See-Te-Cah NC Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 http://bf-field-jour...igfoot-dna.html From Scott Carpenter's site. Our data indicate that theNorth American Sasquatch is a hybrid species, the result of males of an unknown hominin species crossing with female Homo sapiens. - There's the quote from the Ketchum document exactly. OK, but didn't she also state that there was non-human, non-ape and non-archaic-hominid DNA involved on the paternal side? Are they now attempting to allow this claim to subside, or to be otherwise obscured? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 In this article, they're saying that the paternal DNA is from a previously unknown hominid. This appears to differ from the statement Dr. Ketchum made in her press release. Is this in fact the case, or is this an attempt to hypothesize as to the origin of the "unknown" DNA? after a couple of more Geneticist's weigh in I'm running with the opinion most people don't know what they are looking at, rendering their opinion on it anyway, most people can't read a science abstract correctly, much less put it in it's intended context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 I really don't like hearing that. Where you getting this info from? EDIT: did a little research and see on JREF you're claiming you emailed Burtsev himself and he volunteer this. Why would you hide that tidbit from us? Just so you would ask. If you look at the Cryptomundo site concerning Burtsev's press release, you will see he includes his email address. I emailed him and he responded quickly. (I really didn't think I would get a response.) At JREF I pasted his response from my email. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) OK, but didn't she also state that there was non-human, non-ape and non-archaic-hominid DNA involved on the paternal side? Are they now attempting to allow this claim to subside, or to be otherwise obscured? I wonder if Ketchum would have been more accurate and better advised to write that there is "thus far undocumented DNA involved on the paternal side". Her statement to me is ambiguous. I hope the paper isn't this imprecise. Edited November 25, 2012 by corvus horribilus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Bass Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) Ahhhh, I see, playing gotcha games. She needs to reel him in and fast, he is doing more damage to her to the point I fear her work will be irrelevant. My mood towards all this is taking a sudden dark turn in the last couple hours. It always does when shady characters like this mad Russian scientist get involved. Edited November 25, 2012 by Ronnie Bass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Ahhhh, I see, playing gotcha games. She needs to reel him in and fast, he is doing more damage to her to the point I fear her work will be irrelevant. My mood towards all this is taking a sudden dark turn in the last couple hours. It always does when shady characters like this mad Russian scientist get involved. Not really playing "gotcha games". Thinking perhaps someone here had thought to email Burtsev and my post would be old news. Hence, the low key. Not sure why you think Burtsev is damaging the DNA report if it indeed going to a scientific web journal in Russia. He didn't say that the paper was exclusive to this web site. Maybe it will be published here, somewhere, and shared on the Russian web journal site. Email him and ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Her statement to me is ambiguous. I hope the paper isn't this imprecise. And if it IS, will the paper even pass peer-review? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 ^^ could be a problem. Having been on the academic side in a previous life, it is easy to be put off by poor style/register and imprecision in expression. And I'm easy-going - there are some pretty tough-ass academics out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Bass Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Not really playing "gotcha games". Thinking perhaps someone here had thought to email Burtsev and my post would be old news. Hence, the low key. Not sure why you think Burtsev is damaging the DNA report if it indeed going to a scientific web journal in Russia. He didn't say that the paper was exclusive to this web site. Maybe it will be published here, somewhere, and shared on the Russian web journal site. Email him and ask. Just recently Dr Meldrum went to Russia to meet with Burtsev. Meldrum apparently felt Burtsev used him and maybe planted evidence in a cave. And I remember a documentary I saw Burtsev in about 7-8 years ago, didn't get a good rub from him then as I do now. Your last sentence is a thought that crossed my mind that it would be a shared effort, so maybe I'm jumping the gun there, but I think most of us were in the hoping for the best case scenario of a reputed journal and not a website my anti-Virus software will probably throw up warning flags. Hope I'm wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 (edited) Did Bourtsev say that the paper was going to be published on a Russian website, or merely that he had offered that to Ketchum? Edited November 25, 2012 by gershake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 I read it as it will be published in the as yet unamed Russian journal. So this is the same guy Dr. Meldrum met with in Russia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Bass Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 So it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Did Bourtsev say that the paper was going to be published on a Russian website, or merely that he had offered that to Ketchum? This is my email to Burtsev: Dr. Burtsev, Pardon the intrusion. Do you know the name of the scientific journal that will be publishing Dr. Ketchum’s sasquatch DNA study? There is some speculation here in the USA that the paper will be published in a Russian journal. Thank you for your time. Here is Burtsev response: Dear Sir, Yes, it supposed to be published in a Russian scientific journal, issued in both versions -Russian and English, end on-line. When it will be close to issue we shall inform the public how to get it. Igor Burtsev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 I wonder if Burtsev wanted to cash in on the $10M that Spike put up by being first to proclaim evidence of Bigfoot? Pay is not that good in Russia, and with Spike's bounty announced on the 26th of October, followed by Burtsev's claim on October 30th, one has to wonder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Is that offer for everyone, or part of a TV show with a set cast? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts