Guest Particle Noun Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 I agree. I'm hoping for some good stuff. May my post count reach 210 LONG after the release of the paper. Wait, who am I kidding. When that paper is released my post count will jump by 1000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shaun Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 (edited) If Dr Ketchums paper shows nothing other than 'interesting' DNA, but she aslo releases reasonably high quality photos and videos, then would that be enough to convince skeptics? Edited April 27, 2012 by Shaun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Nope, I think the DNA would have to point as distinctively to something new as the photos and videos do. As expected, being able to say that about the DNA, takes alot of study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Convince them of what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Convince them that there is an uncatalogued mammal in North America? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 I hope to one day search Sasquatch on wiki and see it as a recognized living species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOLDMYBEER Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Parn, if it's "modern human" DNA, there is no paper at all, as others have pointed out. "Modern human" is a non-starter as an interpretation. 'modern human' should be held as a likely consequence of failing to properly vet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 So, I think it needs repeating that long before this study, back in the Josh Gates Destination Truth Yeti hair analysis where we first meet Dr. Ketchum, she talks about people having sent her supposed Sasquatch hairs in the past, and that they always came up Human, or Goat or something. So she always rolled her eyes at it. She had seen "Modern Human" at least several times in the analysis of hair samples, and rejected the result each time. So, why would she suddenly get excited about a Modern Human hit. It seems like some people think she took the samples at face value, tested them, and said "Hey, SQUATCH!" just because the person sending it to her said it was. That was never the case in the past, so there is no reason to think she'd do that now either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Convince them that there is an uncatalogued mammal in North America? I don't think that's all their gunning for, but either way, no would be this skeptics answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOLDMYBEER Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 So, I think it needs repeating that long before this study, back in the Josh Gates Destination Truth Yeti hair analysis where we first meet Dr. Ketchum, she talks about people having sent her supposed Sasquatch hairs in the past, and that they always came up Human, or Goat or something. So she always rolled her eyes at it. She had seen "Modern Human" at least several times in the analysis of hair samples, and rejected the result each time. So, why would she suddenly get excited about a Modern Human hit. It seems like some people think she took the samples at face value, tested them, and said "Hey, SQUATCH!" just because the person sending it to her said it was. That was never the case in the past, so there is no reason to think she'd do that now either. First, the story you tell about past testing and eye rolling is, unless you are the witness, to my knowledge unverified. But let's assume for the moment it is accurate. Even the more recent samples tested as modern human but, as I understand it, that testing was limited to mitochondrial DNA. I think it was Stubstad that saw something in the data that caused movement to the nuclear testing where substantial differences were noted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 I hope to one day search Sasquatch on wiki and see it as a recognized living species. We should totally "fix" the wiki page. We can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 We should totally "fix" the wiki page. We can. Haha. All we'll need is the source of the information I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 Haha. All we'll need is the source of the information I guess. Well...let's make sure we get a good source of info. Oh wait. Isn't that the reason for this thread??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted April 28, 2012 Admin Share Posted April 28, 2012 . I think it was Stubstad that saw something in the data that caused movement to the nuclear testing where substantial differences were noted. Or so he claimed... where is Stubstad these days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nalajr Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 (edited) If her "paper" doesn't have a claim and proof that Sassy is REAL and OUT THERE roaming about in our forests, no matter what pics or vids she or her compatriots release will make a bit of difference. If it is just "interesting" DNA similarities or comparisons then why go through all this waiting, NDA's, hiding, secrecy and so on? If you've just got "interesting" instead of "EARTH SHATTERING" which is what proof of Sassy would be, then all of this has been nothing more than an exercise in futility. No one will change their mind on it, no more "academics" will jump on board the Sassy train, the ball won't be advanced at all. This whole thing was billed as finally having the "GOODS," now we've got the PROOF that Sassy is REAL. Now we're hearing wording to describe it as "interesting?" She better come with a helluva LOT more than INTERESTING or there are going to be a whole lot of really P-O'ed folks. I recently read something about Jeff Meldrum where he said he would like to establish a Scientific Journal. Could it be that he is going to premier his new journal with this "paper" by Ketchum? Has there still been no mention at all about what journal she is said to be working with? As for "putting it on the line," I don't think she is risking that much. I'm sure she's a nice enough lady and a competant vet, but she doesn't have an academic position or name recognition outside of the Sassy Community. Her living is being a vet in a Texas town. To the people that she makes her living off of, 99% of them would have no idea about what she is doing and even if they learn about it still probably wouldn't care. She could post pictures of herself in the local paper with a tin foil cone on her head and claiming to speak with inhabitants from Zeta Reticuli every night and the people that she services couldn't care less as long as she makes FiFi and Sprinkels better. I still think paid website is the likely outcome. No money for the people involved in the $25 per copy journal article that probably 95% of the population couldn't understand what it says anyway. Nalajr Edited April 28, 2012 by Nalajr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts