By the way there are no websites , the forensic scientist is waiting upon peer review of the paper presented The study was carried out by many labs who had no idea of what they were analyzing to verify their own lab results Which were not contaminated by them or any thing else , since they have records of their own DNA to establish the purity of the samples But any thoughts anyway ?
Just FYI, I started a thread on the same topic a few weeks ago, and it was moved to the "UFOS and Monsters" section. Still waiting for further analysis and the published results.
Who is the "forensic scientist"? What publication(s) is(are) being submitted to? I'm not convinced even this much is true to be perfectly honest (that a "forensic scientist" has submitted a paper on bigfoot DNA to the peer-review process). But if it is, the results will be interesting.
Join coast to coast , and listen to the interview , you can join for 1 months , about 6.95 It comes down to , whats more important , finding the truth , for a meager sum , or spouting off about which you don't know Your choice
"Join Coast to Coast?" that's your reply to my very reasonable questions? Don't be daft. First, Coast to Coast is a nutter show to begin with... so no reason to even consider joining. Second, I asked a very valid set of questions which you are clearly refusing to answer. Either that or there simply are no answers. There is no "forensic scientist" at all is there? Just some guy who probably claims to be a forensic scientist. Your evasion is intellectual dishonesty. If there answers to who and what publications are available, there is no reason not to give them. Except to be dishonest.
So then your not willing to spend $6.95 for one month to be informed about the subject Either you are a cheap person , or afraid of the truth
That's always the best you can ever do, isn't it? Claim other people are afraid of your nonsense. While the REAL fact is that it's *you* who are afraid of the actual truth. As I said once before, when someone does nothing but visit crank and woo-woo sites (as you do), it rots their brain.
I've explained before - and in detail - that I most certainly am not. You are simply one of the few *highly* under-educated people here who do not know enough the be able to sort fiction from fact. And you fall for every single bit of stupidity you come across due to the fact that you WANT to believe these fantasies. I prefer to live unafraid in the REAL world - not plagued with nonsense as you are. <shrug>
You are afraid of the truth The proof is your lack of any inquisitiveness , of which all intelligent people have
No.. the truth is out. You're a liar. If there were real data to discuss, you'd have done so by now. I'm not being unreasonable. I'm simply asking for the name of the "forensic scientist" and the publication that is refereeing the paper. Instead of providing this very simple information, you do as mystery-mongers and significance-junkies do and attempt to redirect, deflect, move a goal post, and shift burden of proof. Well done. The truth is out: you're a liar.
The paper is under peer review and I have said before there is no web site to go to If you really have any sense of inquisitiveness about the subject then join coast to coast and look into the archives , and listen to the interview Whats the harm
I didn't ask you for a website. In fact, I don't want a website. I'm asking for: 1) the name of the "forensic scientist" 2) the name of the publication that is refereeing the paper If this person exists, then it should be easy to provide.
Go to this site http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2012/11/27/Researchers-claim-sequenced-Bigfoot-DNA/UPI-35121354065000 And from Texas no less
