Guest DWA Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 All we have is her report, no details about who the other collaborators were, what methods were used, why the nuclear genome is novel. I'm hoping that my intuition is incorrect but this does not bode well to announce your findings in this way if you want the scientific community to give your research serious consideration IMO. Bingo. This just has the feel of a thousand cats leaving a bag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Might ought to get a defibrilator while you're at it lol! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 In case anyone missed my above post, Ketchum has finally put out the long awaited press release: http://dnadiagnostics.com/press.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 DNA is absolute, undeniable proof. Period. You do not need a body, or a clear video, if you had a body, what would you do? Check its DNA for goodness sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Fox News has picked this up at 1;10 pm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 scorecard....russian genetics journal is publishing the hard science, this is the first of many press releases. Reading and retaining context is ''a good thing''...LOL. Major news outlet science editors I'm sure will explain everything. Genome sequencing doesn't lie, so as soon as the copy is released everyones questions will be answered. The "mainstream" has been ignoring the Russians for many years...what are the odds that they'll take a Russian journal seriously on this one? I can see the Skeptic rebuttal now: "It's some Russian fringe journal..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 In case anyone missed my above post, Ketchum has finally put out the long awaited press release: http://dnadiagnostics.com/press.html haha, I wonder how many times people have checked that page to date ; D Fox News has picked this up at 1;10 pm On line? I could not find it at the site Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Dr Meldrum is probably home with family right now...I wonder how many emails he's gotten "letting him know" about this... Though it is now interesting what he named his journal, is it not? I thought he was still an "ape" advocate. Dear Lord, do NOT let this become a case where we have a study saying "humanoid" and a competitor saying "ape"...ugh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 DNA is absolute, undeniable proof. Period. You do not need a body, or a clear video, if you had a body, what would you do? Check its DNA for goodness sake. Not true. Science accepts DNA as proof if there is a type specimen against which to compare the sample. Yeah, when you check the DNA sequence of a body, you, um, have the body. When your DNA is found on a murder weapon, science has the type specimen (you). This is way different. When you have no proof the animal is real, the mainstream will go, it's a primate but the sample doesn't sound conclusive. Watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 (edited) JREF is already playing the "russian journal = junk science" card. And DWA, you're simply wrong. Finding human blood on a knife would prove to the authorities that a human was cut by the knife, even if they didn't know what human it was. Edited November 24, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 I guess we have a candidate now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 When you have no proof the animal is real, the mainstream will go, it's a primate but the sample doesn't sound conclusive. Watch. Or, contaminated sample, unknown chain of custody, poor research methods - "novel DNA" is going to be a sticking point for many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 ^^^^Right, BigG. Which leaves us with: Still a lot of work to do. The DNA angle should be worked. But field research - and unfortunately the time and money that takes - is still key to the overall effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Or, contaminated sample, unknown chain of custody, poor research methods - "novel DNA" is going to be a sticking point for many. Three complete nuclear genomes from different sources ought to squelch that IMO. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 (edited) @DWA- typical thinking = If The Glove Don't Fit You Must Aquit. Edited November 24, 2012 by BigGinger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts