[MELE20C]

Scientists have made some interesting claims from a DNA study. See the study results here:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/11/prweb10166775.htm

and how some of the DNA was obtained here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=W6vy8px8_1Y

Bet the G20 and G29 10mm with Buffalo Bore ammo gets a boost after this gets more exposure!

[Bren]

In other words:

Melba Ketchum announces Bigfoot DNA results. Without the data.

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.

An interesting observation: Finding "unknown" DNA and assuming that proves something about bigfoot, even if it really is unknown DNA, is similar to seeing an "unidentified" flying object and assuming that means something about visitors from other planets. In short: it's stupid.

[el_jewapo]

Originally Posted by Bren

An interesting observation: Finding "unknown" DNA and assuming that proves something about bigfoot, even if it really is unknown DNA, is similar to seeing an "unidentified" flying object and assuming that means something about visitors from other planets. In short: it's stupid.

Well, if the DNA came from hair samples, that's what we're dealing with. You say that like this DNA just sprouted up in a test tube. They say it came from hair, that's the interesting thing, DNA testing just confirms the authenticity of the hair.

I admit, I just started watching the Youtube video in the original post and haven't read the article. Just enough to know the DNA samples came from hair, not just DNA smeared on a log or something.

[Bren]

Originally Posted by el_jewapo

Well, if the DNA came from hair samples, that's what we're dealing with. You say that like this DNA just sprouted up in a test tube. They say it came from hair, that's the interesting thing, DNA testing just confirms the authenticity of the hair.

I admit, I just started watching the Youtube video in the original post and haven't read the article. Just enough to know the DNA samples came from hair, not just DNA smeared on a log or something.

Do you actually not realize tha's the same thing? A hair sample? hair of what? There is no step that leads to that being "bigfoot."

[Johnspark]

Naysayer still says Nay...Nay...Nay...

[mac66]

We can find evidence of extinct plants and animals, even microbes millions of years old but can't find one piece of real evidence of an animal that exists today? What's that tell ya?

[el_jewapo]

Originally Posted by Bren

Do you actually not realize tha's the same thing? A hair sample? hair of what? There is no step that leads to that being "bigfoot."

Hair of some unknown animal. If you believe the article, a human hybrid of some sort.

[devildog2067]

Originally Posted by Johnspark

Naysayer still says Nay...Nay...Nay...

No, they don't.

They say "show us some evidence."

Until then...

[Tango 1Zero]

I watched that youtube video. The videos dont show anything just blurred wanna be images. Honestly cant see anything hes trying to point out in his pictures.

[devildog2067]

Originally Posted by el_jewapo

Well, if the DNA came from hair samples, that's what we're dealing with. You say that like this DNA just sprouted up in a test tube. They say it came from hair, that's the interesting thing, DNA testing just confirms the authenticity of the hair.

That's not how DNA testing works.

One can't "confirm" the authenticity of a hair sample using DNA testing, when attempting to "confirm" that the hair came from a previously unknown species. DNA testing allows you to match a sample of hair to a known species. You can't just "read" DNA and draw very many conclusions about where it came from.

[Bren]

Originally Posted by el_jewapo

Hair of some unknown animal. If you believe the article, a human hybrid of some sort.

And, assuming that is correct (very unlikely given the history and actions of the researcher) it means exactly what you said. It doesn't tell us if that hybrid is "bigfoot" or looks like a squirrel monkey.

[GreenDrake]

Where are all the Bigfoot skeletons?

[Al Czervik]

Originally Posted by GreenDrake

Where are all the Bigfoot skeletons?

I have a cargo container full of'em. For $1000, I'll show you. For one miiiiilion dollars, I'll sell a bone.

[Cali-Glock]

Hair, scat, and teeth have been found... So why then have not definitive DNA results been released?

Because (I asume) each time the DNA results come back as some known species.

[el_jewapo]

Originally Posted by devildog2067

That's not how DNA testing works.

One can't "confirm" the authenticity of a hair sample using DNA testing, when attempting to "confirm" that the hair came from a previously unknown species. DNA testing allows you to match a sample of hair to a known species. You can't just "read" DNA and draw very many conclusions about where it came from.

Yeah I wasn't trying to suggest they can look at the DNA and say "that's a bigfoot". But they can tell it's real hair and not from a known species from DNA testing.

[el_jewapo]

Originally Posted by Bren

And, assuming that is correct (very unlikely given the history and actions of the researcher) it means exactly what you said. It doesn't tell us if that hybrid is "bigfoot" or looks like a squirrel monkey.

Fair enough. It's probably another hoax of a story anyway.

[czsmithGT]

Originally Posted by devildog2067

No, they don't.

They say "show us some evidence."

Until then...

Jeezy how much evidence do you skeptics need. The Truth Is Out There

[Bren]

Originally Posted by Cali-Glock

Hair, scat, and teeth have been found... So why then have not definitive DNA results been released?

Because (I asume) each time the DNA results come back as some known species.

You are correct, according to 100% of what I have seen.

[Carrys]

Originally Posted by devildog2067

You can't just "read" DNA and draw very many conclusions about where it came from.

I suppose when one wants something to be true enough.....anything can be true in their mind.

Anything.

[Bruce M]

Originally Posted by czsmithGT

Jeezy how much evidence do you skeptics need. The Truth Is Out There

[oldgraywolf]

No amount of reason or logic will change the believers' minds. Reminds me of another subject.

[Foxtrotx1]

Originally Posted by GreenDrake

Where are all the Bigfoot skeletons?

Other big foots hide the bones duh!

[tsmo1066]

So a somewhat sketchy "researcher" posts results of an alleged DNA test, but won't offer forth the data itself or any of the actual samples to allow for independent verification and testing, and we're all supposed to herald this as "proof" that Bigfoot exists?

Kinda reminds me of the two guys a few years back who claimed to have an actual Bigfoot corpse in an ice chest.

[Resqu2]

Someone explain DNA to me please, I though you had to have something to compair it to? The DNA machine just isn't gonna print out Bigfoot even if the sample is really from a Bigfoot.

[Johnspark]

Originally Posted by devildog2067

No, they don't.

They say "show us some evidence."

Until then...

I was speaking only for myself.