Guest Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 bipedalist was quoting spurfoot #3143 Forgive me if I am misunderstanding your question, Jodie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 No, I must have missed what Spurfoot said, you got it right. I was thinking something got posted on RL's site saying the government wanted the DNA study results delayed.........now let's see if it ends up on his blog anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 As to the nature and origin of the Sasquatch, the Ketchum study will settle the issue. Much more can be said about them after release of that study. In the meantime, those who know are quiet and should remain so for reasons that are known to the journal and to Melba Ketchum. It is possible that a special request by the government for cause temporarily constrains release of the study. Spurfoot, I hate to disappoint you but I am one of these people in the know and I can tell you that the paper will not be published in a scientific paper because it is not a scientific paper. I have read the paper and it is full of flaws and typos. Now, I just made all of that up because I am not in the know and I have not read the paper. My question is to you is this: Are you in the know? Have you read the paper? Your statements indicate that you have read the paper and that the paper establishes the existence and nature of Sasquatch. But anyone can make statements like the one I made above and when I made such statements I was critized for making an unsubstantiated statement. Can you confirm that you have read the paper? I can confirm that I have not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Yes, biological evidence is a different ball game altogether and could help strengthen the case for bigfoot. "Wrong" isn't exactly the right word although I'm guilty of using it myself, difference of opinion on what the results mean would be a better way of putting it. I think there could be two determinations to make. One obviously would be whether BF exists or not, and the other is how it came to be. The former would be the easier one to answer with a yes or no / right or wrong interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobZenor Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 There are two basic approaches that should be a likely focus. One is that they have DNA that is out of the range for modern humans. That is probably the most important determination and could be difficult since there is an element of proving a negative. They do seem to have some significant differences so that part would seem to be most likely doable assuming they are real and have DNA from actual sasquatch. The other approach is showing that they share the same basic genome and their differences from modern humans are largely shared amongst themselves. That part should be easy from a genetics point of view. It wouldn't really stand on its own if they aren't substantially out of the range of modern humans. I would expect those two methods to both work to some degree and provide substantial evidence that something different than a modern human is responsible for the DNA. That is really the bottom line as far as proof goes. It should then be enough for scientists to take it seriously, eventually. It doesn't really matter if it isn't believable to laypeople. That wouldn't prove there was such a thing as sasquatch but I think it would be the logical assumption if those two approaches were successfully demonstrated. It seem logical that they both should be in a real population. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 It is true that most of the evidence is percieved to be hoaxable, and thus inconclusive. Biological evidence is a different ball game, and I don't expect to hear that an entire team of genetics speacialists could get the interpretations wrong. sy, You owe me a beer. It seems that every time you respond to a post of mine, someone plussed your response. As to your post comment, I don't expect specialists in genetics to get the facts wrong, but their interpretations of the facts are a different matter. We will see. I do hope that the paper will be impressive enough to garner some scientific response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kerchak Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) We compare them with humans and gorillas, not bears. Bill Munns is posing with GIGANTOPITHICUS, BF has been reported to be 13' tall and would have to weigh thousands of pounds. How can you possibly say that they are not Giants? It is called BIGFOOT for Pete's sake. Exactly. BIGfoot, not GIANTfoot. You make it sound like they are King friggin' Kong. Never said they weren't big, but 'giant beasts'? When they are typically smaller than moose and not much, if at all, bigger than large grizzlies??? Lets get some perspective here. 13 footers? Oh come on even the sightings that size are so rare that most 'footers' don't put too much stock into those reports. Even if a freak individual gets overly tall it's not typical, is it? The normal height range appears to be somewhere in the 6.5 to 8 ft category. Big but not 'giant beast', conjuring up images of King Kong. Edited March 5, 2012 by Kerchak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Does anyone else find it interesting that Dr. Ketchum chose to address the following question on her FB page? Question: I thought I heard somewhere awhile ago that all modern humans outside of parts of Africa have Neanderthal DNA in some small degree - 1 to 5% or so. Is this so? Answer: Yes, non-Africans have been proven to carry a small percentage of Neanderthal DNA. There are also other peoples that show remnants of a Denisovan cross also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I think it is normal for people to interact on their own FB page. If you are referring to her answer to the question regarding mixing of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA with humans, that's been news for some time now. Other than that, I'm not sure what you are getting at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 (edited) Does anyone else find it interesting that Dr. Ketchum chose to address the following question on her FB page? Question: I thought I heard somewhere awhile ago that all modern humans outside of parts of Africa have Neanderthal DNA in some small degree - 1 to 5% or so. Is this so? Answer: Yes, non-Africans have been proven to carry a small percentage of Neanderthal DNA. There are also other peoples that show remnants of a Denisovan cross also. Africans have Neanderthal DNA as well. This question and answer makes no sense. Why would she say non-Africans have been proven to carry a small percentage of Neanderthal DNA?We know that non-Africans, Chinese, Eurpopeans AND AFRICANS, carry Neanderthal DNA. Dr. John Hawks breaks it down here http://johnhawks.net...tions-2012.html ? Edited March 5, 2012 by Drew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I think it is normal for people to interact on their own FB page. If you are referring to her answer to the question regarding mixing of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA with humans, that's been news for some time now. Other than that, I'm not sure what you are getting at. Yes, it has been news for some time now. That's why I find it interesting. She seems to be reminding people that hybridization between species/sub-species of the genus Homo is a documented fact. Planting the seed, so to speak. Either that, or it's an interesting but completely unrelated factoid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Is it just me, or does anyone else find the new FB format totally disorienting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 HATE HATE HATE it. Makes no sense. Disorienting is absolutely right. It is as if the folks at Facebook take some disgusting pleasure in it. I was VERY confused for a couple minutes the last time I visited Dr. K's page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 So what did you do to get unconfused? Is there some trick I'm missing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Crossed my eyes and stuck out my tongue a little I just had to flip the nonlinear up/down orientation switch in my brain and scan across the page focusing on the arrows pointing to the timeline in the middle. I still hate it. I am a lefty, and I think that our brains are wired a bit differently - and I think that the Facebook people don't understand how much their change messes with some minds. I blame kids these days - the main Facebook users They are definitely wired differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts