Guest Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 Well since the term "mutant human " has been used already... proof !!!! Ha! I was expecting a pic of Dennis Rodman!
Guest Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 As we have recieved more than seventy emails spawned from this thread going up this morning we are not the source RL is quoting, again were not the source. To Answer the other most ask question in those emails we are not covered by the interlocking NDA.
Guest Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 (edited) HTG, Art, I'm so used to being in trouble regarding posting similar topics that I had posted an apology here for starting another same-o topic! Then I amazingly realized that this time I had not done it.... Edited November 22, 2011 by SweetSusiq
Guest Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 Just an F.Y.I for everyone... Probably going to just leave the thread open/and as an independent topic as it seems to be off and running fairly well, and because it discusses a specific type of DNA etc.... It could be merged with the Ketchum thread I suppose, but as it is "News" of a sort (speculation or not) I'm willing to let it stand alone.** **That could change BTW if an admin or someone else farther up the organizational ladder see's things differently...
Guest Jodie Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 Now here is some speculation based on the speculation, which is not grounded in scientific study. Here is my "What if": The mc1r gene is also a key mediator for color adaptation for reptiles and amphibians. What if it affects the musculature on bigfoot like it does the octopus allowing him to ripple his hair into patterns to create instant camoflauge??...Or maybe it affects the reflective qualities of the hair shaft itself that causes the fur to reflect the light bounced off the surrounding area. I bet someone read up on the mc1r gene and anticipated the speculation. I can see it now, " Bigfoot has a built in invisibility cloaking device so says the DNA" . Let's see if that ends up on a blog somewhere in a couple of weeks.
Guest RedRatSnake Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 I would not be the least bit surprized.
Guest Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 Now here is some speculation based on the speculation, which is not grounded in scientific study. Here is my "What if": The mc1r gene is also a key mediator for color adaptation for reptiles and amphibians. What if it affects the musculature on bigfoot like it does the octopus allowing him to ripple his hair into patterns to create instant camoflauge??...Or maybe it affects the reflective qualities of the hair shaft itself that causes the fur to reflect the light bounced off the surrounding area. I bet someone read up on the mc1r gene and anticipated the speculation. I can see it now, " Bigfoot has a built in invisibility cloaking device so says the DNA" . Let's see if that ends up on a blog somewhere in a couple of weeks. A couple of weeks? How about a couple of hours...
Guest Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 " Bigfoot has a built in invisibility cloaking device so says the DNA" . LoL that's funny, maybe It will come withe a cup holder and an LED light?
Guest LissingMinx Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 Just a note on the question of varied colors reported and the mistaken assumption the one gene is responsible for expressed hair color. Many genes are involved. The "gene for red" helps make the difference between strawberry and ash blondes. Mousy brown and auburn. Hair that fades blonde or red in the sun...etc. Other genes can completely or partially override many of these other genes involved in pigmentation such as albanism or leucism. It's just not that simple. Personally, I'll wait until someone publishes full results, then call a molecular anthropologist I know and say "Dude, wtf?"
Guest slimwitless Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 Richard Stubstad gives his take on Lindsay's MC1R post here.
Guest wudewasa Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 Let's match a living or dead specimen with this DNA, and then this speculation won't be necessary.
Guest bsruther Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 Let's match a living or dead specimen with this DNA, and then this speculation won't be necessary. This statement would lead me to believe they already have one. "I believe that the DNA testing subsequently concluded that all three of these samples tested positive for Bigfoot on DNA." How could it test positive for Bigfoot, unless they have a documented specimen?
Bonehead74 Posted November 22, 2011 Posted November 22, 2011 Richard Stubstad gives his take on Lindsay's MC1R post here. The most exciting development here is Stubstad's use of the word 'sasquatch' as a plural to described the creatures in question. I just hope he doesn't have a 'sasquaii' relapse.
Recommended Posts