Will Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Parn I'm sure you have plenty of crow left in your freezer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 (edited) I present for peer review my unified theory of everything. Like string theory, it is a speculative scenario that ties together known facts and rumors. It is mostly idle conjecture. Feel free to avert your eyes, flush your cache, close your browser and/or take a shower. I submit there are two different papers. One that was "handed back" and one currently in review. Further, the first paper was built on incomplete data from the days of feralhumanproject.com and the "tribe" copyright filings. Dr. Ketchum distanced herself from those domains, filings and Stubstad by claiming the revelations were built on early and incomplete data. In that light, I think it's entirely possible Bigfoot DNA Version 1.0 was submitted and "handed back" in this time frame. Is it a coincidence that Lindsay heard the paper went to Nature in February of 2011? This is the same month the feral domains were registered - only a few months after Ketchum received the notorious flesh sample from the Sierra Kills (coincidentally? the same month Stubstad left the project). At least some of their assumptions at the time seem to have been built on his statistical analysis of the mtDNA. Did Ketchum really have enough time to build a rock solid case by February? We've heard rumors that co-authors - a "renown team" no less - were added to the project relatively late in the game. Stories swirled in late 2011 that genomes were sequenced at great expense (hence the deep gratitude to Wally Hersom). I think it's possible, even likely, this talent and information infusion led to Bigfoot DNA Version 2.0, now under consideration at a "respected journal" near you...or at least "most college libraries". This paper may even reach different conclusions (as to origins, etc) from the more feral and untestable Version 1.0. Is this how it went down? Beats me. Edited April 21, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 (edited) And I would ask you not to rely on wild rumors that have no known credibility. p. Iisn't this entire thread speculation and opinion about what little we actually know about the state of the "Study", it's whereabouts, or final influence, our thoughts based mostly in preexisting knowledge, or bias, or rumor? If they are modern humans genetically, it's still big news, knowing there is a culture well outside the law and our society, which we call Bigfoot or Sasquatch.. Whatever one lables the evidence, it all points to a wild and human like species living in relative plain sight, hidden. How to transfer the knowledge of some, to those individuals that can take the next step orderly, and reliably, such as achieiving general "proof" for our society is tough with guys like you, Parn, unwilling to entertain the possibilities of life. Personally, I find it an almost impossible idea even, that you would spend so much time arguing so on the non-existance of a being in such a forum. To what end? It makes no rational sense to me, therefore I might conclude you don't exist really.. . If anyone is looking for official proof this paper probably won't do it (I think most agree or assume so), because just who will say it's proved? But, if one is looking for explanations and possible answers through serious inquiry we are hoping this paper is a good start. The existance of BFs raises passions, especially to witnesses, and they are vulnerable because of their experience/aftermath, our insensitivity, and the desire to know what is as yet unknown about Bfs. It's pretty deep stuff actually Parn, and has been life changing for many. I wish you respected that more. Edited April 22, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 I'm going with cantankerous. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Well, when and if BF is discovered taxonomically through this dna study I'd like to see the scientific nosology consider the Homo sapiens ketchumifyoucan designation! ho ....ho.....that's good.......ketch-um-if-you-can sounds like an Indian name............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 (edited) Jodie too funny! Nice catch...that dang edit button is a vortex for sure. Edited April 22, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 oh, and to all those who are offering crow, is that the same crow you've been promising for the last 40 years? whew, how are you allowed to keep it in the freezer all this time? vacuum packed................... At least you won't be eating freezer burned crow when definitive proof comes in.....................how do you like your crow? . If anyone is looking for official proof this paper probably won't do it (I think most agree or assume so), because just who will say it's proved? But, if one is looking for explanations and possible answers through serious inquiry we are hoping this paper is a good start. DNA sends criminals to death row, so DNA should make a pretty good case for the reality of BF. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Jerry here ya go I couldn't resist LOL! Very funny. Very appropriate. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted April 22, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted April 22, 2012 ....oh, and to all those who are offering crow, is that the same crow you've been promising for the last 40 years? whew, how are you allowed to keep it in the freezer all this time? By the time the crow is simmering, it will be evident after people dig into it (whichever side you are on) that it was mis-identified and was in point of fact, Raven..... and then we gotta have a do-over with official crow servings after dna analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 (edited) The existance of BFs raises passions, especially to witnesses, and they are vulnerable because of their experience/aftermath, our insensitivity, and the desire to know what is as yet unknown about Bfs. It's pretty deep stuff actually Parn, and has been life changing for many. I wish you respected that more. I probably shouldn't go down this trail...... With respect and curiosity... Why would seeing an animal in the wild be "deep stuff" and "life changing." I could see heightened interest and temporary fear and elation, but the "deep stuff" I hear about seems to reflect something going on more in one's self than what is actually experienced in the wild. Edited April 22, 2012 by jerrywayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 +1 on the ketchumifyoucan, nice. now if the study truly does include photos too, i may need to resurrect my own "homo blurryious kodakius" from past threads. crow,raven whichever......both go excellent with humble pie for dessert, but im not sure this study is gonna inspire the chefs just yet. past build ups & all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 By the time the crow is simmering, it will be evident after people dig into it (whichever side you are on) that it was mis-identified and was in point of fact, Raven..... and then we gotta have a do-over with official crow servings after dna analysis. Let's not eat my relatives please! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 DNA sends criminals to death row, so DNA should make a pretty good case for the reality of BF. Don't forget O.J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 BF, Okay, that is an almost minimal answer about "what." You could have just said, I don't know....but you didn't. So......Do you think the mtDNA is non-modern human, or the number of chromosomes? or something definitive in the nuclear DNA? or the male/female peaks? But what I am really getting at is: you must have a basis upon which to make this guess. What is the basis? ? Because I don't believe there is ANY basis for that. Not a bit. Not from Ketchum, not from Stubstad, not from Paulides, not from the domain names, not from the copyright documents, not from the data which was released by Stubstad or Ketchum. So...do you have any basis? See, If you decide what it is gonna be, before you have any reason so, then this is kind of like you choosing the wine before you choose the main course. p oh, and to all those who are offering crow, is that the same crow you've been promising for the last 40 years? whew, how are you allowed to keep it in the freezer all this time? I definitely took the minimalist approach, because the amount of actual information available is minimal. As a respected forum member and a published scientist I take Dr. Ketchum at her word that there is a paper in peer review. Based on the withdrawn copyright information and the outing of early work by Substad et al it does seem that there is a good possibility that the DNA will be very close to homo sapiens sapiens, closer than any other known species. Beyond that IMHO everything blurs into heavy speculation, like a blobsquatch, but inside your head. .... and I always choose my dinner to match the wine... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spurfoot Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 (edited) Dr. Parnassus, I propose for you a most delicious serving of crow pie if the revelation of the Ketchum paper convinces you that the Sasquatch is in fact a real species. You make the determination whether it is real based on that paper and any other papers it is based upon. The Crow Pie Recipe: You do one of the following according to your choice, 1) Specialize in Sasquatch medical treatment at least a little bit. This would be a ground breaking endeavor with few precedents. You would be the first or near first. This is not to say you must abandon all other medical endeavors. 2) Do a comparative study between the Hss genome and the Sasquatch genome beyond what is already done by the Ketchum study, with a view to medical understanding of either species. Attempt to publish the results. 3) Do a specific study of glycoaminoglycans (GAG) in the Sasquatch and regulation thereof, including receptors and promoters involved therein. 4) Do a specific study of fibroblasts in the Sasquatch and regulation thereof, including receptors and promoters involved therein. Edited April 22, 2012 by spurfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts