States with Most Bigfoot Sightings in 2020

[+DieChecker]

As i recall, some of Kethum's samples came back as human. 

[Resume]

26 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

As i recall, some of Kethum's samples came back as human. 

Yep, human contamination.

[+DieChecker]

2 minutes ago, Resume said:

Yep, human contamination.

Possibly. But proven?

Could not the animals have been from contamination also? Yes, but very small, id say.

Also several of the people who donated the hairs that came back as human had sent samples to other labs, which came back as human.

This just says that either bigfoot is a misidentifued human in some cases, or bigfoot is real, and genetically is human. Or close enough to make little genetic difference.

Edited August 7, 2020 by DieChecker

[Resume]

6 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Possibly. But proven?

Could not the animals have been from contamination also? Yes, but very small, id say.

Also several of the people who donated the hairs that came back as human had sent samples to other labs, which came back as human.

This just says that either bigfoot is a misidentifued human in some cases, or bigfoot is real, and genetically is human. Or close enough to make little genetic difference.

I would suggest you read this article, especially from the header Warning Signs down.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/07/an-honest-attempt-to-understand-the-bigfoot-genome-and-the-woman-who-created-it/2/

Quote

If the hybrid model was correct, and these sequences were derived from another homonin, then they should look largely human. But for the first 10,000, most of them failed to match anything in the databases, even though the search's settings would allow some mismatch. Other sequences came from different locations in the human genome; another matched the giant panda genome (and presumably represents contamination by a bear). Similar things happened in the next 10,000, with a mix of human sequences, one that matched to mice and rats, and then a handful of sequences with no match to anything whatsoever. And so it went for another 24,000 bases before I gave up.

 

 

[Resume]

I would also recommend reading analyses from Dr. Haskell Hart.  He's not a bigfoot skeptic but found Ketchum's data flawed, her genome sequences either degraded or contaminated.

Her data simply did not support her conclusions.

[+DieChecker]

27 minutes ago, Resume said:

I would suggest you read this article, especially from the header Warning Signs down.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/07/an-honest-attempt-to-understand-the-bigfoot-genome-and-the-woman-who-created-it/2/

 

Yeah... im not saying hybrid. Im saying human.

Bigfoot is human. Either homeless, near feral, campers, or a large biped with genetic issues. But human.

Your link says they tested the mDNA of their suspected hybrid samples, and they came back human. The Bigfoot people though didnt want himan. mDNA is much easier to find intact. They wanted "hybrid", and THAT is their fail.

Edited August 7, 2020 by DieChecker

[Resume]

8 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Yeah... im not saying hybrid. Im saying human.

Bigfoot is human. Either homeless, near feral, campers, or a large biped with genetic issues. But human.

Your link says they tested the mDNA of their suspected hybrid samples, and they came back human. The Bigfoot people though didnt want himan. mDNA is much easier to find intact. They wanted "hybrid", and THAT is their fail.

It was Ketchum that claimed her footie DNA came from hybridization, a hypothesis that she has not demonstrated.

As far as footie DNA sequencing as modern HSS . . .  there aren't enough laughing dogs.  This is classic credulous footer nonsense, unsupported, unevidenced and as such, dismissed.  When you get a sample footie and sequence it's genome, get back to me.  Until then it's just playground pretend.

And seriously, google Haskell Hart and read his scholarship on this subject; you would benefit greatly.

[+DieChecker]

12 minutes ago, Resume said:

It was Ketchum that claimed her footie DNA came from hybridization, a hypothesis that she has not demonstrated.

As far as footie DNA sequencing as modern HSS . . .  there aren't enough laughing dogs.  This is classic credulous footer nonsense, unsupported, unevidenced and as such, dismissed.  When you get a sample footie and sequence it's genome, get back to me.  Until then it's just playground pretend.

And seriously, google Haskell Hart and read his scholarship on this subject; you would benefit greatly.

Ill check it out. Ive been posting here on bigfoot for 15 years, so i do know a thing or two.

Is my post correct, or not, though? Did some of Ketchum's samples come back as human? I said zip about if Ketchum was correct. 

[Resume]

5 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Ill check it out. Ive been posting here on bigfoot for 15 years, so i do know a thing or two.

Is my post correct, or not, though? Did some of Ketchum's samples come back as human? I said zip about if Ketchum was correct. 

Gosh, I've been interested and involved with bigfoot skepticism since I first encountered the stills of the PGF when they were first published in 1967, if we're gonna have a p***ing contest concerning bigfoot bona fides,. So yeah, I also know a thing or a thousand about footie mythology, hoaxes and apologetic.  

Your post was partially correct; some of the blasts from Ketchum's nonsense came back has human contamination or degraded partials.  These hardly qualify as evidence for footie being modern HSS.   When you get a footie, sequence it's genome, and demonstrate such a hypothesis, I would be helpless but to accept it. Until then, it just sits in a heap with other bigfoot claims.

[+DieChecker]

11 hours ago, Resume said:

Gosh, I've been interested and involved with bigfoot skepticism since I first encountered the stills of the PGF when they were first published in 1967, if we're gonna have a p***ing contest concerning bigfoot bona fides,. So yeah, I also know a thing or a thousand about footie mythology, hoaxes and apologetic.  

Well thanks for finally starting to post. Maybe some of us will learn something from you.

Quote

Your post was partially correct; some of the blasts from Ketchum's nonsense came back has human contamination or degraded partials.  

There you go. Also there was himan mDNA, which was more definative, id say.

Quote

These hardly qualify as evidence for footie being modern HSS.

Well, depends on your base assumptions. If you are assuming BF is misidentification, the human DNA prooves plenty. If you assume BF is a genetic condition, and not a ancestoral ape, then again it would support that also.

Quote

When you get a footie, sequence it's genome, and demonstrate such a hypothesis, I would be helpless but to accept it. Until then, it just sits in a heap with other bigfoot claims.

Well, if anyone actually collects a BF, it wont be theory anymore, it will be a fact. 

Regardless of anyones opinion, none of it is proven. Not any more then, say mermaids.

Even the claims that BF is misidentification is unproven. Even the idea bigfoot is the result of humans seeing what they want to see... Pareidolia... is just an idea.

The only truth in Bigfoot knowledge is that ones never been examined by science.

[Resume]

45 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Well thanks for finally starting to post. Maybe some of us will learn something from you.

I mostly lurk here, posting now and again.  The bigfoot subject is about played out.

45 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

There you go. Also there was himan mDNA, which was more definative, id say. 

Yes, that's what human contamination is.  Most likely belongs to the "researcher."

45 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Well, depends on your base assumptions. If you are assuming BF is misidentification, the human DNA prooves plenty. If you assume BF is a genetic condition, and not a ancestoral ape, then again it would support that also.

The only assumption I make is that there is no reliable evidence for the existence of the cryptid known as bigfoot.  Ketchum's flawed research proves nothing save as a lesson on how not to do science.  It was laughable.

Quote

Well, if anyone actually collects a BF, it wont be theory anymore, it will be a fact. 

Regardless of anyones opinion, none of it is proven. Not any more then, say mermaids.

Even the claims that BF is misidentification is unproven. Even the idea bigfoot is the result of humans seeing what they want to see... Pareidolia... is just an idea.

The only truth in Bigfoot knowledge is that ones never been examined by science.

You are correct, none of the bigfoot dogma is proven, and I'm extremely confident it never will be.  People tell stories because it is fun, it gets them attention, and some profit off the gullibility of human beings.  

[docyabut2]

No big foots bones are found in the US

[Trelane]

On ‎8‎/‎8‎/‎2020 at 7:06 PM, docyabut2 said:

No big foots bones are found in the US

Or really anywhere for that matter.

[docyabut2]

40 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Or really anywhere for that matter.

 

 giant bones are never found