting".---TheMelba Last edited by parnassus; 25th May 2012 at 10:28 AM.

25th May 2012, 10:24 AM	#1314
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,874	I think Sykes is going to say- we asked for the evidence, and none was provided.
Drewbot Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,874	__________________ "I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic Last edited by Drewbot; 25th May 2012 at 10:45 AM.

25th May 2012, 10:58 AM	#1315
calwaterbear Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 239	Originally Posted by Drewbot I think Sykes is going to say- we asked for the evidence, and none was provided. I think he is going to say: We have had many samples submitted, accompanied by stories that , if taken at face value, would indicate that the samples were clearly from bigfoot. However, carefull DNA analysis revealed that each and every sample was unequivically positively identified as another mammal! He will then put in the obligatory, this does not prove that Bigfoot does not exist, it mearly invalidates several accounts .
calwaterbear Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 239