Guest Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Robert Lindsay posted this yesterday. I know some members here are capable of sorting this out for people(me for one) that don't fully understand the DNA results so thanks in advance. Source : bigfoot evidence First preliminary data on Bigfoot nuclear DNA Before you read any further, you must watch this talk by David Paulides. It explains what the Bigfoot DNA study is trying to prove. Click here. Here it is ladies and gentlemen, the A-Bomb of DNA results. Robert Lindsaydoes not reveal his source, but we'll take his word for it. First, we want to say that we are not geneticists, so we'll need an expert to decipher what we actually have here. We can tell you that not even Robert himself understands what some of the results mean. "The results from the MC1R gene tests were very confusing, and I do not understand the results very well, but I will just throw them out to you and let you try to make sense out of them. Sources told me that the MC1R gene in the three Bigfoots was exactly the same in each one, a shocking finding. The results were “within the human range, but just barely.†Here's the raw data: Bigfoot News November 21, 2011 Nuclear DNA: As I promised in an earlier post, we can now release preliminary data on Bigfoot nuclear DNA. Three samples were tested for nuclear DNA. A single gene, the <a style="width: auto !important; color: rgb(34, 136, 187); font-family: inherit !important; font-size: inherit !important; font-weight: inherit !important; text-decoration: none !important; border-bottom-width: 1px !important; border-bottom-style: dashed !important; float: none !important; display: inline !important; cursor: pointer !important; -webkit-transition-property: color; -webkit-transition-duration: 1s; -webkit-transition-timing-function: ease-in; -webkit-transition-delay: initial;" class="ml-smartlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanocortin_1_receptor" target="_blank">MC1R gene, was tested. According to Wikipedia, MC1R is one of the key proteins involved in regulating mammalian skin and hair color. In fact, in this study it was considered the “hair color†gene for practical purposes. The default Bigfoot hair color, which was the same in all three copies, is “red.†That could mean “auburn.†All humans have a distinctive marker on this gene. In Neandertals, one polymorphism is different. Caucasians can have 10 varying coding genes for MC1R and Blacks can have five different coding genes for MC1R, but they all share a single polymorphism that differentiates them as humans and from apes and even primitive hominids like Neandertal. The results from the MC1R gene tests were very confusing, and I do not understand the results very well, but I will just throw them out to you and let you try to make sense out of them. Sources told me that the MC1R gene in the three Bigfoots was exactly the same in each one, a shocking finding. The results were “within the human range, but just barely.†The results were not in GenBank, nor were there any human results even remotely close to be found in GenBank. It is barely possible that such a bizarre finding could show up in one random modern human. That it would show up by chance in three separate random humans is for all intents and purposes statistically impossible. That is, the odds are against it are so extreme that we can be reasonably sure that these were not three random humans. The problem is the same as with the MtDNA. We are still stuck with human DNA, even though it is so bizarre it is nearly completely outside of the modern human range. But here is where the problem comes in. Out of the ~1000 polymorphisms in this gene, all three Bigfoot samples were concordant for a single polymorphism. That polymorphism was “100% non-human,†as my source put it. In other words, it is like the Neandertal copy of this gene that also differs by a single a non-human polymorphism. Now the question is, can humans have non-human genes, non-human markers on their genes, or non-human polymorphisms? I would say no. If you find a non-human area in something’s genetics, my position is that the genetic sample is simply non-human. Humans can’t have non-human genes or even parts of genes. But I’m not a geneticist. I would assume that this single non-human polymorphism is what made the Ketchum Study conclude that we were dealing with something non-human in terms of the nuclear DNA. We also have the 4-letter DNA alphabetic code for that polymorphism, but I am not going to print it as I do not want to upset Ketchum’s findings. For now, let us call it XXXX where each X is an alphabetic letter in the genetic code. I believe that the DNA testing subsequently concluded that all three of these samples tested positive for Bigfoot on DNA. I believe at least one of these samples referenced above was Larry Jenkins’ Bigfoot toenail. Numerous questions arise from this finding. First of all, how can the gene be “within the human range, but only barely,†and also have a 100% non-human polymorphism similar toNeandertal’s? This makes no sense to me. If the default color gene in Bigfoots is “red,†then why do we find dark brown, brown, white and grey colored Bigfoots? I have no answer to that question. The nuclear DNA findings above are extremely tentative and are based on conversations with sources over a period of months. I tried to check back with my sources today before I wrote the piece, but I could not get in touch with them. They are subject to revision in the future. I have had this nuclear DNA information for months now but have been unable to release it because it was given to me off the record. I just now got the go ahead to run it. My understanding of the final results of the nuclear DNA is that it is quite a bit aways from human. How far away is uncertain. From three different sources, we heard “1/3 of the way from a human to a chimp.†However, another source said it is closer. Two different sources referred to Neandertal and Denisova. “Whether it is closer to Neandertal or Denisova, I am not sure,†one said. Another referenced late Erectus trending into archaic Sapiens. An example would be “Heidelberg Man.†If the nuclear side is 1/3 of the way from a human to a chimp, the split between Bigfoot and man took place 2.2 million YBP (years before present). If it is instead closer to Neandertal – Denisova – Heidelberg Man, we are looking at a Bigfoot – human split of 750,000 YBP. At the moment, we don’t know how far away the nuclear side is from humans. All we have is conjecture. Ketchum’s peer reviewed study. The study has been out for peer review for about 9 months now – February 2011 to November 2011. Blogs are quoting me as saying that Ketchum is unwilling to make the changes that the peer reviewers want. That’s a misquote. My sources are simply speculating that, based on her “bullheaded†personality, Ketchum may be unwilling to make the changes the peer reviewers request. Truth is we have no knowledge whatsoever of how the peer review is going, but it does seem to be taking awhile. This implies a long and drawn out process. We are also not certain of Ketchum saying a May 2012 publication date. That date is simply being thrown about because Ketchum will be appearing at a Bigfoot conference in the Pacific Northwest on Homo sapiens hirsutti on that date. Justin Smeja’s original post on Taxidermy.net. We already discussed this finding in our previous post. The original post from that website is almost impossible to get. Only a few people have it, and they won’t let anyone else see it. Nevertheless, our team* got ahold of a copy. In the post, Smeja admits to shooting the Bigfoot in the back as it was running away. In addition, Smeja repeatedly refers to the creatures as “bears,†though he says over and over that they are the strangest bears he had ever seen. Nevertheless, he titled the post, “If You Saw Bigfoot, Would You Shoot It?†Keep in mind that the post was only 1 month after the Sierra Kills. Smeja did not believe in Bigfoots at all at the time of the shooting. Even after talking to several people who told him he just shot two Bigfoots, part of Smeja still cannot wrap his mind around that fact, so he keeps trying to rationalize that somehow he shot two of the weirdest bears on the face of the Earth. He theorizes that the Bigfoot he shot may have had two of its legs shot off and then learned to walk upright on only two legs. The concept of Bigfoot is still so weird to him that his mind refuses to believe it and he is backing up into bizarre bear explanations to make sense of the insensible. He also refers to grizzly bears a few times when talking about the Bigfoot he shot, possibly due to the huge size. *One or more persons, which may or may not include me. Smeja’s Bigfoot steak is for sale. First of all, we do not believe that Smeja has a single small Bigfoot steak. By his own admission, we calculated that he has 7.5 pounds of steak. He gave Ketchum 1/4 of that, which was ~2 pound slice. So he still retains ~6 pounds of steak. We recently received word from sources that Smeja has been trying to sell some or all of that steak. Asking price was reportedly ~$10,000. We believe that there were no takers.<br class="Apple-interchange-newline"> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I thought that if this was released *before* the official publication by a scientific journal that we would lose everything due to the journal pulling the study and thus refusing to publish it. Have we just posted a death bell for this project?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 (edited) I thought that if this was released *before* the official publication by a scientific journal that we would lose everything due to the journal pulling the study and thus refusing to publish it. Have we just posted a death bell for this project?? No, Susi, I think this is just more rumoring about the project. A. Look at the original source. B. Even that source is unsure of himself using the word "speculating" and even (finally )admitting within the blog that he (we? The team? The royal "we?") really has no idea about the status of the Ketchum study. Speculation speculation and more speculation. If there is anything to this info, you can bet it is really only a snippet, likely taken out of some larger context with a goodly amount of "here's my take" thrown in... Thanks to Zigo for posting, but reliability is right out the window. So no death knell. All JMO. EDIT TO ADD...RL actually said it best when he admitted that all we have is conjecture. Remember, he admitted that this is preliminary info from his "source," whom I expect was only involved in preliminary research and is now no longer involved. Just a hunch on that, though. Edited November 22, 2011 by notgiganto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I'm guessing some of this info is from Stubstad. For the longest time he's claimed to have seen nuclear sequencing for a single gene. No doubt Ketchum has learned a lot more since those "early" days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I'm guessing some of this info is from Stubstad. For the longest time he's claimed to have seen nuclear sequencing for a single gene. No doubt Ketchum has learned a lot more since those "early" days. Well, I didn't want to mention names, but that is where I was going with my hunch. Perhaps Stubstad will comment. Perhaps not, as he seemed a bit fed up with the ole BFF in other threads. If that is the case, I wonder why ole RL got the go ahead from his "source" to put that info out there now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I'm asking in an official capacity here- guess Ill see what a few of you think, then maybe discuss it behind closed doors. After reading it, I see it as nothing more than continued speculation as well. One question.. Do we really need another 15 page thread discussing speculation? In which thread I guarantee we'll see the same predictable attacks on Ketchum's (and other's) credibility, even more speculation and "crystal ball" predictions from those who may possibly have an agenda. I could see this just being another post in one of the existing "DNA" threads.... and the part about J Smeja being pasted into the Sierra Shootings thread... ** I say all of the above considering who's blog its from, and secondly that everything being claimed as "initial data" is from some "secret" source who is not named.... Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Stick it in the on going thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted November 22, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted November 22, 2011 I could see this just being another post in one of the existing "DNA" threads.... and the part about J Smeja being pasted into the Sierra Shootings thread... Yep, courtesy says let's keep this discussion in the thread with the three-headed monster that gobbles up anything that falls within the black hole. Seriously, this topic is a footnote to the discussions elsewhere. Take your pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted November 22, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted November 22, 2011 Do we really need another 15 page thread discussing speculation? In which thread I guarantee we'll see the same predictable attacks on Ketchum's (and other's) credibility, even more speculation and "crystal ball" predictions from those who may possibly have an agenda. I could see this just being another post in one of the existing "DNA" threads.... and the part about J Smeja being pasted into the Sierra Shootings thread... ** I say all of the above considering who's blog its from, and secondly that everything being claimed as "initial data" is from some "secret" source who is not named.... Art Add to the fact that it's nothing but speculation, partly about multiple Members of this Forum too.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Good points all around. I have seen RL's latest linked in another, longer thread. Maybe move this discussion there, or just close this thread. Early enough on. Zigo, you started it, what say you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 So, in a nutshell: Bigfoot is a mutant human or a hybrid human mixed with neandertal or denisova. No monkey. Side note- why did RL get banned from BFF anyway? I knew silverfox disappeared, but do not know why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Might be a good idea for anyone out there wanting to spray BF with bullets to hold off for the time being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Add to the fact that it's nothing but speculation, partly about multiple Members of this Forum too.. Is that a rule? It seems to me that would preclude any hypotheticals involving Ketchum and her study, the Olympic Project, the Sierra shooting, etc, et al, ad nauseum. As far as I can tell, the vast majority of posts on this forum are speculative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Well since the term "mutant human " has been used already... proof !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I had posted this in the other thread on the Ketchum project yesterday. Thought it might be relevant until the mods decide what to do with this thread. If combined you can just delete this post. On the off chance that there is anything to the rumore regarding the mc1r gene, I did some reading to find out why it would be significant. Here are the links to the articles discussing the mc1r gene in humans and primates and how it affects pain tolerance. http://www.genetics....151/4/1547.full It also seems to be related to pain control in humans and mice. http://health.howstu...anesthesia1.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts