Guest Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 I talked with Richard on a number of occations. He always had time to talk about the Sasquatch. His theries were quite compelling and informative to me and he took the time to explain anything I wasn't catching. A true gentleman, outdoors man and friend. Peace be with you Richard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 I'm starting to think there is government agencies or the like, holding up or stopping any information from being released. There seems to be a lot of samples out by different groups that are in limbo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) <Retraction> Edited October 2, 2012 by PacNWSquatcher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) I am wondering if the paper does solidly demonstrate the existence of Sasquatch would that be enough to convince the diehard skeptics. My guess is no, but stranger things have happened. Regarding DNA results being put into limbo by government agencies, that seems a little too conspiracy-theory-ish for me. I don't see what advantage it would be to the "government" to keep Sasquatch a secret. Dr. Ketchum's paper is probably not on the Pentagon's radar. Edited October 2, 2012 by James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 ^Military secrets aren't the only ones governments keep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 RIP Richard Stubstad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Suesquach Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 RIP Richard Ontario, in your previous post you've stated that on Richard Stubstad's website he submitted three samples to Dr. K for analysis. The samples didn't have any exact matches but "close matches" in Genbank. Do we know what that means? Close to what or to whom? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 I think he meant it was close matches with mtDNA already registered in genbank. Samples 1&2 were shown to be of sub-glacial European origin and sample 3 was of African origin. A bushman clan that supposedly never made it out of Africa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Very sad and hope his family is comforted by the memories of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Suesquach Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Thanks OS! Interesting find indeed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted October 3, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted October 3, 2012 RIP Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 (edited) Samples 1&2 were shown to be of sub-glacial European origin. This is very interesting. Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals fit the bill here, but there is zero evidence of Homo Neanderthalensis ever having headed East out of Europe, let alone cross the Bearing Strait. <positive hat>when the results come out ...</positive hat> I expect we will see that we are dealing with something that is uncomfortably close to our own kind, genetically speakng. Wasn't someone recently going to publish something about a 'forgotten tribe'? Was that Ketchum herself? Edited October 3, 2012 by corvus horribilus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 This is very interesting. Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals fit the bill here, but there is zero evidence of Homo Neanderthalensis ever having headed East out of Europe, let alone cross the Bearing Strait. <positive hat>when the results come out ...</positive hat> I expect we will see that we are dealing with something that is uncomfortably close to our own kind, genetically speakng. Wasn't someone recently going to publish something about a 'forgotten tribe'? Was that Ketchum herself? Aaaaah yes, she did mention the Tribe Revealed, but took it down after something about new results...... But I think you are on to something..... IMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 My speculation is that the paper has been "accepted for publication". Curious as to why you speculate that the paper has been accepted for publication. If the paper has been accepted for publication, then it must have been approved by a peer review..? Or, the paper will be published with or without the stamp of approval of a peer review..? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I think "accepted for publication" means that it has passed peer review and is "in queue" for publication. Depending on the journal that process could take weeks or months after acceptance. My own speculation in regard to the paper status is that it is in peer review and has been for some time, but may have reached the point of acceptance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts