Guest Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 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. She's not shown anything. Claims have been made about what she has, entirely unsubstantiated claims. She has refuted what you claim. Others have refuted what you claim. Your claim has been refuted. Time to move on. 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. The other possibility is a common ancestor at the time the mtdna entered the hominid geneline that BOTH BF and humans inherited. 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.thepainte...witness_toc.php Some are, some are not. Some BF are very INhuman looking, esp in the mid to southern Midwest (where I live). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 The other possibility is a common ancestor at the time the mtdna entered the hominid geneline that BOTH BF and humans inherited. Then the question becomes how far back that common ancestor goes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 ^True, as I understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Well, well, well. Seems like some of us (me and others) already threw her and this study that will never be published under the bus a while ago. Today's news has made more of the members follow us. Tweeted by Nature, who rejected her paper reportedly. 6 months for a timeline. NO CHARGE to test your samples if you submit. Somewhere in this thread a short while ago I got dissed for saying she went about this all wrong and did it backwards. I assume it's a frenzy and full on panic mode in Texas tonight. Har har har. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 For those of us not necessarily hanging on every word printed about the study, could you link to this "news"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spurfoot Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Maybe Parnassus has inside information about the Ketchum report he hasn't disclosed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 I believe the "news" that Hoosierfoot is referring to is the breaking news story today regarding Dr. Sykes's request for sample submissions. This is being covered in the now renamed The Meldrum / Sykes Report thread today. There is a link there for anyone interested in submitting in writing what they have for an organic sample. Dr. Sykes will determine based on that submission whether to accept the sample for DNA analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Yeah a Phd with a team of extremely educated researchers should have consulted people on a forum and solicit advice on how to not "go about this all wrong and do it backwards." It funny how even the slightest nugget of information causes people to declare their own personal victory in attempting to call this saga correctly. It's happened several times in this thread alone, and it's been extremely premature every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 I believe the "news" that Hoosierfoot is referring to is the breaking news story today regarding Dr. Sykes's request for sample submissions. This is being covered in the now renamed The Meldrum / Sykes Report thread today. There is a link there for anyone interested in submitting in writing what they have for an organic sample. Dr. Sykes will determine based on that submission whether to accept the sample for DNA analysis. Ah...ok. THAT I know about. I thought with the mention of Nature and all that there was some sort of confirmation that the study had been rejected at least once... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spurfoot Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm-- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves. -- T. S. ELiot, "The Cocktail Party" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOLDMYBEER Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 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. My understanding is the samples will be pre qualified prior to submission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Transformer Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 I might add there is a third problem with Parnassus's scenario that I forgot to add to my post above. It would have to do with the hair samples submitted, presuming that hairs are part of the included data set. Hair morphology as I understand it is very different between human and potential BF hair. There would be no way to submit human hair samples that are different than human structure and contain human DNA. Of course, we could up the ante on the scenario and dream up a bazillionaire behind the whole thing that has a top secret lab that is creating all the samples.... Can you provide some evidence or clarification on the statement I bolded and underlined in your quoted post please? The only hair morphology I know to have been done in this regard is by Dr. Farenbach and his work is certainly not without a lot of problems that he himself admits. The biggest problem is that he states his sasquatch samples are pretty well indistinguishable from human. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Can you provide some evidence or clarification on the statement I bolded and underlined in your quoted post please? The only hair morphology I know to have been done in this regard is by Dr. Farenbach and his work is certainly not without a lot of problems that he himself admits. The biggest problem is that he states his sasquatch samples are pretty well indistinguishable from human. Thank you. Most of the work with BF hair forensically was done in the 70s and early 80s before DNA testing became the predominate identification method. Here's a good summary of the hair evidence outside of DNA work to date: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/hair.htm and a relevent potion from http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/html/other_forms_of_bigfoot_evidenc.html : Hair samples allegedly coming from a Bigfoot are potentially the most important pieces of evidence because under the right circumstances DNA can be extracted from the sample. This will help in answering many of the questions that Bigfoot researchers are looking for. Hairs retrieved from a bush in 1968 near Riggins, Idaho were given to Roy Pinker, a police science instructor at California State University, Los Angeles. Pinker concluded that the hair samples did not match any samples from known animal species. Pinker also stated that he could not attribute them as being Bigfoot hairs without a bonafide Bigfoot hair sample to compare to. Hair samples were also taken from a house located on the Lummi Indian reservation in Washington. Three more samples were retrieved from Maryland, Oregon and California. Forensic Anthropologist Dr. Ellis R. Kerley and Physical Anthropologist Dr. Stephen Rosen of the University of Maryland, as well as Tom Moore, the Supervisor of the Wyoming Game and Fish Laboratory, examined the hair samples and stated that all the hair samples matched in terms of belonging to a "non species specific mammal". They concurred in finding that the four sets matched each other, were similar to gorilla and human but were neither, and they did not match 84 other species of North American mammals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Guys, aiming at no-one in particular....... Now that there are two closely related "reports", each with their own thread, could everyone make an effort to post in the correct thread please. If you are talking about pre-selection for the Sykes investigation, then don't do that in the Ketchum thread. Thanks Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Any bets for the Ketchum study being released tomorrow or next week? Given the recent announcements, I can't imagine they will go much longer without a release or some kind of update. In journalism terms, they're in serious jeopardy of getting "scooped." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts