Guest Silver Fox Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 (edited) Here. From my site. A man associated with the Erickson Project has produced a major leak about the DNA. The DNA is very close to humans or Homo sapiens sapiens, at least the MtDNA is. Which doesn't seem to make sense. If they are nearly us, why no language, fire, tools? Why the primitive behavior? Why the primitive midtarsal break, lost 2.4 million YBP? Why the primitive saggital crest/nuchal crest? I don't get it. But if they are this close to us, then this adds weight to the stories of them breeding with us. The project favors the name Homo sapiens sesqueqiencis, which would make them a subspecies of us, like the Neandertals, although many now want to elevate Neandertal to full species. If BF's are really this close to humans, I expect this study to get ripped to shreds by skeptics. They will just say that the BF samples are all human remains or contaminated with human DNA, rendering the results useless. They are us. Incredible. Edited May 30, 2011 by Silver Fox
Sasfooty Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 (edited) They are us. Incredible. And some of us already knew. No science necessary. Umm....If they are human, could it be possible that they could SMOKE? Edited May 30, 2011 by Sasfooty
Guest Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 Assuming this is a legit leak, and not someone talking out their a**, I offer a couple of thoughts: 1) I would assume that the Project kept back enough of a sample of each sample for a confirmatory test by a 2nd party. IIRC, that is standard for genetic testing. 2) This would seem to confirm the Snelgrove Lake findings, which were all-but human according to those results. 3) Like you, this is puzzling to me...for MtDNA to be passed on, they would have to "breed true". Yet anything close enough genetically to breed true w/humans would NOT have such extensive ape-like features and/or behaviors. 4) I would expect any written finding to have extensive checking into the hows and whys of #3.
Guest tracker Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 (edited) They are definitely more than just apes as I mention in the Erickson thread. Having to constantly hide from the numerous smaller and dangerous humans must make it very difficult to advance as a species. They must be missing a key gene or something? So they constantly rely on their size and strength to survive and are less concerned with invention? Others will be able to articulate this better than my laymans perspective. JMO tracker. Edited May 30, 2011 by tracker
Guest Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 Here. From my site. Thanks for the info, interesting to say the least.
Guest Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 Another thought...this would (if it holds up) also validate the aboriginal traditions that held that the "tall man" was just another type of Indian to the peoples of the day, and would also validate many of their depicted behaviors in those traditions.
Guest gershake Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 If BF's are really this close to humans, I expect this study to get ripped to shreds by skeptics. And by me. That just doesn't make any sense. I guess homo something would be acceptable for me, but a subspecies of sapiens? As little as I know about genetics, but - no way. I hope BobZenor or someone chimes in on this topic.
Guest Silver Fox Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 How is he connected to Ketchum and Erickson? Not sure. He worked on the DNA project. He did some of the statistical analyses. He also looked at some of the results. They sequenced 3 full separate BF genomes.
Guest Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 Thank's for the info. Some more questions: How was it leaked? Do you know this Richard Substad personally? Did he send you an email? Has he agreed that you publish it? I'm just curious...
Guest Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 (edited) Interesting to read Silver Fox but proceed with caution. Could get muddy fast. This would be the same Richard Stubstad whom of course may have some valid input. Remember there may be varied sub-species of BF out there too. His most recent statements may also only relate to limited samples he had access to, and not all them submitted to Dr. Ketchum. Just saying there is a lot we don't know yet. (Edit to add: From his page, I'm reading that the samples being referred to are those he submitted to Dr. Ketchum himself from 'other' researchers. This is where things lead to more questions I will refrain from guessing w/o further info. He also has an affiliation that is slightly controversial.) But this is where it gets muddy. Todd Standing. His conclusion of TS validity based on his verifying that he got lost, which many of us also confirmed. I don't see how it validates the major substance of TS's claims however. Anybody can get lost. There is much from TS early claims that does not add up to this day. There are other interviews of Stubstad once you use his correct spelling but I'll let someone else offer it up. I don't want to pour any more cold water on this DNA finding stuff, but some of these controversial elements may to be addressed or there will forever be suspicion. Edited May 30, 2011 by PragmaticTheorist
Guest Silver Fox Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 Thank's for the info. Some more questions: How was it leaked? Do you know this Richard Substad personally? Did he send you an email? Has he agreed that you publish it? I'm just curious... No, I just know him from emails and comments. He commented on my site, which is usually public info. Then he sent me a photo saying if I was going to use his info, here's my photo. Seemed he wanted me to write it up. So I wrote it up. We then had some other email conversations in which he told me that he is making these deliberate and well-timed leaks from time to time, just releasing a bit of info each time. He also told me some other information which is a bit depressing to me as a believer, but I'm not at liberty to discuss that,as it was off the record. It has nothing to do with the reality of BF; that's clear. Anything published as comment on the site is public record. The original piece and post here had some off the record stuff too, which I edited out. I have a BA in Journalism and I really dislike sleaze journalism. I always get confirmation on any quotes I write up, and I often ask for permission and have them tell me what's off and on the record. I hate gotcha journalism. I would never publish off the record material. Our sources are as important as our lives, and they have to trust us. Thx.
Guest Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 (edited) No, I just know him from emails and comments. He commented on my site, which is usually public info. Then he sent me a photo saying if I was going to use his info, here's my photo. Seemed he wanted me to write it up. So I wrote it up. We then had some other email conversations in which he told me that he is making these deliberate and well-timed leaks from time to time, just releasing a bit of info each time. He also told me some other information which is a bit depressing to me as a believer, but I'm not at liberty to discuss that,as it was off the record. It has nothing to do with the reality of BF; that's clear. Anything published as comment on the site is public record. The original piece and post here had some off the record stuff too, which I edited out. I have a BA in Journalism and I really dislike sleaze journalism. I always get confirmation on any quotes I write up, and I often ask for permission and have them tell me what's off and on the record. I hate gotcha journalism. I would never publish off the record material. Our sources are as important as our lives, and they have to trust us. Thx. Thank's for the elaboration. Edited May 30, 2011 by SwissChris
Guest RayG Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 The DNA is very close to humans or Homo sapiens sapiens, at least the MtDNA is. Very close? He says it's 100% Homo sapiens sapiens. From your link: I primarily have seen only some of the mtDNA sequences; that part is 100% Homo sapiens sapiens (assuming the samples I have seen are not hoaxes). RayG
Guest Silver Fox Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 Very close? He says it's 100% Homo sapiens sapiens. From your link: RayG I know. That's not making sense to me.
Recommended Posts