Sasquatch nests eDNA study

[stereologist]

5 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Yet, you asked for an example, and I gave it to you from your own link. You can pretend that all geneticists say the data from Ketchum's analysis is worthless, but it simply isn't true. 

Clearly, you choose to lie about the subject. Yes, this is a baldfaced lie, either that or you can't read.

No geneticist likes the data. The person found the hypothesis to be intriguing, but goes on to say that the data is lacking.

The quote is " It’s an intriguing hypothesis. " and now you lie that it was a comment about the data.

 

[stereologist]

5 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

The only thing that will ever settle the question of the existence of bigfoot is when someone produces an actual, honest-to-god bigfoot. Any thing else is just chasing your tail, or tales.

NO. There is a technique called eDNA which is what this thread is all about. Check it out.

[+DieChecker]

9 minutes ago, stereologist said:

 

I have also shown in many posted what a joke the self published article was.

It is quite clear that Ketchum is a joke and I've established it to be a joke. What fool would believe anything stated by Ketchum?

Perhaps someone who is non-bias? You obviously believe in your opinion being the Truth. But, it is only an opinion. I did read several links/articles that did state that the Conclusions were faulty, but I didn't read anywhere that the data was faked. The data exists and can be examined. I would trust those who would examine data and then decide if there is a faulty conclusion, rather then those who just yell, "FAKE!", and claim online articles for proof. Going off that logic, we can prove Atlantis exists.

Actually the links you post that "discredited" Ketchum are the same ones that you posted as stating the DNA was opossum, so there isn't any science behind those articles. Plus, "The material from Ketchum was as stated sent out to multiple labs and shown to be a known specie.", isn't true because the reporter only sent the samples to the one lab, and was tested by his friend, who just gave him a oral abstract in return.

 

[+DieChecker]

11 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Clearly, you choose to lie about the subject. Yes, this is a baldfaced lie, either that or you can't read.

No geneticist likes the data. The person found the hypothesis to be intriguing, but goes on to say that the data is lacking.

The quote is " It’s an intriguing hypothesis. " and now you lie that it was a comment about the data.

OK, let me see..... I posted a direct quote from a link YOU posted, which said a geneticist found the data intriguing and you are saying that is a lie? Sure the data was lacking, that doesn't mean the geneticist didn't find it interesting and worthy of further study. He said... "more data needs to be gathered.", I believe. I can go back and find the exact quote if you like.

I don't think saying  "It’s an intriguing hypothesis. " and saying that applies to the data also is beyond reasonable. He did go on to say more data needs to be collected, which implies that the existing data has some worth.

Edit: Here we go....

Quote

First up is Richard Gibbs, one of the key scientists behind the Human Genome Project and director of the Human Genome Sequencing Center at Baylor College of Medicine:

“As a scientist I would consider anything.The currency of scientific advance is keeping your skepticism at bay. You have to approach these things incredibly agnostically. 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.”

Specifically, Gibbs said, it’s standard protocol to upload the raw sequencing data which can then be analyzed to determine whether this is a new species, or simply an amalgam of existing species. Only a text file, which is unhelpful, accompanies the paper.

That reads to me like he thinks that he can't dismiss the data, and that it didn't appear fraudulent, and that more data is required.

So, I think you are wrong on this.

Edited August 26, 2017 by DieChecker

[stereologist]

5 hours ago, DieChecker said:

All I can say is that it is impossible then to show a clear picture without first proving Bigfoot to be real. You are requesting an impossible task, so I will now stop putting forward arguments, because clearly you are beyond skepticism and off into complete hardcore denial. 

I don't need to support any of the fakes... I typed, "bigfoot pics", into Google and those are some of the ones that came up. That is all the proof that is needed to categorize them as bigfoot pics. That you were wrong that such pics existed really is your own fault for typing first and then being wrong, without actually doing a moments research as to if what you were typing was correct or not.

Now, if you want to slap a bunch of modifiers on your original statements, fine, then you win. But, really you were wrong. You know it. I know it. You refuse to admit it. You are the one who has to live with yourself being intellectually dishonest.

Here is what you stated....

And so here you state that "I have seen nothing clear other than the PG hoax.", which would seem to indicate that, at least in this point of the discussion, you were going to accept "hoax", or unknown providence pics.

You are the one changing the goalposts. I've never seen anyone claim everyone else is posting fallacies and deny the ones he himself is using. It is very amusing.

 

Not into hardcore denial. You posted photos because they turned up in search engine result. How dumb is that? You didn't care about the contents of the photo. You have made no effort to support the photos you chose to post. I showed that some of them were fakes. Inf act, they all appear to be bears or fakes. Then you told me that it was my task to show 100% they were fakes. Sorry. The onus is on the person presenting the evidence to support their contention.

You can't even show that any of the photos are BF. The contents look so different and yet you claim they are the same specie?

Here is the laughable state of BF and your position "I typed, "bigfoot pics", into Google and those are some of the ones that came up. That is all the proof that is needed to categorize them as bigfoot pics. " Yes, that sums up your position - gullible to the max. Anything that anyone says and is picked up by a search engine is good enough for you. LOL.

Just because there are people out there posting fakes does not mean there is a bigfoot. I was not wrong. Your position is a bigger joke than the Ketchum self published junk paper. In hindsight I should have expected you to post complete and utter nonsense, to stoop low and scrounge for whatever hoaxes were posted online.

So now I have to put some modifiers on my original statement. What a joke. You knew exactly what I meant and you posted fakes. You finish with the asinine comment that I am moving the goalposts by expecting non-hoaxes to be posted.

 

[stereologist]

21 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Huh? Didn't I just agree that you did? Let me look.... "True, you did show (I think) that other sources say that SOME of the contaminated samples.... one, two, three??... included opossum among probably a dozen other animals."

Why yes I did. Who then actually isn't reading the thread?

I'd like to see actual proof of the DNA being from an opossum. According to your statements... all the DNA.

Actually the first links you posted, that were quotes from real geneticists, said that some of them were 100% human. Not all were contaminated. 

Huh? And here I thought I posted a bunch of quotes from you just to be exactly clear what you wrote... My bad then, you obviously didn't mean that you said, "The DNA was opossum.", and I misunderstood you. (sarcasm)

I'm not arguing in favor of Ketchum's paper. I'm pointing out the flaws in your argument. The fact she wrote a bad paper doesn't mean the data she collected is bad. It means she mis-analysed it, or misrepresented it.

It becomes painfully clear that you have no idea what Melba the joke Ketchum self published. You also have no idea what the other link posted. Let me help out those with a closed mind that cannot bear to look at the papers.

Ketchum only published about 3 samples. ALL of the samples she published were investigated by the real peer reviewed paper. That investigation showed that Melba had done her study incorrectly and identified the species in question.

You write one, two, three because you have not read the thread and links. You have not. Your posts show you have not. The evidence is clear that you have not.

The results are in the real peer reviewed paper, not the self published junk posted online by Ketchum.

The contamination is about the samples posted by Ketchum, not the many that were collected and did not use. She subsequently sent out samples to others that were not in her study. Read the thread.

I don't think you understand the difference between samples and data. She mishandled the samples, she misused the equipment, she collected bad data, she did not understand why the data was bad, she drew conclusions that were not warranted from the data. There isn't much that was done right.

[stereologist]

25 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Perhaps someone who is non-bias? You obviously believe in your opinion being the Truth. But, it is only an opinion. I did read several links/articles that did state that the Conclusions were faulty, but I didn't read anywhere that the data was faked. The data exists and can be examined. I would trust those who would examine data and then decide if there is a faulty conclusion, rather then those who just yell, "FAKE!", and claim online articles for proof. Going off that logic, we can prove Atlantis exists.

Actually the links you post that "discredited" Ketchum are the same ones that you posted as stating the DNA was opossum, so there isn't any science behind those articles. Plus, "The material from Ketchum was as stated sent out to multiple labs and shown to be a known specie.", isn't true because the reporter only sent the samples to the one lab, and was tested by his friend, who just gave him a oral abstract in return.

 

I posted the statements of many researchers pointing out the many and numerous mistakes made by Ketchum. The bias here is doing the work correctly. The bias is doing work in a correct scientific manner. The bias is fixing glaring mistakes pointed out in the peer review process. It is not my opinion. It is the thought out statements of the scientific community. I did not suggest that the data was faked. I strongly pointed out that Ketchum was incompetent. The mistakes were numerous as pointed out in all of the articles. Again you show that you did not read the thread. Your cry of "FAKE" is as disingenuous as all of your other misrepresentations of my posts.

Actually, you can't prove Atlantis exists using online  articles. Been tried here many times and it always fails.

Actually, you seem to be hooked on the opossum idea which makes it painfully clear that you did not read the links. Your conclusion of "so there isn't any science behind those articles" is based on you continuing this charade that you read the articles. Many articles do not mention opossum.

So now you again show you haven't read what I posted because you still think the only analysis was done by a reporter sending to a single lab. You have not been reading the thread and each post like this makes it painfully obvious you are clueless. In fact, I'll drop a hint. The opossum statements by me have been tracking your lack of reading. I have been using it as a test to see if you are reading the thread.

[stereologist]

31 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

OK, let me see..... I posted a direct quote from a link YOU posted, which said a geneticist found the data intriguing and you are saying that is a lie? Sure the data was lacking, that doesn't mean the geneticist didn't find it interesting and worthy of further study. He said... "more data needs to be gathered.", I believe. I can go back and find the exact quote if you like.

I don't think saying  "It’s an intriguing hypothesis. " and saying that applies to the data also is beyond reasonable. He did go on to say more data needs to be collected, which implies that the existing data has some worth.

Edit: Here we go....

That reads to me like he thinks that he can't dismiss the data, and that it didn't appear fraudulent, and that more data is required.

So, I think you are wrong on this.

The geneticist does not say that the data is intriguing. You are misrepresenting that quote just like you attempt to misrepresent what I post. Go back and find the quote and you will see that the geneticist does not find the data intriguing. Had the geneticist ever read the paper before this quote then we would see his comments align themselves with all of the others that looked at the paper.

I think a scientist knows the difference between the hypothesis and the data. Maybe you don't, but a scientist does. You are misrepresenting what the person was quoted as saying.

The person stated that they couldn't use the data. He can't use the data. How can he make a decision on the data? Ketchum put the data in an unusable format according to the quote. More incompetence on her part. This person makes no statements about quality, correctness, or fraud.

I think you need to learn to read.

[stereologist]

No geneticist finds the results of this study intriguing. That is what I stated and it stands. The comments from researchers worldwide is that Ketchum's work is junk. It is poorly done in all phases from sample handling to sample processing to data collection to data analysis to conclusions.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/07/an-honest-attempt-to-understand-the-bigfoot-genome-and-the-woman-who-created-it/

Quote

But my initial analysis suggested that the "genome sequence" was an artifact, the product of a combination of contamination, degradation, and poor assembly methods. And every other biologist I showed it to reached the same conclusion.

The people that do this type of work all agree that contamination is the cause of the problem. Ketchum of course denies this on facebook, not in the scientific community. She suggests a Galileo effect. I suppose she wants to be like all good fringe authors and say that the scientific community is in lock step denying the lone scientist their day in the Sun. Actually, they have shown her the numerous mistakes she made and Ketchum has made no effort to fix the numerous mistakes.

[stereologist]

Ketchum made a number of claims about different labs analyzing the samples

Quote

Labs said to have received them for study included the University of Texas Southwestern, the North Louisiana Crime Lab and NYU.

But a rep from NYU tells The News that the university never dealt with Ketchum  — who holds a doctorate in veterinary medicine from Texas A&M University — or accepted any data or samples from the Bigfoot Genome Project.

The Louisiana Crime Lab said it worked with Ketchum on her study but all they did was extract DNA from bones she sent them that she in turn sent to be sampled elsewhere.

Bolding mine. Curious.

[stereologist]

Using the "turned up in a search engine is the only proof I need" criterium. " Now most of these are surely fakes, but they do rival the Patterson image in quality/clarity. "

[+Hammerclaw]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

NO. There is a technique called eDNA which is what this thread is all about. Check it out.

Won't settle it for me, 'wheat.

[I'mConvinced]

On 12/07/2017 at 11:46 AM, PrisonerX said:

No, it's clear that I don't care to post any for you. 

I actually quite prefer you to keep repeating that silliness each time I deny you, as it's incredibly humorous for me to witness such self-imposed ignorance on display.  

I believe in BF. Will you post your evidence for me please? 

[odiesbsc]

On 8/26/2017 at 7:53 AM, stereologist said:

Using the "turned up in a search engine is the only proof I need" criterium. " Now most of these are surely fakes, but they do rival the Patterson image in quality/clarity. "

 

This last photo looks like Jack Nicholson.

[+DieChecker]

On 8/26/2017 at 6:49 AM, stereologist said:

Not into hardcore denial. You posted photos because they turned up in search engine result. How dumb is that? You didn't care about the contents of the photo. You have made no effort to support the photos you chose to post. I showed that some of them were fakes. Inf act, they all appear to be bears or fakes. Then you told me that it was my task to show 100% they were fakes. Sorry. The onus is on the person presenting the evidence to support their contention.

You can't even show that any of the photos are BF. The contents look so different and yet you claim they are the same specie?

Here is the laughable state of BF and your position "I typed, "bigfoot pics", into Google and those are some of the ones that came up. That is all the proof that is needed to categorize them as bigfoot pics. " Yes, that sums up your position - gullible to the max. Anything that anyone says and is picked up by a search engine is good enough for you. LOL.

Just because there are people out there posting fakes does not mean there is a bigfoot. I was not wrong. Your position is a bigger joke than the Ketchum self published junk paper. In hindsight I should have expected you to post complete and utter nonsense, to stoop low and scrounge for whatever hoaxes were posted online.

So now I have to put some modifiers on my original statement. What a joke. You knew exactly what I meant and you posted fakes. You finish with the asinine comment that I am moving the goalposts by expecting non-hoaxes to be posted.

I will repeat myself again... You said there were not clear bigfoot pics. And then even referenced the stills from the Patterson Gimlin film as an example. So I posted some. It is as simple as that.

Here is a pic of Cookie Monster... Is Cookie Monster a real creature? Here is a pic of a Dragon... Is a dragon a real creature?

Whether the creature is real or not has ZERO to do with if the pic is linked to bigfoot, or if it is clear. You didn't say, "There are no clear pictures of bigfoot, that have been proven to be real.". NO...... You said, "There are no clear pictures of bigfoot." Two VERY different statements. I posted several quotes from your posts to establish what you actually said.

Just be a man instead of a child, and admit that you messed up, and we can move on.

 

[+DieChecker]

On 8/26/2017 at 7:00 AM, stereologist said:

It becomes painfully clear that you have no idea what Melba the joke Ketchum self published. You also have no idea what the other link posted. Let me help out those with a closed mind that cannot bear to look at the papers.

Ketchum only published about 3 samples. ALL of the samples she published were investigated by the real peer reviewed paper. That investigation showed that Melba had done her study incorrectly and identified the species in question.

You write one, two, three because you have not read the thread and links. You have not. Your posts show you have not. The evidence is clear that you have not.

The results are in the real peer reviewed paper, not the self published junk posted online by Ketchum.

The contamination is about the samples posted by Ketchum, not the many that were collected and did not use. She subsequently sent out samples to others that were not in her study. Read the thread.

I don't think you understand the difference between samples and data. She mishandled the samples, she misused the equipment, she collected bad data, she did not understand why the data was bad, she drew conclusions that were not warranted from the data. There isn't much that was done right.

Wait... So if you read it, then is it 3 samples, or not? Did you really read it, or are you BSing me?

Here is what it says on the Journal that was bought to publish the article...

http://www.denovojournal.com/denovo_002.htm

Quote

Of the 20 whole and 10 partial mitochondrial genomes sequenced, 16 diverse haplotypes were found suggesting that these hominins did not originate in a single geographic location

That alone means that the "article" included 30 samples as part of the data set.

You keep saying I haven't read this, and haven't read that, but it appears you are the one who's main points are wrong. At least in this post.

You aren't even referencing anything anymore, you're trying to discredit my position by attacking my reading ability, my education level, my writing ability... Anything that you think may get you the "Win". Well, I am more entertained by your pitiable attacks then turned off by them. They make me chuckle and chuckle.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"^[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.^[2]

[stereologist]

10 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I will repeat myself again... You said there were not clear bigfoot pics. And then even referenced the stills from the Patterson Gimlin film as an example. So I posted some. It is as simple as that.

Here is a pic of Cookie Monster... Is Cookie Monster a real creature? Here is a pic of a Dragon... Is a dragon a real creature?

Whether the creature is real or not has ZERO to do with if the pic is linked to bigfoot, or if it is clear. You didn't say, "There are no clear pictures of bigfoot, that have been proven to be real.". NO...... You said, "There are no clear pictures of bigfoot." Two VERY different statements. I posted several quotes from your posts to establish what you actually said.

Just be a man instead of a child, and admit that you messed up, and we can move on.

 

Jut grow up and stop with your whiny inability to fake it that that you failed.

You failed because BF s a failure. You used fake photos because that is all BF is, a fake.

You continued on to use a fake named Melba Ketchum who failed to produce  DNA study. Even after I showed what a pathetic job she did you tried to make some asinine claims about her study.

No, there are no clear photos of BF. That's because the only thing anyone does concerning BF is to create fake evidence because there is no evidence.

If you weren't so deluded you'd admit that posting fake evidence is unacceptable. Man up for a change.

[+DieChecker]

On 8/26/2017 at 7:11 AM, stereologist said:

I posted the statements of many researchers pointing out the many and numerous mistakes made by Ketchum. The bias here is doing the work correctly. The bias is doing work in a correct scientific manner. The bias is fixing glaring mistakes pointed out in the peer review process. It is not my opinion. It is the thought out statements of the scientific community. I did not suggest that the data was faked. I strongly pointed out that Ketchum was incompetent. The mistakes were numerous as pointed out in all of the articles. Again you show that you did not read the thread. Your cry of "FAKE" is as disingenuous as all of your other misrepresentations of my posts.

Actually, you can't prove Atlantis exists using online  articles. Been tried here many times and it always fails.

Actually, you seem to be hooked on the opossum idea which makes it painfully clear that you did not read the links. Your conclusion of "so there isn't any science behind those articles" is based on you continuing this charade that you read the articles. Many articles do not mention opossum.

So now you again show you haven't read what I posted because you still think the only analysis was done by a reporter sending to a single lab. You have not been reading the thread and each post like this makes it painfully obvious you are clueless. In fact, I'll drop a hint. The opossum statements by me have been tracking your lack of reading. I have been using it as a test to see if you are reading the thread.

Well, now you are being insulting again. I think I've demonstrated I've read the thread. I've also time and time again said that Ketchum's paper is rubbish. I've also time and time again pointed out that I think Bigfoot isn't real. I've time and time again pointed out that the pics I posted are probably faked. 

My conclusion was that the DNA was probably contaminated, BUT... Not just with opossum. I went to a deal of trouble to post your comments where you STATED over and over that the DNA was opossum. You put no modifiers on it, just said the DNA was opossum. And then to back that up posted an article of a guy who had a friend who told him so.

Just man up and say, "Yes, I was wrong about pushing the "opossum only angle".

 

Edited August 31, 2017 by DieChecker

[+DieChecker]

On 8/26/2017 at 7:18 AM, stereologist said:

The geneticist does not say that the data is intriguing. You are misrepresenting that quote just like you attempt to misrepresent what I post. Go back and find the quote and you will see that the geneticist does not find the data intriguing. Had the geneticist ever read the paper before this quote then we would see his comments align themselves with all of the others that looked at the paper.

I think a scientist knows the difference between the hypothesis and the data. Maybe you don't, but a scientist does. You are misrepresenting what the person was quoted as saying.

The person stated that they couldn't use the data. He can't use the data. How can he make a decision on the data? Ketchum put the data in an unusable format according to the quote. More incompetence on her part. This person makes no statements about quality, correctness, or fraud.

I think you need to learn to read.

I think you are wrong. I posted the whole quote. It clears says he finds the hypothesis intriguing and that there needs to be more data. I am sorry that you are so wrapped up in your opinion that you can't even see what appears to be simply stated.

 

[stereologist]

5 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Wait... So if you read it, then is it 3 samples, or not? Did you really read it, or are you BSing me?

Here is what it says on the Journal that was bought to publish the article...

http://www.denovojournal.com/denovo_002.htm

That alone means that the "article" included 30 samples as part of the data set.

You keep saying I haven't read this, and haven't read that, but it appears you are the one who's main points are wrong. At least in this post.

You aren't even referencing anything anymore, you're trying to discredit my position by attacking my reading ability, my education level, my writing ability... Anything that you think may get you the "Win". Well, I am more entertained by your pitiable attacks then turned off by them. They make me chuckle and chuckle.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"^[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.^[2]

There were a large number of samples and the articles focuses on 3. Or didn't you get past the introduction of this pathetic article.

Anyone that thinks posting known hoaxes and fakes is somehow acceptable does need to have their character examined. You opened the issue yourself.

I do question your abilities because of the ridiculous and childish positions you have repeatedly taken.

Examples? Pretending it is my burden to show 100% proof that the hoaxes and fakes you posted were exactly that. No. It is your burden since you posted them. You still have not made any effort other than to say they turned up in an internet search. I posted a set of photos from an internet search to show what a joke your methods are.

You posted a set of photos in which the contents all look different and some were obviously bears. Therefore, I say none of them are bigfoot since they are all different animals.

[+DieChecker]

7 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Jut grow up and stop with your whiny inability to fake it that that you failed.

You failed because BF s a failure. You used fake photos because that is all BF is, a fake.

You continued on to use a fake named Melba Ketchum who failed to produce  DNA study. Even after I showed what a pathetic job she did you tried to make some asinine claims about her study.

No, there are no clear photos of BF. That's because the only thing anyone does concerning BF is to create fake evidence because there is no evidence.

If you weren't so deluded you'd admit that posting fake evidence is unacceptable. Man up for a change.

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.

[+DieChecker]

3 minutes ago, stereologist said:

There were a large number of samples and the articles focuses on 3. Or didn't you get past the introduction of this pathetic article.

Anyone that thinks posting known hoaxes and fakes is somehow acceptable does need to have their character examined. You opened the issue yourself.

I do question your abilities because of the ridiculous and childish positions you have repeatedly taken.

Examples? Pretending it is my burden to show 100% proof that the hoaxes and fakes you posted were exactly that. No. It is your burden since you posted them. You still have not made any effort other than to say they turned up in an internet search. I posted a set of photos from an internet search to show what a joke your methods are.

You posted a set of photos in which the contents all look different and some were obviously bears. Therefore, I say none of them are bigfoot since they are all different animals.

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.....

 

Edited August 31, 2017 by DieChecker

[stereologist]

7 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Well, now you are being insulting again. I think I've demonstrated I've read the thread. I've also time and time again said that Ketchum's paper is rubbish. I've also time and time again pointed out that I think Bigfoot isn't real. I've time and time again pointed out that the pics I posted are probably faked. 

My conclusion was that the DNA was probably contaminated, BUT... Not just with opossum. I went to a deal of trouble to post your comments where you STATED over and over that the DNA was opossum. You put no modifiers on it, just said the DNA was opossum. And then to back that up posted an article of a guy who had a friend who told him so.

Just man up and say, "Yes, I was wrong about pushing the "opossum only angle".

 

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.

[+DieChecker]

On 8/26/2017 at 7:53 AM, stereologist said:

Using the "turned up in a search engine is the only proof I need" criterium. " Now most of these are surely fakes, but they do rival the Patterson image in quality/clarity. "

 

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.

[stereologist]

7 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I think you are wrong. I posted the whole quote. It clears says he finds the hypothesis intriguing and that there needs to be more data. I am sorry that you are so wrapped up in your opinion that you can't even see what appears to be simply stated.

 

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.