Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Night Walker

Sasquatch nests eDNA study

435 posts in this topic

Just now, stereologist said:

Is this your way of admitting that you are trolling? You have not taken the  positions posted above. That is clear.

It is also clear that you have not read the thread. Had you read the thread then you would have known that I posted 2 peer reviewed papers showing the species that appears in ketchum's paper. Instead you complained on and on about the newspaper reporter that showed Ketchum's paper was a joke. You went on to misrepresent the statements of a a single geneticist. You claimed there were several and that was not true. I posted statements from a number of researchers showing th at Ketchum's work was shoddy from start to finish and you just kept pretending that there were geneticists in favor of her work.

I posted from a number of sources. And no you did not do what you claim here, That has been a constant problem. You continue to misrepresent what you posted.

And no I did not post that opossum was the only contaminant. Had you read the thread you would know that. I again have to question your ability to follow the thread.

Actually I posted, what... six examples, where you stated the DNA was from an opossum. I also don't think you posted two sources that showed the DNA was from known animals, I believe you only posted one. Unless you want to count a article that uses the say so of a guy who has a friend who did some analysis, but posted no data at all?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
8 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Wow! More argument from insults? You can't even bring yourself to address a single point of my post?

Consider yourself reported again. You are being so childish.

I did but you prefer to lie.

Here you go liar. Two instances and there are more.

1. You posted fake photos. That addresses your post.

2. Posting hoaxes does not address my statement. That addresses your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Again you lie about the quote. You posted the wole quote which shows that you are lying or can't read. The geneticist without reading the article says that the hypothesis is intriguing. You failed and stated that he found the data intriguing. That is an inability to think, reason, read, or just a lie.

So learn to read. Don't lie. Don't misrepresent. You also used geneticist in the plural. That appears to be a lie as well.

Hey, for one thing, we're not supposed to go after spelling errors, "wole". Where did I use geneticist in the plural in that post? You are confusing me...

Here is the quote again... 

Quote

As I read the paper I asked, is the evidence here compelling? I don’t know. Is there clear evidence of fraud? That’s not apparent. It’s an intriguing hypothesis. One would need to view more sequencing information before supporting the conclusions.”

That seems pretty clear to me. He sees the evidence, isn't sure, but feels the hypothesis is intriguing and more data needs to be collected. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, stereologist said:

I did but you prefer to lie.

Here you go liar. Two instances and there are more.

1. You posted fake photos. That addresses your post.

2. Posting hoaxes does not address my statement. That addresses your post.

Those are hardly lies. I think you are running out of arguments, so you start to just point and call liar.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

The news articles, or Ketchum's article/report?

I didn't have to get past the introduction, the facts to contradict your statement were in the abstract.

All I am saying is those pics are considered bigfoot pics, and they are for the most part clear. Those two facts are really all that should be up for debate.

That the pics look different has zero to do with the point. And that some were probably bears, I pointed out in the post where I posted them. Come on.....

 

Ketchum's shoddy article. The news reporter did more.

You failed because you did not read the article. That seems to be a repeated problem here. You are not reading the material and therefore are not being truthful when you claim to have read the material.

Ketchum's article focuses on 3 samples. Had you read the article and not guessed incorrectly you'd know why. The why has also been spelled out in many link I posted.

The pics may be considered BF by fools. There is nothing to show they are BF. I posted photos that are considered BF as well. None of them are. I posted it to show how ridiculous and childish your position has been and continues to be.

That the photos contradict each other as to what BF is, is germaine except to those unable to grasp the simple concept of what is BF other than a fantasy animal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I agree. Those are Bigfoot pics. However that said, a quick search turns up which have known origins, unlike most of the ones I posted which don't have commercial origins.

These of course are not BF photos just as the ones you posted are not BF photos.

I posted them to show how childish and ridiculous your post was.

You are wrong about the commercial origin of your photos since many are copyrighted to protect the money making schemes behind the photos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Actually I posted, what... six examples, where you stated the DNA was from an opossum. I also don't think you posted two sources that showed the DNA was from known animals, I believe you only posted one. Unless you want to count a article that uses the say so of a guy who has a friend who did some analysis, but posted no data at all?

You admit not reading the thread. Shame on you after you claimed to have read the thread. I posted links to and discussed two peer reviewed papers that showed the shoddiness of Ketchum's work and revealed the contamination of the samples. Of course, Ketchum has maintained there is no contamination.

So what we have is Ketchum with no peer review and worthless data versus a reporter publishing without peer review or data and then two peer reviewed papers showing Ketchum's samples were contaminated with known common species.

There we have it:

1. You didn't bother to read the thread and instead pretend you did

2. Ketchum has been proved to be very wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Those are hardly lies. I think you are running out of arguments, so you start to just point and call liar.

A few times it is a mistake. Continued lies make for a liar. You lied that I did not address points in your post. I did. Are you now going to say that you didn't actually read the thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Hey, for one thing, we're not supposed to go after spelling errors, "wole". Where did I use geneticist in the plural in that post? You are confusing me...

Here is the quote again... 

That seems pretty clear to me. He sees the evidence, isn't sure, but feels the hypothesis is intriguing and more data needs to be collected. 

On more than one occasion you stated it was more than one geneticist. Not a spelling mistake. You went on to be untruthful about that single geneticist who had not read the article but commented on the hypothesis. They neither supported nor dismissed the hypothesis but called it intriguing. I looked and saw no further commentary by that individual. In fact, they seem to be offline and none of the links were active for them when I checked.

You claimed that he found the data interesting. I said no. You had a shoddy reply to that in which I pointed out a real scientist does not confuse data with hypothesis. Ring a bell?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bickering in this thread has been going on for pages and pages - I think it's time to call this one a day.

Closed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.