AaronD Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 S0, in dummy english, either Oxford will find the DNA to be something we already know about and therefore blow our hopes of proving BF, or if they can't say what it is they'll hold everything up??? Hmmm, which do we prefer.......? I pick "C" none of the above, determine it ot be a BF and get on with it so we can be young enough to have a celebration par-tay! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 I think Oxford Sykes would be able to publish quicker if Ketchums paper is already out. They could simply reference her's to account for the anomalous DNA if there were matches and simply confirm what Ketchum found. If all Oxford gets is known human sequences then he'll essentially have a negative on bigfoot, and maybe more data for his population studies that he already does. So that would be a win / win for him. Win for Ketchum if he confirms her findings globally and in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Was any of this "banter" directly in conversations with Dr. Ketchum, or was this just a bunch of people playing Speculation? BFS, check PM. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 S0, in dummy english, either Oxford will find the DNA to be something we already know about and therefore blow our hopes of proving BF, or if they can't say what it is they'll hold everything up??? Hmmm, which do we prefer.......? I pick "C" none of the above, determine it ot be a BF and get on with it so we can be young enough to have a celebration par-tay! Why would you think these were the only two possible conclusions? How can you even begin to predict what a not-yet-written scientific paper will say? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 We have 220 pages of predicting what a " not yet published" paper will say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nalajr Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 their is only about 4 logical possibilities to the studies delay. 1 of them is that is that she is hoxing, IMO this is least probable answer. It's out of her hands now, and she is waiting like everyone else. HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? Please tell us all how you have a pipeline into what is going on. Is she DEFYING those LONG STANDING and set in CONCRETE rules that she remain totally silent and not divulge even a syllable about her "study?" If YOU know that she too is "waiting" like you say she is, then why don't you and everyone else know more about it, like exactly where in the process it's at after almost 3 years, how about WHAT Journal she is WAITING on? I'd settle for answers to those 2 right now. You all can't have it both ways. One day she absolutely is prevented on saying a word to ANYONE, ANYWHERE about ANYTHING regarding the "study" and her "paper." Then the next day, oh she's waiting like the rest of us, implying that she's submitted her paper and is waiting on it to roll off the presses so she can turn all of her penned up knowledge loose on her awaiting public. Which is it? Is she saying something about it or isn't she? GOD, I think I need a scorecard to keep track. Nalajr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 (edited) I am not sure if stiles at Oxford ever said he was going to publish a paper. He simply indicated that he is taking samples so that people could not say he was not taking the possibility of bf seriously. I suppose he is not changing people to analyze the samples. I am curious as to how many bf researchers are turning samples over to Oxford. If I had a sample I suspected might be a bf I would send it to Oxford instead of Ketchum. I was encouraged when this topic had dropped way down on the recent content list which is the first place I go when I go to this bigfootforums. I agree with Nalajr. In fact, it has never been confirmed that the paper has been accepted for publication. The only logical conclusion is that "the paper has not been accepted for publication." and if that is true then "the paper may never be accepted for publication." Can anyone on here confirm that the paper has been accepted for publication? A simple "yes" would suffice. Edited July 5, 2012 by bigfootnis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nalajr Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 We have 220 pages of predicting what a " not yet published" paper will say. It's just a tad BIGGER than that. We have 220 pages of predicting and speculation about what the "paper" is going to claim and we don't even KNOW a paper even EXISTS. Is there anyone, on any of these forums or sites that can independently CONFIRM that a "paper" has been written and submitted to a "journal?" And if there is such a person that can authenticate all these claims made, then that opens up a whole new set of questions that need to be asked. Nalajr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 I'm pretty sure Sykes is publishing his paper. I do believed he said sometime in November. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Not having a specimen of an extant hominin which makes humanlike evidence is an ethical standard upheld. If that prevents the scientific standard of having a specimen (body) then so it shall be. We both agree there is a new standard in DNA which we can use to "know" it's there even if we don't have the complete physical body. I view it as a necessary path to recognition of the species, given the potential political fall out. I expect that there will be some new video or photographic evidence to be made public when this study is released. This is another standard by which species of primate have been officially recognized. DNA will not provide what a body would, as there is no way to determine what sort of body the DNA would produce. DNA is not a visible set of blueprints that can be used to extrapolate what the DNA actually belongs to, and what physical characteristics the animal it belonged to would look like. It could very well have scales, wings, or worse. We don't have any cool, sci-fi machines that can create a visual drawing of what a creature would look like were the DNA to be "developed". So, no, whatever Ketchum comes up with it will not be the equivalent of a body, as there is no body to serve as a control subject for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 But DNA can clearly identify where the subject lies in relation to other known species, how closely it is related/distant and other factors. If something were to come up in the primate family, with a common genetic blueprint unseen previously, but closely related to humans, that would be a pretty clear indication of something special. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Tontar, are you suggesting that the Denisova donor may have had "scales, wings, or worse"? What would be the difference between a finger... and say a steak, or a toenail, or a hair sample? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 We have 220 pages of predicting and speculation about what the "paper" is going to claim and we don't even KNOW a paper even EXISTS. Nalajr IT is PROBABLY a DIGITAL text "FILE". Why shouldn't we discuss the possibility it DOES exist when Dr. Ketchum says it exists just as you would any other scientist who says they wrote a paper? Dr. Ketchum says the data is overwhelming proof, she has been accepting samples, testing the DNA, utilizing other labs for sequencing, and allowing coauthors to write up their contributions. She not only has a commitment to the Journal and reviewers but to coauthors, benefactors and sample providers, all of whom deserve their confidentiality until it is published. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 "Ketchum says" is the catch. Just because Ketchum says doesn't make it fact. Like Nalajr said, we don't even know for a fact there is a paper or that its been submitted to a journal. All we have is "ketchum said". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 And thats about all you're going to get until the paper is published and you get to see it. Would that be unusual? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts