Guest Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) I am going for a more complete picture. As a holder of many samples already, verification of them by credentialed authorities is the entire point to their collection. We as researchers collect data and samples so they can be analyzed, correct? The goal is to find evidence strong enough to convince the world that an animal stigmatized as mythical is flesh and blood. Is a study showing modern human DNA found in samples not collected from an existing slab reposed specimen enough to do that? Why would any sample holder care about anything but proving BF's existence? We all are going to work together at some point directly or indirectly =) Edited October 18, 2012 by Woodswalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Are you a geneticist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icicle Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Guys, can anyone tell me how long it would take to sequence a complete sasquatch genome? Assuming you knew it was sasquatch you were looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 WW ..... I'm just saying .....Your wants and needs and possible samples might suggest that you PM one of the forum members ...... Or maybe Dr Ketchum... Maybe you already have. Nuff said .... No one HAS broken the NDA on this forum, nor shared any info you seek.... That sems to be back door or PM stuff ....... So far..... I'm just saying..... PM might be the way to get additional " deeper " information... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 So then they are already in violation of their NDA then... Sorry Sleuth, I'm not trying to play "gotcha", but if what you said about not even being able to talk about the NDA is true, then that's the only way to reconcile those two statements. NDA's vary in what can or can't be revealed. NDA's I've signed in the past preclude even acknowledging I have an NDA with "XYZ" company. If the NDA's with Dr. Ketchum allow for acknowledgment of the NDA agreement, then apparently they haven't violated the NDA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mdhunter Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 I can't myself. If it doesn't match any other sample in the Gene banks (and they're very complete, from what I've read) then by definition they are NEW, esp since there aren't supposed to be any higher primates other than H Sapiens Sapiens running around the N Am continent. One of my thoughts on this is that they may be genes that are in the gene banks. But have not shown up in XXX number of years, or in the combinations that they are showing up. That could lead to hypothesis problems without a larger specimen than hair scat etc. to attach the genes to. It could lead to questions of provenance or having to date samples.Again, just more speculation. Disclaimer: I am not a geneticist and only have a VERY basic understanding of how a few color genes/modifiers work together and not in primates.Stubstads "prevalence towards red" comment struck me a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) Or there is not a very good picture of Native American DNA in the genebank. There was controversy on some previous genetic studies of Native American DNA. Was my impression that they don't have much Native DNA at all. Edited October 18, 2012 by Woodswalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 I am going for a more complete picture. As a holder of many samples already, verification of them by credentialed authorities is the entire point to their collection. We as researchers collect data and samples so they can be analyzed, correct? The goal is to find evidence strong enough to convince the world that an animal stigmatized as mythical is flesh and blood. Is a study showing modern human DNA found in samples not collected from an existing slab reposed specimen enough to do that? Why would any sample holder care about anything but proving BF's existence? We all are going to work together at some point directly or indirectly =) Yes researchers absolutely collect and submit samples for the purpose of finding proof, but, depending on what bigfoot is, it may necessitate more work than the alotted funding can cover. Then, even if you got some compelling results, if the lab wasn't willing to write a paper and submit it to a journal, then you are likely just stuck with a lab report which doesn't make the news in science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mdhunter Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 @WW. I didn't know that about Native American DNA. Stubstad (RIP) didn't say whether it was hair color or skin color either. He may not have known.He just said color. I went and assumed hair color. That's what I get for assuming. Does anybody know if the prevalence towards red was directed towards skin or hair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 As I recall the red was directed toward hair. This would correlate with a predominantly red or black/red range of colorations from sighting reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 So apparently the peer review committee has approved the report, and now the report is in route to be published (of course we're suppose to believe all that as there's no statement or proof either stage(s) have or are going on, sorry.. side rant), when would the NDA no longer need to be honored or expires? When can those who submitted samples talk? As far as I'm concerned, I can talk when Dr. Ketchum talks or the paper publishes. Of coarse, people would rather listen to her or read what the paper says anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Every NDA i've ever seen has an expiration date. If this goes on much longer, my guess is that NDAs executed in the early days of her study will have expired and we'll hear more from participants ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 NDA's vary in what can or can't be revealed. NDA's I've signed in the past preclude even acknowledging I have an NDA with "XYZ" company. If the NDA's with Dr. Ketchum allow for acknowledgment of the NDA agreement, then apparently they haven't violated the NDA. I read mine just now, & it doesn't say that I can't publicly acknowledge that I have signed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 NDA's really do grow on trees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mdhunter Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 BFS, thanks for the answer, I couldn't find anything that confirmed it to be directed at hair. Do you remember where you got that? The reason it stood out to me is because of the little I do know about color genetics. It also coincides with hair I collected years ago in conjunction with an experience. The hairs were red with black tips,fairly course. Not red in the human sense, but red in the rufus/mahogany sense of red. Deep and dark in that color range,didn't appear died black and grown out. I honestly don't recall if they were slate grey at the base. I've seen many primates that appear to have ringed or agouti coloring, but not humans. The red with black tips and no grey undercolor would be black genetically with one gene and one modifier difference.This would be in animals that I have experience with. To date,to the best of my knowledge, a lot of these modifiers/genes aren't fully understood yet.Depending on the strength(or something) of the non extension modifier/gene it can remove the black tips, making "red". I don't know how it would relate to higher primates.Along the lines of recessive/dominant and such. Maybe somebody that actually knows something about this (that has no NDA to violate) could chime in. I have no idea what would fall in human range. These ringed hair shafts with various color genes/modifiers are a natural camo effect. It allows animals to "disappear" in their environment. Just speculating in type, nothing solid in my thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts