Guest gershake Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 Rich, I know you guys signed NDAs but can you confirm or deny about them having nuclear DNA as well? - Shake
Guest RICH G Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 I don’t know if I can confirm what type of tests were done with our samples but I think that I am OK to tell you that with all of our six samples there is plenty of biological material to get as much DNA necessary to do whatever type of testing needed.
Guest Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 Rich is right. The hype IS justified. It's really hard to wait for study's like these, but this science takes time, and it needs to be backed up, and backed up again and again. I can assure everybody on this forum, Melba Ketchum is absolutely working her tail off. Actually, that's an understatement.
Guest Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 Yes, but "working her tail off" doesn't automatically equal good results. How can she claim to have Sasquatch DNA when there's no Sasquatch DNA on record? I think there have been cases of subspecies acknowledged on DNA results only but not species. And this is not about a rat or other type of usual animal, but a close relative to us humans. Extraordinary claims ("there's a new great ape species in North America") need extraordinary evidence. Here comes another problem: If the DNA is so similar to human DNA, how can you prove that it's not Homo sapiens? That it's not bear hair contaminated with human DNA for example? I doubt that scientists will believe it. Additionally the tests/results must be repeatable to be of scientific value. But I'd assume that there's not a lot of DNA material left in those samples for further testings and the analysis very expensive. I think the DNA alone won't do it, and the Erickson footage alone won't do it. But if you lay everything together on the table of the skeptics, including the testimonies of the scientists involved who claim to have seen the creatures (Bindernagel, Hadj-Chikh), and the footprint casts, etc, then I think this whole thing is worth something.
Guest wudewasa Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 (edited) How can she claim to have Sasquatch DNA when there's no Sasquatch DNA on record? I think there have been cases of subspecies acknowledged on DNA results only but not species. And this is not about a rat or other type of usual animal, but a close relative to us humans. Extraordinary claims ("there's a new great ape species in North America") need extraordinary evidence. Additionally the tests/results must be repeatable to be of scientific value. But I'd assume that there's not a lot of DNA material left in those samples for further testings and the analysis very expensive. 1) Bingo! 2) Bingo! 3) DNA can be amplified (replicated) with a process known as Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). It is becoming less expensive, and is used to create more DNA samples for analysis for all sorts of issues (crimes, paternity, wildlife studies). PCR can be used to create as much DNA that is needed for a test, and multiple tests if necessary. Feel free to PM me if you need more info. Edited March 6, 2011 by wudewasa
Guest jimmy simpson Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 So if the Erickson Project is to be taken seriously id like everyones opinion on why the only 2 links off the erickson site are one for John Bindernagel and one for Sylvanic.... I would think anyone wanting to be taken seriously would stay as far away from sylvanic as possible... http://questforsasquatch.com/contact.html
Guest RICH G Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 I'll say that for most of the distinct samples which were submitted by the Olympic Project, (all but one), there is probably no shortage of biological material to do as much testing as anyone would ever want to do in regards to DNA analysis of any type. We have been lucky enough to obtain truly unique samples.
Guest Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 Swiss Cris, We would love to answer a few of your questions. It's really hard to not talk about this in depth, but obviously we've singed NDAs and cannot divulge any more. Yes she is working very hard. Wouldn't you agree it's fantastic that she's doing this? Someone has actually stepped up to take on this challenge, and I for one am forever grateful. Don't think for one minute that this hasn't been incredibly hard and challenging for her. What a commitment! In my opinion everybody that's ever called themselves a researcher should be very thankful she's working so diligently on this. In order to climb any mountain, you have to start taking steps.
Guest Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 (edited) Rich G, so is Erikson heading up all these separate projects to be summarised on his DVD? or will we hear lots of stuff from lots of sources? Edited March 6, 2011 by megatarsal
Guest RICH G Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 Like I said before the Olympic Project nor any of our members has any affiliation with Erickson whatsoever, we have never met him or even talked to him. We have no involvements in any of his endevors nor does he with ours. I have heard nothing more about his stuff than you have read on his website or has been discussed on this board.
Guest Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 I raised this over on the Erikson thread. Someone mentioned that he may be linked for his efforts in getting sasquatch protected. A hoaxer will always be a hoaxer in my book. Wait ..... just checked STQ website. Butchykid now gets a mention
Guest Cervelo Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 Didnt I see a mention of pointy teeth and non blinking eyes on the other thread?
Guest jimmy simpson Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 im still reading thru the erickson thread .... sorry for bringing it up twice .
Guest billgreen2010 Posted March 6, 2011 Posted March 6, 2011 hey everyone admins i just watched the new trailer to this new documentary it looks awesome but to continued.
Recommended Posts