I'm sorry mystic, but if they have DNA evidence, gave people in the scientific community their evidence, findings, and writings for peer review and get nothing but laughed at, then the so called evidence is more than likely to be just that, laughable.
While peer review has some problems, it's the best system we have, and if you have - as these people state - DNA evidence, if it was real you could get people to do more than laugh at you.
DNA is not subjective, if they have it and it's not from a dog or a human, they wouldn't be being laughed at by the scientific community.
I simple cannot take your source as credible in light of this. Peer review is meant to protect people from frauds.. and I see this man and his self publication devoid of peer review as nothing but fraudulent. I find it doubtful he ever had any DNA evidence or submitted anything for peer review in the first place.
Advertising revenue appears to be the name of the game with this one.
While peer review has some problems, it's the best system we have, and if you have - as these people state - DNA evidence, if it was real you could get people to do more than laugh at you.
DNA is not subjective, if they have it and it's not from a dog or a human, they wouldn't be being laughed at by the scientific community.
I simple cannot take your source as credible in light of this. Peer review is meant to protect people from frauds.. and I see this man and his self publication devoid of peer review as nothing but fraudulent. I find it doubtful he ever had any DNA evidence or submitted anything for peer review in the first place.
Advertising revenue appears to be the name of the game with this one.