Guest VioletX Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 For the record I only entertain conspiracy theories, but I noticed there have been two articles about Bigfoot not being human in the Bigfoot Evidence Blog, in the past day. It makes me wonder if that is one of the reasons that Ketchum is not getting much support form the community at this time.
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 Why is Igor so involved with this study? Perhaps these other scientists on Ketchums team are Russians? Maybe the independent labs that tested the samples were Russian labs? Possibility that's why its getting published in Russia.
Guest VioletX Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 V, Maybe I read a different press release..... The press release may have some ambiguities, but I am not reading anything that defines the Bigfoot as anything other than partially unknown and needing further examination for more insight. If I am reading your reply correctly C .
Guest Cervelo Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 Southern, So there's approx. 8 billion people on the earth and approx. a couple of hundred or thousand or tens of thousands complete genomes of this type have been done. So statistically we have sampled nothing, so what's more likley the findings are an unknown hominid or wacky DNA may be more common than we think? The press release may have some ambiguities, but I am not reading anything that defines the Bigfoot as anything other than partially unknown and needing further examination for more insight. If I am reading your reply correctly C . Can't really say what I'm thinking without breaking rules...but it pretty much speaks for itself that we can agree on
southernyahoo Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 V, This is the guy that got Dr. Meldrum to go to Russia to see some very suspect stuff. So what path do we think he's leading Dr. K down.....I wonder quietly to myself Cervelo, I think Dr. Ketchum is simply following the evidence using real science. In spite of how others may feel about her objectivity, she is not doing this study alone by any means, and without a trace of what is novel from within what is known in other hominins the only acceptable scientific conclusion would be that the sequences are from a related species to us, yet uncatalogued. That would be the science conclusion. The Lay public may wish to interpret that with their own flare to include speculations about the otherworldly. Even if Dr. Ketchum has her own speculations on that, it does not change what is evident in the study IMO. Keep your eye on the ball, not peoples beliefs.
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 The 'skeptical' take on this topic has gone unchallenged by the mainstream pretty much since European settlement. You know, I think that's actually incorrect. It seems to be that, prior to the 20th century, people were much MORE accepting of BF. The Native Americans certainly knew perfectly well that they were there. They incorporated BF into their spiritual practice, learned and taught their children the rules on how to deal with it's presence in their world. They even named places where BF were known to be AFTER the BF, names that still are used today like Skookum Lake. When the Europeans came, they also simply accepted the presence of BF in their midst and learned how to deal with them as well. They also started giving names to places with BF associations, and continued to do so even into the early 20th century. Ape Canyon being the most famous example, and probably widest known. I've also read of local names like "Monkey Creek", "Booger Hollow", etc, and many an eyewitness report has added as a parenthetical note that the "old timers" have known about BF in the local region for a long long time. Like the NA before them, they just accepted that they were there and went on with their lives. Skepticism as we know it really is a product of the social revolution of the 1960s, and it's rejection of virtually all of the opinions and "received wisdom" of prior generations on all manner of topics social, scientific, political, and a host of other things we cannot discuss in detail in the open section. If the best bettors go with history, well, they're going with a bad outcome for this one. Because shenanigans like this have pretty much been 100% fails. Agreed in principle. The skeptics are wrong. Eyewitness reports aren't "inaccurate." They are inadmissible as proof. Fact is, unless the eyewitness has specific motivation to lie or a proven specific handicap of perception, we have no reason at all not to believe eyewitnesses. And furthermore, it is on the Skeptic to prove with evidence that a particular eyewitness is lying or suffering from such a handicap, rather then trying to force the researcher into "proving the negative" by demonstrating the witness is not either. The skeptical ignorance of the eyewitness testimony is their Achilles' heel; it holds together to paint the morphological, behavioral and ecological picture of an unlisted species. Any scientist who knows what he's talking about knows that a random concatenation of false positives does not do that. That's the exact argument I keep making in regards to Fahrenbach's track size distribution paper. The testimony, again, is not proof. But it says - and this is not an opinion - science must search until the cause of all this evidence is ascertained. Agreed. One thing that has crippled this field is the all-but-universal presumption that each piece of evidence must be either proof or garbage. Sometimes evidence is neither, but simply compelling. BINGO! If you think the sasquatch is doing fine without confirmation, well, OK. But if you think confirmation is required to save its habitat (the biggest threat, much bigger than crackpots with guns)...well, then, you better make your peace with a body being the way it's done. At the rate we're eating up habitat, extinction with dignity may be the other option. And I am personally glad that we tend not to go that route...once we come to our senses, that is. The TBRC is by leagues the most serious and organized group out there, serious and organized enough to have conducted two of the only three sasquatch expeditions in recorded history. If you think that time is running out for the sasquatch - and unless we get an attack of Enlightenment like Bhutan, and declare immense sasquatch reserves now, it is - then you are hoping the TBRC succeeds. Or if you don't care, or are almost unjustifiably optimistic...not. I will quibble a bit on this. The US already has HUGE tracts of land locked up not just in Nat Forests, but in "wilderness" areas that will NEVER be touched absent a law change, and we add to it steadily (for good or ill). In fact, in the US, the Forest Service spent much of the late 90s and early 00s removing public access routes into many government land areas (closing and destroying/allowing to deteriorate into unusability service roads, trails, etc).
GuyInIndiana Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 Call me crazy, but since the good Dr. has broken her own rules of not talking before the paper publishes, and since the END of the press release says this: Dr. Ketchum is available for interview or to answer further questions about the Sasquatch genome study and associated research on novel contemporary hominins at media(at)dnadiagnostics(dot)com ... it would seem to me, an open invitation for SOMEONE with serious questions to write and contact her directly. Is that NOT what that says? Have at it.
southernyahoo Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 Southern, So there's approx. 8 billion people on the earth and approx. a couple of hundred or thousand or tens of thousands complete genomes of this type have been done. Complete human genomes? I need a link They would be human by some measure of similarity. The same measure that would be used to define any new species. Find that and you will find where the real statistics come in play.
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 Over at Cryptomundo, this Igor guy said "...scientific magazines refuse to publish manuscript". Does this mean that no American journal would accept the study? What are the implications if only a Russian journal publishes it, credibility-wise?
Guest Cervelo Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 Complete human genomes? I need a link They would be human by some measure of similarity. The same measure that would be used to define any new species. Find that and you will find where the real statistics come in play. Appears to be in the thousands http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 A portion of the article that explains what what is the press release. This may clear up some confusion. http://dna-explained.com/2012/11/25/bigfoot-is-real/ If a new paper yet to be published and currently undergoing peer review is valid, it appears that Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch, is indeed, real and a hominid mix, meaning that Sasquatch is a human relative that arose approximately 15,000 years ago as a hybrid cross of modern Homo sapiens with an unknown primate species. Following five years of research, a team of scientists has sequenced several Sasquatch genomes. Results show that Bigfoot is a mixture between a human female, about 15,000 years ago, and a male, a previously unknown hominin related to Homo sapiens and other primate species. Wow. What a discovery! This begs several questions. Is all of the mitochondrial DNA the same, inferring a single maternal ancestor? They have sequenced 20 different mitochondrial samples. Given that the mitochondrial DNA is reportedly identical to that of modern humans, we can presume, one would think, that the mitochondrial DNA is Native American, so a member of haplogroup A, B, C, D or X. Hopefully the forthcoming paper will be more specific. The scientists fully sequenced three Bigfoot nuclear DNA samples and the results are stunning. The male is not a contemporary human and they have eliminated both Neanderthal and Denisovian males as possible founders. Dr. Melba Ketchum, one of the paper’s authors, states that, “The male progenitor that contributed the unknown sequence to this hybrid is unique as its DNA is more distantly removed from humans than other recently discovered hominins like the Denisovan individual. Sasquatch nuclear DNA is incredibly novel and not at all what we had expected. While it has human nuclear DNA within its genome, there are also distinctly non-human, non-archaic hominin, and non-ape sequences. We describe it as a mosaic of human and novel non-human sequence. Further study is needed and is ongoing to better characterize and understand Sasquatch nuclear DNA. Genetically, the Sasquatch are a human hybrid with unambiguously modern human maternal ancestry.†There are subtle and not so subtle messages buried here as well. Obviously, for the team to acquire 20 samples to process, there has to be a population of these creatures living in North America. Of course, everyone has heard of Sasquatch and seen photos and videos, but until this, nothing has been terribly convincing. There has been no smoking gun. If this research is valid and passes peer review, it not only confirms that Sasquatch is real, it vindicates many of the people who have had “sightings†over the years. It becomes the smoking gun. But as with much science, it raises more questions than it answers.
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 Hold on everyone, didn't Sykes already say on Bigfoot Evidence that he was a month late when it came to actual testing? It's not ready yet.
ThePhaige Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 A portion of the article that explains what what is the press release. This may clear up some confusion. http://dna-explained...igfoot-is-real/ If a new paper yet to be published ........ Yeah another member posted this several pages back and I thought it was a pretty honest assessment based on whats know so far...thanks for re-posting it I think some folks may have missed this
Guest Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 Yeah another member posted this several pages back and I thought it was a pretty honest assessment based on whats know so far...thanks for re-posting it I think some folks may have missed this Sorry Phaige that was me, it was the first article on the net explaining in layman's terms what we were looking at in the press release.
southernyahoo Posted November 25, 2012 Posted November 25, 2012 let me ask this: have you given any thought to what the hybrid's father(s) is? I know you probably do not want to speculate, but there have been suggestions that it is far removed from human. Is that your understanding? It is my understanding that the nuDNA is outside known human variation. One would need to know how a comparison of any two humans would run as a percentage in difference between them, to understand the significance of that.
Recommended Posts