Guest Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 didnt know where to put this one, but pauldies and dr melba ketchum might be coming out with a scientific and peer reviewed paper on bigfoot dna.... I felt this was kinda big news, enjoy........ http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2010/08/29 http://www.sott.net/articles/show/214575-Scientific-DNA-Proof-of-Bigfoot-May-be-Only-Months-Away http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/bigfoot-dna/ http://www.nabigfootsearch.com/home.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 didnt know where to put this one, but pauldies and dr melba ketchum might be coming out with a scientific and peer reviewed paper on bigfoot dna.... Well, they're continuing analysis that they hope to use to produce a manuscript that they will submit to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. That's very different than "coming out with a . . . paper" although I appreciate your use of the word "might." They may find that their analysis doesn't even convince them that they've got something worthy of writing up, they may write something up and get rejected by the journals, or they may get lucky and publish one of the most exciting papers of the 21st Century. I'm in no rush, though - if they've got anything of note, we'll hear about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 I just thought it was some GOOD news for a change Sas....... this one statement caught me by surprise though........ Both Dr. Ketchum and Paulidies believe the research is very promising and that the DNA may indeed offer definitive DNA proof of an existence of a Bigfoot type of creature. Still, final DNA testing needs to be carefully concluded so that skeptics will not be able to attack the DNA findings as being based on faulty or sloppy science. sounds like they are crossing their I's and dotting their T's....... maybe you will be on the peer review board Sas..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 didnt know where to put this one, but pauldies and dr melba ketchum might be coming out with a scientific and peer reviewed paper on bigfoot dna.... I felt this was kinda big news, enjoy........ http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2010/08/29 Here is a quote from this article She and her team are in the process of preparing a peer reviewed paper that will reveal their complete findings. That sounds like a paper is in the works to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dudlow Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 Well, there's a big surprise -- not another 'surprising' unknown primate finding... Dudlow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 maybe you will be on the peer review board Sas..... Depending on where they submit it (and if they do), I very well could be . . . I'd recommend though Milinkovitch or Coltman as lead authors on similar papers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BCCryptid Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 didnt know where to put this one, but pauldies and dr melba ketchum might be coming out with a scientific and peer reviewed paper on bigfoot dna.... I felt this was kinda big news, enjoy........ http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2010/08/29 http://www.sott.net/articles/show/214575-Scientific-DNA-Proof-of-Bigfoot-May-be-Only-Months-Away http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/bigfoot-dna/ http://www.nabigfootsearch.com/home.html Just like **** floresiensis, the initial release will not be accepted, and the debate will rage on for years. For this sort of thing I think the minimum we will need is an un-fossilized bone, a tooth perhaps, with surviving dna inside it. Then the age of the bone will be debated ad nauseum. Incredible Theories require Incredible Evidence... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 I don't know anything about DNA. "Unknown primate" is aways taken as meaning "belonging to an as yet unclassified primate", but it strikes me that it could equally well mean "it's a primate, but we can't be sure which one". Is the second of these someting you could possibly take from a DNA test? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lesmore Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 It will be interesting to see what develops. This road of the BF mystery being close to resolved, is well traveled.....but so far hasn't led anywhere. I readily admit that I haven't read any of the attached articles carefully, but I'm not sure how DNA from bones...or other remnants from a long dead, animal, will prove, without doubt that Bigfoot currently exists ? It would prove that BF may have existed and that there exists some speculation (hope is a more accurate word in this context) that BF may still exist. If the DNA does not match up with any other known primate....possibly all that proves is that the DNA is from some unknown primate. Does information about DNA from an unknown primate, confirm without any scientific doubt that this DNA in particular is that of a primate, living or having lived, in North America and known popularly as Bigfoot or Sasquatch ? Could DNA be from some lesser known primate from another part of the world ? What I'm saying is that how does one confirm that a DNA sample is from a particular animal ? How does anyone for that matter, know the origin of a particular DNA if there are not credible witnesses, observing the entire process...starting with catching a Bigfoot (then the DNA assessment would not be needed)in order to prove without doubt that the sample is definitely from a BF. However taking a DNA sample from what are possibly Bigfoot bones or other remnants, from a long dead animal and attempting to determine a match with this DNA with all other primates that exist in the world and from this process, making a final, unequivocal determination that yes BF existed or perhaps still exists. Is this an accurate process that can/will determine that yes there is a BF, Virginia ? I dunno...the jury is out for me. Perhaps I'm just not seeing this correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 @Lesmore If mtDNA can be successfully recovered It will hard to deny the existence of a bigfoot like creature because we have all great apes, Neanderthals and now that X-woman to compare it to. So I would imagine that it's possible to give an estimate of when our last common ancestor lived. I would also like to add that it's going to be a hard sell for skeptics to claim that the DNA is from another human like ape running around the woods that nobody has yet to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 To answer some of your questions, they can come up with partial strands that can definitely put the animal in the primate category. It would take several good quality DNA samples and more than one living or dead specimen to define a new species. I think all that has been obtained so far in the way of DNA is partial samples, and don't forget, we fall into the category of primate too, so one could say it was a contaminated specimen as well as an unknown primate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sambx Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 In Monsterquest there was "Bigfoot DNA" found. I'm not sure if it was bigfoots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted September 3, 2010 Share Posted September 3, 2010 They really can't "prepare a peer-reviewed paper." The paper is not reviewed until after it is submitted. The peer-review process is anonymous when properly done. I'll give you my take from investigating the Ontario Snelgrove Lake DNA fiasco: Beware when you hear something like "part human and....." Usually means the people don't know what they're doing. Another red flag: if they use up all the specimen, so no one else can check the work from the get-go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted September 4, 2010 Share Posted September 4, 2010 If scientists can extract DNA from a 40k year old pinky bone and find a new species of hominid, the DNA from multiple samples of a living creature today should be all the more telling. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1974903,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted September 4, 2010 Share Posted September 4, 2010 What I'm saying is that how does one confirm that a DNA sample is from a particular animal ? How does anyone for that matter, know the origin of a particular DNA if there are not credible witnesses, observing the entire process...starting with catching a Bigfoot (then the DNA assessment would not be needed)in order to prove without doubt that the sample is definitely from a BF. I'm not the DNA expert by any means but, as I understand it, all living things accumulate genetic mutations along their genome over thousands of years. Some species split off from existing ones and become new ones. Bigfoot is described as a bipedal humanoid type creature but with the distinction of hairyness and robust size. If it exists, it's DNA will have a relatedness to other known great apes but with it's own mutations somewhere in it's genome. The DNA plus it's mutations will not only place it on the primate/hominid branch of the phylogenetic tree of life, but distinguish it as a new species. Multiple samples with the same unique mutations (and good provenance) is the clincher, because it would establish a population of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts