Guest gerrykleier Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 I would like to add.....some of us who have spent our entire life in the woods saw sign and never really knew it was BF until much later. I had heard things, saw things and my mind's eye WRONGLY associated it with a "must be" species. Sightings and tracks finally slapped me in the face like a bucket of ice water. My wife had a sighting just this weekend as a matter if fact. KB The last time I talked to an experienced Hunter (mostly Sierra Nevadas) about Bigfoot, he indicated that he had experienced a number of incidents we associate with Bigfoot. He was aware of the connection because of my interest and because his kids love FINDING BIGFOOT. He wrote them off as 'mysteries of the woods', though he admitted if BF was hown to exist he would probably look at them in a different light. But for now, he simply dismisses them. GK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 The senior editor of Nature, Henry Gee contacted Robert Lindsay a few months ago for reasons that I don't fully understand. My guess is Dr. Ketchum's paper could be with Nature at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 ^What reasons were given? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Transformer Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) You keep saying this, but what do you base this opinion on? Any particular knowledge about phylogenetic classification that you would like to share? Yes. I would like to share that having a unique DNA sample that cannot be unerringly attributed to a physical specimen cannot be used to describe a physical specimen. What part of that do you not understand? The unique DNA could belong to a hominid that is 3 feet tall and hairless because you CANNOT extrapolate DNA information into a physical description. Period. End of story. Capice? Edited July 21, 2012 by Transformer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted July 21, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted July 21, 2012 The senior editor of Nature, Henry Gee contacted Robert Lindsay a few months ago for reasons that I don't fully understand. My guess is Dr. Ketchum's paper could be with Nature at the moment. Has anybody asked Dr. Henry Gee if he knows or has spoken to Robert Lindsay? Who verified this tete a tete? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shoot1 Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) The senior editor of Nature, Henry Gee contacted Robert Lindsay a few months ago for reasons that I don't fully understand. My guess is Dr. Ketchum's paper could be with Nature at the moment. If you check out Ketchums Twitter account you will see that NatGeo and Nature are on her list. I am wondering if there will not be a coordinated article publication campaign when the paper is published, covering the topic from several angles at once. Is there any reason she could not have released a preview of the paper or its findings under a NDA, so that the editors have some advance knowledge of the subject in order to prepare feature stories? Edited July 21, 2012 by shoot1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) Yes. I would like to share that having a unique DNA sample that cannot be unerringly attributed to a physical specimen cannot be used to describe a physical specimen. What part of that do you not understand? The unique DNA could belong to a hominid that is 3 feet tall and hairless because you CANNOT extrapolate DNA information into a physical description. Period. End of story. Capice? The discovery of any hominid would be a huge (regardless of height and hair). That said, I think most people would logically deduce there's likely something to those thousands of sightings if a DNA study does in fact find something unusual in samples recovered from "squatchy" places. I think it's clear they have more than just DNA though. For example, the Sierra shooting sample is covered with hair. There are rumors of a bone as well. Who knows what else they have. Edited July 21, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter O. Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) If you check out Ketchums Twitter account you will see that NatGeo and Nature are on her list. You can tweet to Nature? I hope the study is longer than 160 characters. Edited July 21, 2012 by Peter O. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Yes. I would like to share that having a unique DNA sample that cannot be unerringly attributed to a physical specimen cannot be used to describe a physical specimen. What part of that do you not understand? The unique DNA could belong to a hominid that is 3 feet tall and hairless because you CANNOT extrapolate DNA information into a physical description. Period. End of story. Capice? You can determine that the specimen comes from an uncatalogued hominin and a member of a particular genus and that it was hairy since the specimens (most of them) are hair. If you have sufficient divergence and collaboration across the specimens you would have a new species or hybrids that have never been sequenced before. If you combine that with photo's and video footage taken from the same areas you can definately describe the creature, even if it is unethical to actually put a complete body on the table. If it is from the genus homo then there are boundries that have to be respected. We simply don't commit homicide for the sake of science. If bigfooters are left to find a new hominin in our midst then it will be bigfoot , period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shoot1 Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 (edited) You can tweet to Nature? I hope the study is longer than 160 characters. Funny. She only follows nine twitter accounts, assuming this is actually her account, so I felt that the fact she follows those two magazines in particular is relevant. When a paper is submitted to Nature the Editor decides who will conduct the peer review. It can go through several cycles of review and can include supplementary reference papers. National Geographic is heavily involved in wildlife conservation and has sponsored many expeditions and documentaries. She also has the Jane Goodall Institute on her list, for whatever that's worth. I don't have much to go on, but my bet is it's going to published in Nature. Dr. Melba Ketchum @DrMelbaKetchum Scientist, Forensics and Hominid Research Nacogdoches. Texas · 45] science †@science Science and space news from Writers Write's Science, Space & Robots. USGS †@USGS Earth science knowledge is just a tweet away. Tweets do not = endorsement:http://on.doi.gov/pgwu0Y Science Channel †@ScienceChannel Thought-provoking updates, insider news and more from Science...show your#nerdtweet pride! Science News †@ScienceNewsOrg Covering important and emerging research in all fields of science. Publisher@society4science. Moderator @pwthornton. See also @sciencenewskids. National Geographic †@NatGeo Since 1888, we've traveled the Earth, sharing its amazing stories with new generations. Official Twitter account of National Geographic. JaneGoodallInstitute †@JaneGoodallInst Find us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/theJGI and follow our youth program @RootsAndShoots. Nature News&Comment †@NatureNews The latest science news and opinion from@NatureMagazine. Winner Best Twitter, Online Media Awards 2011, commended in 2012 and Shorty Award for science, 2012. NASAHurricane †@NASAHurricane NASA's Hurricane Web Page is one of the ONLY resources that provides data on ALL tropical cyclones around the world in one place! The Weather Channel †@weatherchannel Daily weather news, tidbits, video and alerts from The Weather Channel. Edited July 22, 2012 by shoot1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Yes. I would like to share that having a unique DNA sample that cannot be unerringly attributed to a physical specimen cannot be used to describe a physical specimen. What part of that do you not understand? The unique DNA could belong to a hominid that is 3 feet tall and hairless because you CANNOT extrapolate DNA information into a physical description. Period. End of story. Capice? Load of tripe! DNA doesn't magically manifest itself. It comes from a critter. You may not be able to 100% describe the looks of the critter, but you can genetically establish it's phylogienic niche as being so many % like one thing, so many % like another. The ultimate point is that unique genetics = unique critter and is 100% proof that said critter exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest poignant Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 I foresee possible cloning and implantation in higher primates - as well as highly paid individuals tasked to carry viable zygotes. Short of a body, that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 @poignant That sounds like a good, practical way of getting a Bigfoot. The DNA exists so why not lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 The senior editor of Nature, Henry Gee contacted Robert Lindsay a few months ago for reasons that I don't fully understand. My guess is Dr. Ketchum's paper could be with Nature at the moment. I'm pretty sure you know exactly what they discussed because I think you are one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 I can put together information really well, but I'm not one of "them". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts