Guest parnassus Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 That doesn't tell us anything about what she has. We know she has what she posted before. Whether or not she will publish it is another question. She has never shown anything but modern human DNA.
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 ^But that's because of the NDA. Isn't it obvious
Guest MikeG Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 She has never shown anything but modern human DNA. Where did she show that, Parn?
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 Parn, were you in a dream state when Dr. Ketchum "showed" all this evidence to you? If not, then please post the references or links so the rest of us can enjoy reading whatever it is you read.
Guest Particle Noun Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 Parn, will you now remove Substad at least when referencing this theory of 100% modern DNA?
Guest Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 This is very exciting news. Parn, Where did Ketchum post the stuff about Modern Human DNA ? I haven't seen the results of the study. Could you please link to her report ?
Incorrigible1 Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 Earth to Parn...... Calling Parn....... Ground Control to Major Parn.......
Guest Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 Though the complexities of posting images on the forum have defeated me tonight I believe there are bona fide bigfoot postage stamps available in Canada if one wanted to carry off this postal DNA wheeze with a little artistic aplomb...
Guest Tontar Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 So, can someone put this into layman's terms? Is he claiming that the samples were essentially human, but with mutations that made the DNA very nearly the same as Neanderthal?
Guest Particle Noun Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 There was a very informative discussion a few pages back about the difference between Mitochondrial DNA and Nuclear DNA. Substad is, I think, saying that the Mito DNA (which comes ONLY from the mother) was very similar to modern humans, but still to the very extreme of the spectrum (Mito DNA is much easier to test, and it usually stops there). Then, when Nuclear DNA was tested (which is completely different and much more difficult and expensive to test), the results were not human, or not close to human. So, the only part which seemed to be "100%" human was the mito DNA, which gave rise to the interesting supposition of hybridization, meaning we have a common female ancestor, but different paternal lineage. Or something, I'm sure I screwed that up somehow, but I believe that is the gist of it.
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 My admittedly limited understanding is that it may not be an issue of hybridization that created the BF DNA, rather it may simply be a case of close ancestry in evolutionary terms, with possible interbreeding. The point of divergence between the species is a key question.
southernyahoo Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 Sykes published timeline is interesting. It shows a rather fast track process. This might be simply because he has more experience and credibility in the publishing process. It will be interesting to see if he can fulfill publication by the end of this year. From reading other articles about this study, Sykes says they are looking to indentify about 20 samples through a screening process including the provenance and physical descriptions of the samples. They are also looking for explanations as to why the sample might be from the suspected cryptic hominid. So the samples are to be prequalified before they are tested. I wonder if samples from the Ketchum study would be of special interest since the goal is repeatability.
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 (edited) If it's really modern human (not even neanderthal) , I would say it's likely there has been a lot of recent hybridization. Take a look at these eye witness sketches, they are very human. http://www.thepaintedcave.com/img/pete/sasketch/witness/bsp_witness_toc.php Edited May 22, 2012 by OntarioSquatch
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 From reading other articles about this study, Sykes says they are looking to indentify about 20 samples through a screening process including the provenance and physical descriptions of the samples. They are also looking for explanations as to why the sample might be from the suspected cryptic hominid. So the samples are to be prequalified before they are tested. I wonder if samples from the Ketchum study would be of special interest since the goal is repeatability. I consolidated all the threads into one thread now named "The Meldrum / Sykes Report". The link for submissions is now in that thread. I would encourage anyone that submitted to Ketchum to make their submissions to Sykes. It does seem that they will only accept actual organic samples after reviewing a written submission (with pictures or video evidence if you have it) and they deem the organic sample is worth their efforts.
Guest Posted May 23, 2012 Posted May 23, 2012 I think the biggest problem I have with Parnassus' hoax theory is the the hoaxers would need to use precognition to know where to leave the samples where they'd be found and collected in short order. And we all know precognition does NOT exist!
Recommended Posts