clubbedfoot Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 I disagree, and here's why: I think the public can understand the conclusion that Dr. Ketchum (allegedly) has proved the existence of a previously unknown (to science) hominid, more closely related to humans than any other known primate. Suddenly, all of the thousands of witness reports are much more credible. Previously, people have viewed bigfoot from the premise that there is no scientific proof of a large primate (hominid) and therefore all of the reports must have been mistaken identity or hoaxes. Now, assuming Dr. Ketchum's study is released and is what it purports to be, there is a scientific basis to believe that people really are seeing these hominids. People can start reasonably believing that these beings exist, and therefore people really are seeing them. Every alleged sighting isn't automatically assumed to be a hoax. I think a lot of the public's eyes will be opened to the vast weight of eyewitness testimony that exists for bigfoot, and which doesn't seem to exist for any of the other alleged cryptids. I think you'll also see more reports coming from people who were afraid to make their reports because they feared they would be viewed as crazy. I think if the paper holds up, even without a captive or dead specimen, there is so much witness testimony out there that the study may just be enough for people to change there paradigm with regard to the possible existence of bigfoot. And adding to your well thought out post.....Although not a whole specimen the basis of the DNA test is a part of a live/dead specimen.....whatever that may be.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Bass Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Doesn't this hurt her chances to getting her paper in a reputable scientific journal? I just remember reading somewhere Rule #1 is you don't talk about your work, and this press release by her does just that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Understood, hence my initial statement. However, telling the public that you've "discovered" Bigfoot without the accompaniment of evidence to lend credibility to their findings is not going to fly with the majority of the public. Thats where the DNA comes from....The evidence. The DNA doesn't tell me the creature's habits, diet, range, possible intelligence, growth rate etc. That's what folks want to know about. That takes evidence in addition to DNA. The circumstances of the find, tells you habitat, behavior in some cases, range can be determined by where such evidence can be found which correlates to sightings etc. The same evidence can give you diet with isotope analyses. Researcher observations plus witness observations already give you a window into intelligence don't they? Or do you need video for everything? Without conclusive accompanying evidence, this presentation of DNA will mean little to most people. Most people either go with what science says, or they believe what they want. You can't do much with the later, biological evidence is all that matters at this point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 We're almost 300 pages in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Doesn't this hurt her chances to getting her paper in a reputable scientific journal? I just remember reading somewhere Rule #1 is you don't talk about your work, and this press release by her does just that. I'm more inclined to think that now her assertion has been made and the media frenzy will start, the location of the publication will become less important. So long as her evidence and verification process stands up to scrutiny, she should be good. And I imagine there will be enough scrutineers out there who have put their names to the paper/process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Is it possible that the 'Novel' DNA sequences are simply strings of DNA that are not interacting accurately with the primers used to separate the DNA sequences for analysis? Or some other technical glitch? I remember there was talk from Ketchum or someone close that they had to design specific Bigfoot primers as the primers used for Ape and Human DNA analysis did not work, or did not work correctly. It seems to me that at this point a more parsimonious explanation for Novel DNA sequences would be an as yet untangled technical problem rather than something more otherworldy. Presuming the DNA is from a Bigfoot, of course. If so, the Novel DNA sequences may turn out to be more pedestrian once others have turned their attention to the problem. In other words, it might be too soon to ascribe much meaning to some of these anomalies. GK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 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. 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. Agreed Mulder. The DNA still exists, with or without a body DWA. It's not junk science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 (edited) Assuming you already have a speciman, pluck feathers, remove giblets, seasoning of your choice then throw it in the smoker. Crow to be served !!! Edited November 24, 2012 by GEARMAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 I am sure this thought has been trudged out before in re to lack of a living or dead BF specimen.... “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.†Arthur Conan Doyle --creator of Sherlock Holmes And adding to your well thought out post.....Although not a whole specimen the basis of the DNA test is a part of a live/dead specimen.....whatever that may be.... I like the cut of both your jibs... I'm more inclined to think that now her assertion has been made and the media frenzy will start, the location of the publication will become less important. So long as her evidence and verification process stands up to scrutiny, she should be good. And I imagine there will be enough scrutineers out there who have put their names to the paper/process. I just had a wild thought...if (and I repeat IF) she were getting stonewalled, a pre-emptive release even sans review might serve her purpose and throw the whole matter into the public ring, in effect "shaming" the reviewing community into taking a look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 I like the cut of both your jibs... I just had a wild thought...if (and I repeat IF) she were getting stonewalled, a pre-emptive release even sans review might serve her purpose and throw the whole matter into the public ring, in effect "shaming" the reviewing community into taking a look at it. I had the same general thought. However she isn't telling so we're just guessing! If all this is true, it's gonna make a great Book! We are practically in it. GK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 I sent out the Ketchum team press release on behalf of DNA Diagnostics to all my UK press contacts but it doesn't seem to have been picked up by any of them so far.... we will see in the morning what t happens here ut it isnt looking very 'hot off the press' right now so to speak. Maybe the insistence to remain ignorant of the sasquatch species is a good thing as they are protected by their anonimity.I would rather they are allowed to live in peace than have global validation of their existence.Good night my good folks, until tmrw...much love to all men and beasts and our friends in between  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 (edited) Finally something new! Hooray! Funny, I didn't hear skeptics hollering "junk science" when Denisovan man was id'd by a piece of a finger. Emotion clouds critical thinking, I guess. Edited November 24, 2012 by maddog23 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 It must be close to publication if she's confirming on rumors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Something made her feel compelled to comment. Lindsay's been saying all sorts of things and she stopped responsing a while ago. I don't see why Burtsev's revelations mean she has to speak, so I presume she has some reason of her own. Being close to publication (or having been accepted, regardless of what the press release says) or to slap down a marker seem the most obvious to me. It's also possible that she's frustrated with a percieved runaround by the Journal she submitted to and is just going to publish it as a 'white paper', what-the-hell. GK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 At publication there will probably be a news conference with others from the team and editors present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts