ShadowBorn Posted March 21, 2012 Moderator Share Posted March 21, 2012 People have been convicted in a court of law for DNA, so what makes it so different learning that there might be a new species.DNA is the key to life and it seems like evry day they are learning something new about our own DNA.New species that is simalar to us that has DNA that could very well match up with ours until you go deep and see the difference well sure.That could very well be hard to accept by anybody and we are talking about Sasquach. Saskeptic goes out into the field looking for this creature not yet has he found anything ,but he is willing to listen.Sure these creatures are not just going to pose for anyone so we cannot expect no one to believe in these creatures.You either see one or you do not and thats just how it is.If you see one you are cursed by redicule and looked at like you are nutz. This topic keeps going because people want the truth and you know that deep within you the truth is these creatures are real.That is why believer come and skeptic stick around.This issue with DNA is a big deal or people would not have kept this topic going for so long.It is just the waiting and believe me i will not be one of who say i told you so.Thats just not right,debate is good and healthy and it keeps people straight.I am sure when the results do come out there will be alot of debating.I kinda of look forward to that. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Thank you for your well reasoned observation, summitwalker. Care to fill us in on how you arrived at your conclusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Well, we know the toenail is in. Sally here - I will confirm ONLY what has already been confirmed in the public domain as samples SUBMITTED to Melba: tissue reported to be from the shooting incident; a toenail; blood from two incidents in New Mexico and hair. We cannot comment further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Summitwalker, Your statement doesn't quite track with me, maybe I'm misunderstanding something. First off, I think the numbers quoted (200 samples, 28 individuals) are highly suspect, as they have come from leaks. Last leak I heard was more modest, along the lines of 100 samples accepted (not necessarily tested) and a lower number of individuals identified. If one accepts that bigfoot is false, then your concerns seem valid. Of course no one can prove 28 (or 10 or 8 or 2!) separate individuals if the creature doesn't even exist. But, if you test 100 samples, find enough commonality to establish that these samples represent a distinct species (which, don't you think that is possible? If you tested 100 black bear hairs, even if you didn't know what it was, don't you think a DNA researcher would be able to tell they were all from the same species), and if some of them have identical DNA, that would mean they are from the same individual no? You seem to be saying that because they potentially found 100 samples (or whatever number we choose to insert here) which indicate a unique species, and that some of those samples appear to be identical, that clearly this is now all a fake. I don't see how that works? Other than just not being able to entertain the idea of sasquatch at all I guess, which doesn't seem quite where you are coming from. I think I am just reading it wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Thank you for your submission, unfortunately we cannot publish this paper, next time include the type specimen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Stinky Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Here,yet again, is an alternative view on Neanderthals. John good find... This video clip made a lot of sense to me. The modified depiction resembles the Minnesota Iceman quite a bit. Interesting bit for sure. Stinky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Also, as a side note to those further distancing themselves from this study due to the nascent protection efforts on the part of Dr. Ketchum and Ms. Ramey, it's important to note that they plan on doing nothing until the paper is released, which means that there is not 'pre-show' hype to that element. They know that without the release of the paper, any attempts at convincing people of the need to protect the species would be laughed off the stage. To me, it shows a confidence in the findings so high that they feel the need to prepare politically for the ramifications. Unlike Mr. Standing who I think people really unfairly have equated with Dr. Ketchum, who started his whole protection speel without a lick of evidence. There is no putting the cart before the horse here. Just because some here have become aware of what is essentially a closed group ( you can not find the protection group if you search on facebook, you can only find it if you have been added to it), doesn't make that a huge public PR move, especially since any public face it may have won't appear until after the studies release. Just my .02 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 21, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted March 21, 2012 everyone got their tickets ready for tomorrow? Yep, I've got: B 4-2 long Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 That's enigmatic, Bipedalist! I don't know whether that is a clue or part of a knitting pattern!! Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 I read it as before the 2nd of April, on April Fool's day, it was a joke. <----Bip reading the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 I went through all of the postings made in the July of 2011 in this tread an pasted portions below. Yet, here we are. She, so to speak, is running the ball over the goal line. Melba is doing lots of work to prepare this paper, so she gets the credit. This sounds fair unless Erickson is paying for DNA tests and her work on the paper. For those of you who haven't heard the news, there is a comprehensive Bigfoot DNA study being conducted by Melba Ketchum, et al., and word has it that the results, after what has been a long wait, will officially be made public fairly soon. (July 2011) Dr. Ketchum is asked, without violating any non-disclosure at the current time, if she believes there is a bigfoot. "Oh, I can say yes. I'll answer that yes without any problems. Just have to wait for all the details." (July 2011) From this information it would appear that Ketchum may pass Meldrum and may challenge Moneymaker for the most money made off those who believe in Bigfoot. The numbers are fragmentary so I could be wrong. Erickson had six samples, and they all tested as coming from BF on DNA. All 6 of those must be included in the study. Many people can become household names after all of this breaks into prime time news More than that. They have a total of 20 samples that have tested positive for BF's so far, or to put it in a better way, they have samples from 20 separate BF individuals. A lot of us knew this day would come. I mean the day when the hairy people would be exposed Soon the genie will be out of the bottle. God help the poor Sasquatch. Derek, Erickson, and Ketchum will go into history as the major players in this saga. They were told that would be after independant scientific review which was told to them would be July. But Ms Ketchum has no control over them and is enduring the public abuse while waiting." Melba said the report will be out by the end of the year at the least and there is something to it but could not elaborate further according to the squatchdetective show I am listening to.... There are coauthors, third party verification and peer review. f all goes well, spring 2011" is by anyone's definition definitive. Kethums words. It was stated the paper is out and is being peer reviewed and should be finished the process by november. . I heard something was coming out at the end of the year at the least. "What Dr Ketchum did allow me to say about time frame is that at the very least by the end of the year the report will be out" "This paper is not authored just by Dr Ketchum there are a total of 6 or 7 other authors involved with this, a couple of masters degree folks and few PHDs" I am pretty sure that he said at least twice that the paper IS in peer review now, FACT:"In reality it is now as we sit here." So, he's saying it IS out for peer review now, just as he stated on the shows Sunday night. Hope this helps. Last week I had a short email correspondence with someone who claims to have samples in the study. He stated the paper was being reviewed and that Ketchum was told July. He added that she has no control over when it would be out of review. We know Ketchum apparently posted on her Facebook page that "it won't be long now" and JC and others were hinting that the release was imminent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Stuff happens. Is that your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Yep, I've got: B 4-2 long My fortune cookie the other day said..."your goal will be met in 2 months". So if nothing happens by then, I will lose faith in fortune cookies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 21, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted March 21, 2012 That's enigmatic, Bipedalist! I don't know whether that is a clue or part of a knitting pattern!! Mike Bingo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) So last year we were told this was coming soon. We are still told it is coming soon. That is frustrating. But that doesn't scream hoax to me, for sure. Here are the likely scenarios I'm willing to entertain, in order of viability (or maybe in order of wish fullfilment, you be the judge). Also, I know this has been probably been done to death, but I can't resist: 1) The science is done, and has been for a while. The paper is in with a reputable journal, who is nervous as hell about putting their name behind such a controversial and potentially earth-shaking study. They have insisted on tight control of all information regarding the study and it's place at the journal, as they don't want to handle queries about this, or suffer any ill reputation from entertaining this study in the first place. Due to the reputation of the journal, and the sheer mountain of controversy, criticism and scrutiny bound to accompany the publishing of the paper, they have sent the paper back for a number of revisions, large and small, so that they can not be accused of publishing such an outlandish claim without having the goods to back it up. The revisions are getting smaller and smaller, thus leading to the current ramp up by the Ketchum team in the background, as the issues needing to be addressed are short term, not long term in regards to the methodologies and larger elements of the paper. Maybe we are in the 'typo' phase. The paper is released, and thousands of crows around the country suddenly go missing. Mysteriously, recipes for crow-meat pie start to make the rounds on message boards. Believers have a brief period of smugness which is absolutely unbearable, and then get down to the business of really studying this creature. 2) The science is done, and has been for a while. The paper was with a reputable journal, but was ultimately rejected. The team started shopping it around to other journals, and may or may not have finally found one willing to publish it. Thus the recent ramp up in activity. The paper will be released with a thud in a journal far below people's expectations, and we'll hear both sides claiming victory, with the skeptic side clearly having the upper hand and a louder chorus of I-Told-You-So's. The level of smugness from skeptic organizations reaches its peak, and both camps find no other recourse then to form militias. 3) There is no paper, and the Ketchum team and all those involved, or at least a portion of those involved, are involved in a hoax, putting their professional reputations on the line, without any clear road toward financial gain. Maybe this is because they are all psychotic. (Seriously, if this were an out and out hoax, I don't see how it would be strung along for so long. A journal would have rejected it immediately, there would be no revisions, because you can't really 'hoax' good science). Believers either become completely disillusioned and take up another hobby, or quickly distance themselves from the study, claiming they didn't believe it the whole time. Many of them frantically go back to old message boards and try to delete old posts which would prove otherwise. I'm still leaning strongly toward 1 Edited March 21, 2012 by Particle Noun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts