Guest Silver Fox Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 (edited) Clarification: Dr. Ketchum does not favor a new hominid designation: "Homo sapiens sesqueqiencis." Further, she says Richard Stubstad is misinformed about the results and outcome of the project. As per personal communication. Edited May 30, 2011 by Silver Fox
Guest Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 . They sequenced 3 full separate alleged BF genomes. Fixed it.
Guest bsruther Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 I could be wrong and often am, but isn't Stubstad the guy that defended Todd Standing, here: http://www.bigfootlunchclub.com/2011/04/in-defense-of-todd-standing.html
Guest Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 bsruther, yes, see my above post. So no, you weren't wrong, just a few posts late. lol
Guest bsruther Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 bsruther, yes, see my above post. So no, you weren't wrong, just a few posts late. lol Yeah, after I read the name Stubstad, I immediately thought, where the heck have I seen that name. Then it came to me and I kinda scanned over the posts and missed where you mentioned Standing's name, duh. But yeah, I'll just connect the dots and move along.
Guest BuzzardEater 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 think you have asked any unanswerable questions. They are frequently reported using speech. The traditional stories have them using speech. They use speech to run systems and maintain a rigid cultural aloofness. They use systems to detect/avoid humans. This is evident from any sighting that includes one of them in danger. Without fail, others are clearly heard approaching. This is systematic. Systems are tools. Fire is something they might use selectively or have a taboo about. Forest fires resultant from experimentation might have dimmed thier view of fire use. Since they do not need fire for warmth or cooking the uses drop right off. Consider the undiscussed theory that they are wearing clothes, just clothes we do not recognize. Perhaps these clothes are untanned leather? The smell of rotting flesh has been ascribed to them. Perhaps these clothes are like the leggings of the forest people, laced on with thongs of leather. The sagital crest and lack of ears and neck may be the result of a hood. Patty looks like she has a furred diaper on. As far as primitive behaviour, I would suggest they demonstrate advanced sophistication in environmental adaption. This sort of harmony with nature doesn't just happen. It is taught and studied. Primitive cultures do not retain all thier members. There are malcontents who run off. Not with these people. No Bf has come forward, ever. I submit that the incredible abilities they cultivate are staggering in thier scope. To live in the wilds, unassitsted, is by itself unimaginable. To have an entire society do it by choice without dissension is astounding! Edited May 30, 2011 by BuzzardEater
BobZenor Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 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. That wouldn't be that hard to explain. It probably sounds like I am reaching for explanations. It would really muddy up the water though as far as the DNA analysis goes. Just to clarify, I haven't formed any opinions on any results and I am just speaking hypothetically. It would be very surprising to me to learn that they are closer than a Neanderthal if that is what the evidence actually shows. Even if that were true, I would still suspect that more ancient DNA might be there or essentially they didn't lose some of their "wild" characteristics even after hybridizing with our ancestors over the past few million years. I could actually see that happening if a creature was evolved to live on the periphery of a more dominant species. That could be something that would be very difficult to see in even a whole genome. The bigfoot isn't necessarily going to be close to a human because it contains human mitochondrial DNA. That would imply though that they are close enough to breed successfully with a modern human at least occasionally. If it happened many generations ago as is implied by the widely spread out samples, from what I understand, it could be possible that the original modern human nuclear DNA was so diluted that it isn't even significant. There are many examples of hybrids with more than a million years separation and I believe that extends to a few million years in some cases. All you need to get the mitochondrial DNA is to have a female modern human somewhere back in the lineage. If that original hybrid were in the last 200,000 years it would most likely be in the range of modern humans as far as the mitochondrial DNA goes. Mitochondrial DNA doesn't really have any effect on how we appear. It is just involved with metabolism. The mitochondria is like a fuel cell that provides energy for cells and the DNA of the mitochondria contains a subset of some of the genes that are needed by the mitochondria to function. Some of its genes are provided by the nuclear DNA. That probably makes it less likely for a very divergent mitochondria to function well enough to be selected for. That would be the logical assumption of why it would become the dominant mitochondria of a population. The other possibility is that BF is descended from the small original hybrid population and has a very compressed genome. I am not jumping to conclusions. There could be others with more divergent mitochondria. I was just speaking hypothetically about how a population could evolve by natural selection our mitochondria without being that closely related. It is possible that our mitochondria gave them an advantage so the others with other mitochondria died out. There is apparently some fairly strong selection for specific mitochondria. That is how we as modern humans all share a common female ancestor about 200,000 years ago. If not for selection pressure, the other mitochondria that existed 200,000 years ago would still be around. The point of that rather confusing statement was our mitochondria might have been an advantage and was selected for like a good genetic characteristic would be. That is how it could become widespread in the population without them necessarily being that closely related to us. 1
Guest gershake Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 Clarification: Dr. Ketchum does not favor a new hominid designation: "Homo sapiens sesqueqiencis." Further, she says Richard Stubstad is misinformed about the results and outcome of the project. As per personal communication. Phew!! You had us all itching for a few hours there. Thanks BobZenor as usual for your highly enlightening, even for complete laymen, explanations! - Shake
Guest Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 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. Isn't he at risk for some sort of civil action for breach of his NDA? 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. Ok, that's cruel...dropping a bomb like that and walking away...but if it's OTR, it's OTR...
Guest Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 Clarification: Dr. Ketchum does not favor a new hominid designation: "Homo sapiens sesqueqiencis." Further, she says Richard Stubstad is misinformed about the results and outcome of the project. As per personal communication. Did she say anything about his official position within the Project (at least up until now)? I don't "get" why he would risk civil penalties for breaking NDR and burn his bridges with Ketchum over a "mistatke"...I hate BF politics...
Guest Silver Fox Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 Isn't he at risk for some sort of civil action for breach of his NDA? Ok, that's cruel...dropping a bomb like that and walking away...but if it's OTR, it's OTR... He never signed an NDA. The pessimism is not about Kentucky Project videos - they are excellent. Ketchum's paper is good and well-written. The DNA evidence is apparently good stuff. But is the scientific community going to accept this new evidence? I worry about this quite a bit.
Guest Silver Fox Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 Did she say anything about his official position within the Project (at least up until now)? I don't "get" why he would risk civil penalties for breaking NDA and burn his bridges with Ketchum over a "mistake"...I hate BF politics... He never signed an NDA with the Erickson people. People who didn't sign didn't get to do a lot of work, shall we say. Not sure he even has a bridge to burn with her or them. He did some statistical analyses of some of the early findings. He's a statistician. Not a genetics guy. Are there civil penalties for breaking an NDA? You mean you can get sued? ****, the world gets scarier every day.
Guest Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 Are there civil penalties for breaking an NDA? You mean you can get sued? ****, the world gets scarier every day. Well, yeah, there are. An NDA is a contract where you agree not to publicize whatever it is you are exposed to in exchange for that exposure. Breaching NDA would be the same as any other contract violation and risks a civil penalty...it's it's a government (ie a "security")NDA, you risk jail time. Either way, once word gets around that you don't honor NDAs, those "back channel" info sources tend to dry up because you have proven untrustworthy...so it is a little puzzling why he'd do this.
Guest Silver Fox Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 Well, yeah, there are. An NDA is a contract where you agree not to publicize whatever it is you are exposed to in exchange for that exposure. Breaching NDA would be the same as any other contract violation and risks a civil penalty...it's it's a government (ie a "security")NDA, you risk jail time. Either way, once word gets around that you don't honor NDA's, those "back channel" info sources tend to dry up because you have proven untrustworthy...so it is a little puzzling why he'd do this. Nice to know. AFAICT, Richard did not sign an NDA with the Erickson folks. That's why he's talking. Mary Green didn't sign one either. That's why she is talking about the Kentucky Project videos.
Recommended Posts