Guest Jodie Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Wouldn't that just solve everything. Mulder please, we all know it is strictly conjecture. I doubt anyone on the forum could shut the study down by speculating on rumors. And so what if bigfoot has the red hair gene? It's not exactly earth shattering news since there are several reports of auburn colored bigfoot on record. The MC1R gene is an easy thing to guess never having laid eyes on a DNA report, which is most likely the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 I know you have your results, but have you compared those to anyone else's , or are you allowed to answer that? The results I know about aren't so specific that I could definitively state how they compare to other samples. My posts are based on a certain reasoning that if we have a non-human hominid creature out there with consistent morphology then the DNA will follow that in one way or another, and it will be different enough from all knowns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 (edited) DNA = Determined Not Animal " Willy " You got Cojones for sure, if i posted that i would have gotten run out of the forum faster than St. Patrick ran the snakes out of Ireland. Edited November 24, 2011 by RedRatSnake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Wouldn't that just solve everything. Mulder please, we all know it is strictly conjecture. I doubt anyone on the forum could shut the study down by speculating on rumors. And so what if bigfoot has the red hair gene? It's not exactly earth shattering news since there are several reports of auburn colored bigfoot on record. The MC1R gene is an easy thing to guess never having laid eyes on a DNA report, which is most likely the case. Fahrenbach has allways asserted there was a reddish tinge to the hairs, and I once told Parn that bigfoot was from Ireland so I guess one could speculate on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Mulder please, we all know it is strictly conjecture. I doubt anyone on the forum could shut the study down by speculating on rumors. And so what if bigfoot has the red hair gene? It's not exactly earth shattering news since there are several reports of auburn colored bigfoot on record. The MC1R gene is an easy thing to guess never having laid eyes on a DNA report, which is most likely the case. The quoted postings indicate that this is supposed to be study data, not "speculation". Again, this thread is a threat to the viability of the study and needs to be closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 (edited) Relax dude its just talk and running a few ideas up the pole, ya never know when a great idea might come around, look at the cool idea i got about making a Sexy Medusa to have around the house, if Jodie never posted that, i would have never stopped off at the crafts store on the way home from work and bought the deluxe science kit. Edited November 24, 2011 by RedRatSnake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 And the key phrase here is "supposed to be" ....now look at the source. I rest my case. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wild eyed willy Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 " Willy " You got Cojones for sure, if i posted that i would have gotten run out of the forum faster than St. Patrick ran the snakes out of Ireland. Yea, I got a pair of something, that drags along behind me as I walk and bangs into stuff. Is that a good thing, I don't know, but I have to watch out for forked sticks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 So I'm curious, with all these real fears of contamination of the submitted samples, would they ask for a cheek swab from everyone in the chain of custody? For example, say "THE GENERAL" is the only person who handled the piece of flesh, could they get a sample from him to rule things out and test around them? It could avoid the confusion that Melba would experience when she puts that sample under a microscope and says, "what on Earth !!! this squatch has the trigger-happy gene but they don't even have guns!!!" Just sayin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 I imagine whoever handled anything that got tested got their cheek swabbed. Some of these samples had been setting around for awhile. There are different programs they use to screen the samples for contamination, but the more complicated it gets, the harder it is to find everything especially if the contaminate mimics the expected DNA code. One example was back in 2003 where the chemical compounds that leached from the plastic test tubes they were using managed to bond and mimic coding DNA. Incidentally, there is a big hullabaloo about eating or drinking anything packaged in plastic for the same reason because the residues leached from the bottles when they get hot in storage will mimic estrodiol and stick around in your fat cells rather than pass through your urine or waste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 This raises a question for me, has there ever been an animal or anything else classified solely on a DNA sample with out or with out a body or parts of ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 (edited) I imagine whoever handled anything that got tested got their cheek swabbed. Some of these samples had been setting around for awhile. There are different programs they use to screen the samples for contamination, but the more complicated it gets, the harder it is to find everything especially if the contaminate mimics the expected DNA code. One example was back in 2003 where the chemical compounds that leached from the plastic test tubes they were using managed to bond and mimic coding DNA. Incidentally, there is a big hullabaloo about eating or drinking anything packaged in plastic for the same reason because the residues leached from the bottles when they get hot in storage will mimic estrodiol and stick around in your fat cells rather than pass through your urine or waste. Estradiol is about 10 times as potent as estrone and about 80 times as potent as estriol in its estrogenic effect. Estradiol has not only a critical impact on reproductive and sexual functioning, but also affects other organs, including the bones.Several studies have noted sperm counts have been declining in many parts of the world, and estrogen exposure in the environment has been postulated to be the cause.[9] Suppression of estradiol production in a subpopulation of subfertile men may improve the semen analysis.[10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estradiol humm............plastic bottles are causing birth control............Pepsi and Coke will gradually decline in sales so they had better reformulate their plastics before they go broke. If Ketchum's paper is in the peer review process shouldn't we be able to find it in some journal? Anyway back to the DNA report. So is BF 1/3 of the way between humans and chimps? The Yerin, Almas, Skumk Ape and BF, are probably various species of these BF type animals. Edited November 24, 2011 by georgerm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Homo heidelbergensis... might be more possible than Gigantopithicus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 This raises a question for me, has there ever been an animal or anything else classified solely on a DNA sample with out or with out a body or parts of ? A few amphibians that I know of have been deemed new species based on DNA. However the difference is that they had detailed photos to go along with it. (they didn't take a specimen cuz they were unsure of the population levels as the frog I'm thinking of was very niche specific). Of course several primitive animals have been recognized by just a tooth or a few tiny bones where DNA was partially sequenced. If ketchum has all these DNA samples I would think she must have some physical samples to present as well. One would think. Even if it's just a blood smear on a slide. If they got proper DNA results they "could" at least eliminate known animals. They may not be able to confirm the identity of the unknown animal for sure (unless of course the Erickson footage is going to be considered as part of the total evidence package) If they have some seriously good footage and DNA evidence that says "unknown relative of Human and/or Great Apes (not chimp, bonobo, orangs, gorillas...etc) but not 100% Homo Sapien either.... AND it passes peer review. The worst that could come of this is a paradigm shift in the interest of mainstream primitology. That's not so bad IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Homo heidelbergensis... might be more possible than Gigantopithicus I think something like a relative of Adipithecus Ramidus rather anything along the Homo lineage. I just don't see how any of our recent ancestors could climb and swing like some of the reports I've read. Not to mention the physical descriptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts