Sasquatch seems to be real. No, really.

[Breccia]

I just want to point out that this is a study about biology, from Texas.

Anyone even remotely connected to the textbook industry will recognize this as a bad sign. If you don't know how Texas (and therefore US) textbooks are influenced by the Texas educational system, especially in the field of biology, take a few minutes to read up on it. The details won't be hard to find. Count the seconds until you're horrified.

So yeah, based purely on my past experience, a biologist from Texas could tell me frogs were green and I wouldn't believe them purely out of habit. So a study about freaking Bigfoot doesn't stand a chance.

[zorkuus]

That's why I want to see the paper to see who actually peer reviewed it.

And I want to see where is the link between this ancient hominid species and the Sasquatch living today they keep mentioning. First they'd have to prove that this Sasquatch creature is living today before they can compare it to something else. You cannot compare two things if the other one doesn't exist/has no evidence of its existance. If there is no such proof then they shouldn't call it Sasquatch, which ofc they insist on calling it and referring to the still living Sasquatch. It's hogwash.

[Gamdwelf]

I just want to point out that this is a study about biology, from Texas.

Anyone even remotely connected to the textbook industry will recognize this as a bad sign. If you don't know how Texas (and therefore US) textbooks are influenced by the Texas educational system, especially in the field of biology, take a few minutes to read up on it. The details won't be hard to find. Count the seconds until you're horrified.

So yeah, based purely on my past experience, a biologist from Texas could tell me frogs were green and I wouldn't believe them purely out of habit. So a study about freaking Bigfoot doesn't stand a chance.

I hate texas as much as the next guy but thats a bad reason to dismiss research without even reading it. If somebody was like I developed a cure to cancer and people rejected him becaue he was from texas you see how that is shity.

---------- Post added 2013-02-18 at 08:59 PM ----------

And I want to see where is the link between this ancient hominid species and the Sasquatch living today they keep mentioning. First they'd have to prove that this Sasquatch creature is living today before they can compare it to something else. If there is no such proof then they shouldn't call it Sasquatch, which ofc they insist on calling it and referring to the still living Sasquatch. It's hogwash.

From what I heard without actually seeing the paper is that they tested mostly hair samples that were found in various parts of the US and then comparing it to known species through DNA testing.

[zorkuus]

From what I heard

End of discussion.

[Breccia]

I hate texas as much as the next guy but thats a bad reason to dismiss research without even reading it.

The fact that it's about Bigfoot is reason enough to dismiss it without reading it. The fact that it was from Texas was icing on the cake.

Sorry the "frogs are green" remark wasn't enough to tell you I wasn't taking a story seriously, that didn't deserve to be taken seriously. Sometimes text doesn't get that message across. When a story from, say, Colorado comes in about proof of aliens from Mars, I'll make the sarcasm 100% more dripping.

EDIT: And yes, if a story from Texas about a cure for cancer (that doesn't involve prayer) breaks, I would expect the scientific community to give it the credit it's due. This isn't that story.

[Gamdwelf]

The fact that it's about Bigfoot is reason enough to dismiss it without reading it. The fact that it was from Texas was icing on the cake.

Sorry the "frogs are green" remark wasn't enough to tell you I wasn't taking a story seriously, that didn't deserve to be taken seriously. Sometimes text doesn't get that message across. When a story from, say, Colorado comes in about proof of aliens from Mars, I'll make the sarcasm 100% more dripping.

So Hair has been found all over the country and it gets tested and its not any animal we know of, and the thing its most similar too is human but not exactly that doesn't make you think?

[Urti]

I just want to point out that this is a study about biology, from Texas.

Anyone even remotely connected to the textbook industry will recognize this as a bad sign. If you don't know how Texas (and therefore US) textbooks are influenced by the Texas educational system, especially in the field of biology, take a few minutes to read up on it. The details won't be hard to find. Count the seconds until you're horrified.

So yeah, based purely on my past experience, a biologist from Texas could tell me frogs were green and I wouldn't believe them purely out of habit. So a study about freaking Bigfoot doesn't stand a chance.

Off-Topic-The South has some of the oldest and most respected schools in the nation. Davidson College, University of Texas-Austin, Georgia Institute of Technology, Vanderbilt University, Emory University, UNC-Chapel Hill, Rice University, University of Virginia, Georgetown, George Washington University, Johns Hopkins University, and Duke all routinely make the top 50 schools list in the nation, and all have respectable science programs. Plus many more that are often underrated, like NC State, University of Maryland, and others. Not to mention the hundreds private STEM companies based here in the south, at places like the Research Triangle Park, as well as Gov't science entities like the CDC and NASA (Houston, we have a problem...).

To bring it back On Topic-There are plenty of valid reasons to discount this article without having to drag out the old yankee hate of all things southern, we are not all inbred hillbillies despite what you may have seen in cartoons. Like the fact that it was published in a journal that didn't exist before publishing this article.

[Taurenburger]

Dr. Ketchum

Haha, thought "this must be Ash's mother or something"


I don't believe this shit. There's no solid evidence for such a creature, in a place so accessible by humans. Which would mean that IF it would exist the population is too small to sustain itself, thus it'd die out in a few generations.

[Gamdwelf]

Haha, thought "this must be Ash's mother or something"


I don't believe this shit. There's no solid evidence for such a creature, in a place so accessible by humans. Which would mean that IF it would exist the population is too small to sustain itself, thus it'd die out in a few generations.

There is a paper with DNA evidence. Idk if DNA evidence is good enough for you.

[zorkuus]

There is a paper with DNA evidence.

They claim there is.

[Breccia]

Alright, alright, I apologize for making a ridiculous comment about a ridiculous story. I'm sorry I went off-topic to the point that some of you apparently don't think I want a cure for cancer, or that my disgust with Texas-based biology textbooks somehow applies to Georgia Institute of Technology, UMaryland, or NASA. And no, I don't hate all things Southern, and I'm really surprised that's what you inferred about my post about a freaking Bigfoot story.

[Urti]

There is a paper with DNA evidence. Idk if DNA evidence is good enough for you.

The DNA evidence is sketchy at best. It was published in a "journal" that isn't peer-reviewed and has, to date, published only this article. The study has yet to be peer-reviewed, and prolly never will be. The samples were almost exclusively collected by amateurs, meaning the likelihood of DNA contamination is ridiculously high. THere are a ton of things wrong with this study, and very few things right. I'd love to find an extant hominid, and hope we do, but this outfit ain't gonna be the one to do it.

Alright, alright, I apologize for making a ridiculous comment about a ridiculous story. I'm sorry I went off-topic to the point that some of you apparently don't think I want a cure for cancer, or that my disgust with Texas-based biology textbooks somehow applies to Georgia Institute of Technology, UMaryland, or NASA. And no, I don't hate all things Southern, and I'm really surprised that's what you inferred about my post about a freaking Bigfoot story.

Your comment was a flippant remark about the education system in Texas, which is completely unrelated to this "research" group, and relied on an implied stereotype of southern states being educationally deficient, and I cited examples of schools that proved that stereotype false. You took a thread about a poorly constructed and executed study about Bigfoot, and managed to wrestle in some needless, derogatory comment about southern education that was unrelated in any way to the topic. What exactly was I supposed to infer?

[Garnier Fructis]

There is a paper with DNA evidence. Idk if DNA evidence is good enough for you.

I could publish a paper in a sketchy journal proclaiming that I have DNA evidence of unicorns and dragons. Doesn't make it true.

[Gamdwelf]

I could publish a paper in a sketchy journal proclaiming that I have DNA evidence of unicorns and dragons. Doesn't make it true.

But if you had found an actual dragon would you like it, if nobody would even read your paper because dragon's don't exist.

[Garnier Fructis]

But if you had found an actual dragon would you like it, if nobody would even read your paper because dragon's don't exist.

It's almost as if you're implying that they actually have irrefutable evidence.

[Gamdwelf]

I'm just saying people are dismissing it without even looking at the evidence because of bigfoot.

[Urti]

But if you had found an actual dragon would you like it, if nobody would even read your paper because dragon's don't exist.

If they have evidence that solid, then why not publish in any of the dozens of peer reviewed, reputable journals? Why in this rinky-dink journal no ones ever heard of, and has only ever published this study and nothing else? Because they are self-published. The real journals would be falling over eachother to publish this if the evidence was as good as they claim, yet they refuse to submit to peer review, or let other teams test their samples to confirm their data. The analysis techniques the use are questionable and prone to error or outright manipulation. I'm sorry, but if they really have any decent evidence hidden somewhere, they've done everything they could to make it look like they don't.

I'm just saying people are dismissing it without even looking at the evidence because of bigfoot.

But people have looked at the evidence as much as the research team will allow and still dismiss it. There isn't anything there, unless they are keeping it secret, which begs the question why? It's not that the scientific community is ignoring evidence, the evidence they have just isn't very good.

[Gamdwelf]

If they have evidence that solid, then why not publish in any of the dozens of peer reviewed, reputable journals? Why in this rinky-dink journal no ones ever heard of, and has only ever published this study and nothing else? Because they are self-published. The real journals would be falling over eachother to publish this if the evidence was as good as they claim, yet they refuse to submit to peer review, or let other teams test their samples to confirm their data. The analysis techniques the use are questionable and prone to error or outright manipulation. I'm sorry, but if they really have any decent evidence hidden somewhere, they've done everything they could to make it look like they don't.

they would not even look at it. Every single journal they went to would not even look at the data.

[Urti]

they would not even look at it. Every single journal they went to would not even look at the data.

I refuse to believe that. You don't have to publish to invite peer review. They could have submitted their work for peer review, and if the data was as good as they claim, no biology journal on earth would refuse to publish that. A study claiming fresh modern DNA clearly of unidentified hominid origin, that had been repeated and confirmed by multiple reputable labs? That would have gotten a landslide of publication, but what we have here is a team that refuses to allow anyone to try and repeat their tests and confirm the data. That tells scientists that the original team have something to hide.

[Gamdwelf]

I refuse to believe that. You don't have to publish to invite peer review. They could have submitted their work for peer review, and if the data was as good as they claim, no biology journal on earth would refuse to publish that. A study claiming fresh modern DNA clearly of unidentified hominid origin, that had been repeated and confirmed by multiple reputable labs? That would have gotten a landslide of publication, but what we have here is a team that refuses to allow anyone to try and repeat their tests and confirm the data. That tells scientists that the original team have something to hide.

Well Dr. Ketchum was on the radio last night and that is her claim that they submited to dozens of scientific journals and only one went through the peer review process. but their lawyers told them not to publish the paper last minute. So they took the peer reviewed paper and published it themselves.