Leaderboard

We can't assume they're false either. The only thing I'm arguing is keeping an open mind. The mDNA is debatable as we've discussed here. There are possible explanations for the variations. The key is the nuDNA which I don't think anyone here can really weigh in on yet. That info will come out later. The reports about contamination are assuming as well. They say it can't be ruled out, yet they ran tests specifically to rule it out. The arstechnica site says the results came back human, unknown and failure to sequence. The report specifically says unknown, some with minimal human (a mix) or failure to sequence. That's not results coming back human. It's a failure to take all the information into account. The science itself is going to have to be tested and disputed before we know for sure what the real story is. I've always believed that the interpretation is what was going to be disputed and used to try to dismiss the data. Everyone likes to have their own opinion on things. Even the early leaks about the peer review didn't mention problems with the data, but problems with the interpretation. Ape - if you look up the individual co-authors, they have the new patents listed that pertain directly to the procedures used here.

Huh? We have several non-experts re-iterating what they believed before the paper was released, most of whom haven't even read it. This forum is NOT the place to find conclusions- it's primarily uneducated opinion being slung around to make people feel important about themselves.

Except, she says in the bottom of her paper that those listed as co-authors DID help write the paper: Author Contributions: M.K., P.W., D.S., A.H., S.B., R.S., and R.S. performed experiments. M.K, and F.Z. analyzed the genetic data. M.K., A.W., and P.W. wrote and edited the manuscript. A.H. analyzed and wrote the EM portion of the manuscript. D. S. analyzed and wrote the hair analysis portion of the manuscript. D.T. analyzed and wrote the histopathology portion of the manuscript. A.W. also researched pertinent additions to the manuscript and helped with data collection. M.K. distributed samples, collected and combined data from the blind studies.

Just remember that Rick's invited people in the past just to make excuses at the last minute. Gives the impression it's real then pulls the carpet.

This is all a great debate with good points made on both side. But bottom line is nobody that is reputable has seen a body. Until that happens RD word is no good...historical fact!

I'd be concerned with anything touted as 'fact' over on the JREF regarding the BF phenom without some pretty hard evidence to back it up. Regarding the co-author, I think some folks would think it a cop out if the lab directors were listed as co-authors with the insinuation that they didn't 'support' the paper, just analyzed data and Ketchum was attempting to bolster the significance by using them as co-authors. Ketchum has enough foibles to deal with, 'perceived' foibles don't need to be introduced. Could agree with you more on your last statement....see my previous comment on foibles! (got ya plus from me!) I think the comments were made should be considered in the context of the statement I quoted. Basically, he said 'I don't know, I'm just speculating'.... And I couldn't agree more, people have waited a LONG time for this. Let's see the goods. This tease n tickle approach should be saved for middle school dances. I just am trying to 'reel' in comments and what-not that will undoubtedly be forwarded on as fact. In this case, the author, by his own admission, simply isn't sure.

It's the JREF Bigfoot DNA thread. No secret. Also, there's nothing wrong with her listing the people that did the testing as her co-authors. What's unfortunate is that she didn't get any real help for the sections of the paper that were clearly way out of her area of expertise.

As one in the "more likely than not" camp for BF's existence, I'm not so much left with a doubt as to the essential veracity of Ms. Ketchum's findings...that is, I don't get the sense she is fraudulent or deliberately opaque...as the sense she is in a bit over her head, and has been for some time. I give her props for her courage, but maybe it is time to just acknowledge she brought a knife to a gunfight, hmmm? Persistence is also not something she lacks, to her credit again, but what I'm sniffing is somewhat of a persecution complex...never a helpful attitude when you are an outsider trying to learn the secret handshake and high-sign for admittance into the inner realm of mainstream academia. She was quoted as saying she would not expect Sykes or the Oxford team to have much trouble getting published, as they are "male, and from Oxford." Without commenting on the quality of her work, I'd say she made an accurate prediction there. If Sykes' study does jibe with hers, well, how monumental would that be, huh? One small, baby step for science, with the hope of more to follow. In the coming days, we'll learn if this has any traction with the mainstream news outlets, and what the editorial slant they give it will be.

Since you are representative of "SCIENCE" and you have shown yourself to be unskilled at interpreting the data (unable to process what data refers to what sample), perhaps you should read it, digest it thoroughly, discuss it with one of your scientific peers (feel free to stick with other pre-judging skeptics if you like), and THEN start your doomsaying campaign. Tim B.

She found 16 different "mothers" or more properly mitochondrial "Eves" out of the 20 samples she did a full mtDNA sequence on. And these weren't rare ancient "Cro-Magnon" haplotypes. They are common mostly European types. They are the types that most of us on these boards would fall into. Those of you that have followed the discussion and speculation on this topic here for the last few months should realize the implications of this. If she had one or maybe two haplotypes (preferable a Native American type or at least one associated with east Asia) she could have made an argument that there was a hybridization event prior to prior to BF migrating to N. America and that all the BF females had the human mtDNA. I have tried on numerous occasions in this very thread to come up with possible (if implausible) scenarios to account for her hybridization theory. But 100% of the mtDNA came back fully modern human with 16 different human female lineages? From a wide variety of different haplotypes? Mostly from Europe? How do she explain this? Again, here is the relevant passage quoted directly from her paper (and fully within the bounds of fair use): I challenge anyone to make sense of this passage. It is gibberish. What is she even saying? The dubious Solutrean hypothesis (that Cro-Magnon Solutreans crossed the Atlantic ca. 20-15kya) is based on similar spear points found in Europe and N. America. Is she saying that the Solutreans who are responsible for not only those advanced spear points, but also the amazing cave paintings at Lascaux and elsewhere are actually BF and that they crossed the frozen Atlantic in boats? Or that the Solutreans were made up of a multitude of different mtDNA lineages and crossed the Atlantic to mate with BF over here, but the only females that survived are those that are descended from human-BF mating---no pure BF females survived? Or is it more likely that she has DNA samples from 20 modern North American humans? You tell me. Some of you keep holding out for some qualified experts to coming riding in to save day, but yet many of you haven't bothered to buy the report yourselves. Let me be as plain as I can be. I am a professional archaeologist and anthropologist with a federal agency that would be directly responsible for dealing with this creature should it prove to be real. I lean to the skeptical side for sure, but am very much open to the possibility that BF is real and I'm fully supportive of legitimate efforts to get to the bottom of this mystery. I am the target audience for this paper. I am exactly the type of person this study was supposed to convince. On the mtDNA portion of her paper I am a qualified expert. And unlike most of you I coughed up the money and bought the paper read it. I didn't ignore it like many of you claim us elite scientists always do. I read it and I found it to be incredibly underwhelming. The mtDNA portion and her explanation of the wide variety of haplotypes is well-within my area of expertise and it is garbage. Not just far-fetched or poorly argued---it's garbage. Superficial, wikipedied garbage. I'm sorry to be so blunt. There is no way that this portion of the paper would have made it through any legitimate peer review process intact. Maybe there's something magical in the three nuDNA samples but her case wasn't very convincing---at best it seems inconclusive. On that portion I'll reserve full judgement until some of the genetics experts weigh in, but based on the rest of the paper it does not look promising at all. I feel really bad for those of you who put so much of their hopes into this and thought it would bring vindication, but this was clearly the wrong horse to back.

I'd like to propose a test. It looks like RD, on one of his fanboy sites, made a show of posting his last comments until the "big reveal". I'd like to propose that we all stop giving him any more attention and see how long it takes him to break his silence.

Excellent examples, gentlemen, of the point Cornelius was attempting to make...

Only since day 1.

Its a suit. We all interpret what we see and this can very between individuals. But the facts are this RD is a three time hoaxer. And thanks to Bipedalist we know at least I can clearly see that this is indeed the suit he USED to hoax the tent video.