Guest TH68 Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 And if Sykes confirms Dr. Ketchum's study and results, then what? More of the same criticism. Contamination!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TH68 Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 I just read the Blogspot rebuttal. Take the challenge. Dr. Sykes' will confirm Dr. Ketchum's findings and credit her with discovery. Science trumps all. "Nature" will be humiliated as will the other "major" journal that wimped out. Courageous scientists, with Dr. Meldrum leading the way will take to the field with funding from Universities, The Smithsonian and National Geographic to study and document the behavior of the new human species. This will not happen overnight, but it will happen. JMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Uh......yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 And if Sykes confirms Dr. Ketchum's study and results, then what? More of the same criticism. Contamination!! Don't worry the slander engines were beginning to fire up over at JREF as soon as it was known that Sykes was going to speak at the Bigfoot conference. I think the best you will ever get out of his camp is the position that the DNA evidence can't be disputed but more work needs to be done. But that would be a coup on its own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 I still haven't seen anyone ask her about the problems with the 15,000 BP hybrization event that I've brought up. She isn't touching that one. Maybe she could explain why the haplogroup subclade she got for the Sierra Kills sample (H1a) only arose about 6000 years ago in Europe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Ridgerunner, first I wanted to say thank you for answering my questions so kindly.. New question - and anyone who has knowledge can answer. I have been sitting here for about 20 minutes (or more) trying to figure out how to ask this question - and not get into hot water. But, I think it's relevant and I can't come up with another way to say it - so I am just going to say it.. If Melba approached this work with the idea firmly planted in her mind that Bigfoot was in fact human - could that have some how skewed how she has interpreted the results of the testing? OR did she have to start out with a specific premise (Bigfoot is human) to even know where to start? How exactly does this work when a scientist is trying to determine a new species through DNA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 I believe she said "no later than 15000 years ago." Six thousand years ago fits in with that. The implication is it's an ongoing hybridization not a one-time event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 I believe she said "no later than 15000 years ago." Six thousand years ago fits in with that. The implication is it's an ongoing hybridization not a one-time event. From her first press release: DALLAS, Nov. 24--A team of scientists can verify that their 5-year long DNA study, currently under peer-review, confirms the existence of a novel hominin hybrid species, commonly called “Bigfoot†or “Sasquatch,†living in North America. Researchers’ extensive DNA sequencing suggests that the legendary Sasquatch is a human relative that arose approximately 15,000 years ago as a hybrid cross of modern Homo sapiens with an unknown primate species. I know that a number of people her have interpreted her comments and her results as representing ongoing hybridization, but has she ever said this herself. If so I would love to see that quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 I and other women on this forum would appreciate it if the posters would please think before they post. Women have contributed as much to science and the arts as men. It's attitudes like this that really push us over the edge and I'm trying to keep my composure while typing this. For instance, Melba is a scientist who did the research, get over it. But she had at least 11 other labs working on the samples as well, blind studies, the labs had no idea what it was. They weren't told anything. Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Sunflower- you tell'em girl. At times the scale of being polite and conscience of others seems to wane in the frustration of the events . We all need to consider others achievements and input, they are all valuable. BTW there is another thread up today about contributing to the cause. IMO just relaying your input to others on this forum is valuable in it's self. Also if we treat the Sas as we do other one may not not the outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 I and other women on this forum would appreciate it if the posters would please think before they post. Women have contributed as much to science and the arts as men. It's attitudes like this that really push us over the edge and I'm trying to keep my composure while typing this. For instance, Melba is a scientist who did the research, get over it. But she had at least 11 other labs working on the samples as well, blind studies, the labs had no idea what it was. They weren't told anything. Peace Where did this issue raise its head again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 I know that a number of people her have interpreted her comments and her results as representing ongoing hybridization, but has she ever said this herself. If so I would love to see that quote. To my knowledge Ketchum hasn't said anything explicitly which is strange. She's mentioned various kidnap stories but without delving into what those stories might mean for her results. Robert Allay (the PhD listed on her contributor page) went into this on an Internet radio show a year or two back. I'm paraphrasing but he said something like, "as far as ongoing hybridization, I'll leave that for the Ketchum study". Well, I guess not. Perhaps she felt it was too controversial (given she wants species protection) or maybe she realized it was just too much. I'm not sure how one could explain the mtDNA results any other way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) You have to find something in this to laugh about - or it will make you crazy - Apehuman.... This made me laugh (and did re-watching!. titled 'Russia's Grand Theft Auto Dashcams'): http://www.hulu.com/...asset_scope=all it's not really related, but funny. Although I could stretch the post to discuss video cams and background chatter, or even some Bigfootery parallels.....hang in there till midway it builds.. ! oh sorry, don't mean to derail/interrupt this new direction here. Also if we treat the Sas as we do other one may not not the outcome. lol That's the parallel in the clip i linked...from the New Media ridicule (Stewart is sooo good at it!) to stereotypes and oppression, to our frustrated sometimes violent reactions, to trickery... Edited February 22, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 To my knowledge Ketchum hasn't said anything explicitly which is strange. She's mentioned various kidnap stories but without delving into what those stories might mean for her results. Robert Allay (the PhD listed on her contributor page) went into this on an Internet radio show a year or two back. I'm paraphrasing but he said something like, "as far as ongoing hybridization, I'll leave that for the Ketchum study". Well, I guess not. Perhaps she felt it was too controversial (given she wants species protection) or maybe she realized it was just too much. I'm not sure how one could explain the mtDNA results any other way. Well, you could explain it as all coming from modern humans living in North America. In that case would mean her samples are a result of one of the following: 1. Human sample sent in mistakenly (from a hunter, hiker, homeless person, etc.) 2. Human sample sent in intentionally by a hoaxer 3. BF sample contaminated by human mtDNA. I would say that those would all be more likely (even #3) than the kind of widespread crossbreeding that you need to explain all those different haplogroups in a hybridization scenario. There is also the possibility that she didn't actually do all of the testing that she claimed. I'm not saying that this is the case, but it is one of a number of possible scenarios. It would be nice to see some copies of the actual lab reports from those who did the testing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 I believe she said "no later than 15000 years ago." Six thousand years ago fits in with that. The implication is it's an ongoing hybridization not a one-time event. The problem with that hypothesis is if you accept that their own endogenous haplotypes were replaced by humans, then who is to say that what is currently found just didn't replace even more ancient human versions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts