Guest slimwitless Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 (edited) The very night the copyright documents were discovered, Dr. Ketchum posted the following in this very thread. To address the recent hype and misstatements concerning my paper, please be advised that the information pulled off the US Copyright website for a 2010 preregistration for a proposed media project is not an accurate summary of our scientific testing and data and does not reflect the current conclusions of our scientific paper. As far as the Sierra sample, even some of her ardent supporters seem to forget Stubstad claimed Dr. Ketchum told him the cursory mtDNA test on the flesh came back human. If that's true, and in light of subsequent information from people supposedly involved (as well as Ketchum's own posts on FB...definitive proof, "new species" etc), my read is that cursory DNA tests do in fact indicate modern human. It's only on closer inspection that whatever it is that makes these things different shows up. I don't know if that's nuDNA or a complete genome sequence but if the scenario I just described is biologically impossible, I think we have a problem. I've heard people on both sides weigh in on this idea and so far I haven't heard anything conclusive. Who would know the answer? Edited May 14, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 When you take out the ridiculous claims from both sides, your left with something in the middle, that people see,and leave tracks. Exactly, and claims of repeated observations and hearing them speak puts one right into the ridiculous claim category in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 If the study findings were to show that it is very close to homo sapiens, I wonder if this a mutation by nature and the beginning of an evolutionary change in homo sapiens, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 I think so too. Imagine what it would mean for the world. I see now why the government has the information sealed. Cheers to Dr. Ketchum! I'm on that wagon too folks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 I see now why the government has the information sealed. What information sealed? if the reports are correct, Ketchum has 100% identified DNA from an undocumented near but not-human higher primate. Yes, IF the reports are correct. Reports that have yet to be published in any sort of scientific journal, and are nothing but rumors at the present time. The logical conclusion therefore is that these samples are from BF. My logical conclusion is that I shouldn't jump on the bigfoot DNA bandwagon before the evidence is produced. Or are you seriously positing that there are TWO unidentified primates out there running around, one that is being seen/leaving tracks/etc and another that is leaving all the DNA evidence? Nope, not even close. I'm asking if you will accept a negative outcome if that's what the results are. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 P. I agree that the copyright document demonstrates that Dr. Ketchum was going to roll with a 100% modern human Bigfoot. But there seems to be one intriguing aspect to this. From what I think I understand about this issue, the "polymorphisms that aren't in GenBank" are in the samples from various locations across the land. Now, if the polymorphisms, while "new", are different in different samples, the report will fail in its purpose to lend credence to the existence of Bigfoot (IMO). On the other hand, if the polymorphisms are closely matched in all the samples, then something may really be up with the report. Cervelo, Thanks. I guess that that'll learn me to mind my own business. Jerrywayne, I think the primary concern is that the samples must test sufficiently outside established thresholds used in detecting speciation. They would not be expected to be identical to each other within a healthy population, but could have some unique SNPs at various loci along with an overall divergence that satisfies scientific standards for such recognition. This is the outcome that I would find most explanatory for what we have heard to date regarding bigfoot DNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 I'm asking if you will accept a negative outcome if that's what the results are.RayG I know you aren't asking me, Ray, but let me answer anyway. Yes. If this proves to be sound science and your hypothetical situation arises, then I'll accept that the study hasn't found anything. Please quote my words back at me if necessary. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 It's been quiet as a church over at Melba's FB page. I guess this could either mean the release is truly moments away, or that the publication process has hit some major snag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Hi Chris! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Agreed Chris, the silence is defeaning. Not a word from her PR lady either not even a post about joining the protection group. I hope it is the silence before the storm of publication but who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 I don't think it signifies anything at all either way. There have been week-long silences there in the past when there was nothing to report by them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shoot1 Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 That's where the context of the obtaining of the samples comes in. if the reports are correct, Ketchum has 100% identified DNA from an undocumented near but not-human higher primate. Those samples were taken from locations where BF was/has been reported. The logical conclusion therefore is that these samples are from BF. Or are you seriously positing that there are TWO unidentified primates out there running around, one that is being seen/leaving tracks/etc and another that is leaving all the DNA evidence? Because that is not the claim by Ketchum, and never has been. If the leaked reports are correct as to what Ketchum is claiming (which I will grant for the purpose of argument at this time, but may in fact NOT be accurate). the claim is that parts and I say again parts of the DNA map as modern human or near modern human, but that other parts of the dna map as clearly not human (chimpanzee was cited at one point as being most similar in makeup to the non-human parts). This would make BF a member of Homo, but emphatically not a "modern human". Hopefully this will be the last time this will have to be explained. Is a hybrid species possible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 P.I agree that the copyright document demonstrates that Dr. Ketchum was going to roll with a 100% modern human Bigfoot. But there seems to be one intriguing aspect to this. From what I think I understand about this issue, the "polymorphisms that aren't in GenBank" are in the samples from various locations across the land. Now, if the polymorphisms, while "new", are different in different samples, the report will fail in its purpose to lend credence to the existence of Bigfoot (IMO). On the other hand, if the polymorphisms are closely matched in all the samples, then something may really be up with the report. Unfortunately, the provenance of these samples from "all across the country" cannot be proven. And, no disrespect, bigfootery is a sport in which cheating has occurred time after time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Unfortunately, the provenance of these samples from "all across the country" cannot be proven. And, no disrespect, bigfootery is a sport in which cheating has occurred time after time. How do you define provenance here Parn? Showing that they were left by bigfoot, or the who what,where when how they were collected? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Unfortunately, the provenance of these samples from "all across the country" cannot be proven. And, no disrespect, bigfootery is a sport in which cheating has occurred time after time. Of course time will tell, but Dr. Ketchum has indicated many times in the past that she is well aware of this hurdle in terms of provenance, and did absolutely everything they could to ensure correct collection to minimize contamination and to make sure that this aspect of the study couldn't be used as a cudgel by those wishing to dismiss this out of hand. Of course we'll see how well they are able to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts