Guest Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Close. It's Andrew Jackson's forhead on a $20 Bill Shown again here for reference: So...this ISN'T Bigfoot DNA??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 (edited) To me it looks like, what is indicated, a missunderstanding. It seems that Burtsev loosely interpreted/translated, the Press Release that Dr. K afterwards published herself. It is very likely that this was released to Burtsev as to the media as embargoed prerelease notice, and Burtsev took it as the public release, "rereleasing" it right away on his blog. This would mean that the paper is really very soon to be released and could be reason that Dr. K herself broke (maybe after checking with the journal) the story to the public. On some reprints of Dr. Ks release on the web as well as on the release on her homepage. There is the indicative last paragraph that states: "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@dnadiagnostics.com" Thats exaclty what would be in a prerelease note for an embargoed article/report/ etc. As we learned the last year Dr. K wasnt like talking until this. And now she is open for interviews on it? Thats not just a midtime high. If anyone knows a legitimate Media person, have them contact Dr K at the above email address! GK BTW did anyone listen to the Scott Carpenter Internet Radio Interview or the David Paulides Coast to Coast interview. Both last night I think. Did they spill any beans? Thanks, GK Edited November 26, 2012 by gerrykleier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Do we have any geneticists or DNA folks on this forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Oi Vay! Now, think of all the possibilities....We humans just think we are soooooo smart. Ha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Do we have any geneticists or DNA folks on this forum? No kidding. The sense I get from many posts here is that a lot of folks here know just enough to get themselves in trouble. I'm not knowledgeable about this, at all, which doesn't bother me any, because if there is only one thing I know about DNA - and I'm pretty sure I know it, and pretty sure it's the only thing I know - it's this: You can't declare a species when the only piece of physical evidence you have is a DNA sequence derived from, well, something, we think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 I'm going to try and have my media connection contact DMK. Unfortunately, she's on the road at the moment and won't be available until tomorrow. It'll be a hard sell b/c it isn't local or even great plains news, but perhaps b/c of its potential significance, at least a phone interview could be conducted. If anything, we can see how serious DMK is about granting interviews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 What are the chances of Syke's results being the same as Ketchums. If they are different, are we back to square one There is another possibility: they may obtain the same data, but interpret it differently. Since all this is now out in the open (more or less), I think I can share this information I was given. I still won't disclose names, but the information is now: I was told privately a long time ago to expect this very "finding" by someone close to a certain researcher. According to their information, Ketchum had the "unknown/documented" DNA, but was insisting on presenting the findings as near-human/human hybrid and the other researchers were balking at that interpretation. (The exact term they used was "pounding a square peg into a round hole".) They (the researcher) did make the disclaimer that their information was preliminary, and were witholding judgement pending release of the actual data. Such a "dueling researcher" scenario is near-perfect Skeptic bait, unfortunately. I hope it's not true, but it may well turn out to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 (edited) Bigfoot Lunch Club has a few links to various responses by scientific bloggers. Link The interesting part (to me) is that they're not outright dismissing the whole thing. Edited November 26, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 There is another possibility: they may obtain the same data, but interpret it differently. Since all this is now out in the open (more or less), I think I can share this information I was given. I still won't disclose names, but the information is now: I was told privately a long time ago to expect this very "finding" by someone close to a certain researcher. According to their information, Ketchum had the "unknown/documented" DNA, but was insisting on presenting the findings as near-human/human hybrid and the other researchers were balking at that interpretation. (The exact term they used was "pounding a square peg into a round hole".) They (the researcher) did make the disclaimer that their information was preliminary, and were witholding judgement pending release of the actual data. Such a "dueling researcher" scenario is near-perfect Skeptic bait, unfortunately. I hope it's not true, but it may well turn out to be. Wouldn't be the first time subjectivity got in the way of science with regard to this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 I'm going to try and have my media connection contact DMK. Unfortunately, she's on the road at the moment and won't be available until tomorrow. It'll be a hard sell b/c it isn't local or even great plains news, but perhaps b/c of its potential significance, at least a phone interview could be conducted. If anything, we can see how serious DMK is about granting interviews. A Bump to this. Somebody out there must know reporters from Newspapers or TV Stations in N Cal and Oregon-prime BF Country and a good fit for an interview. Scientific journalists would be best, of course. GK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Bigfoot Lunch Club has a few links to various responses by scientific bloggers. Link The interesting part (to me) is that they're not outright dismissing the whole thing. Indeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Yeah, my connection isn't in a real good location to work it in to the news of her area, but she does call the shots and I might be able to provide some insight. But I agree, this story may be in someone else's wheelhouse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest icicle Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Not necessarily. For instance, a Liger, which is a hybridization of a lion and a tiger, is actually substantially bigger than either. Ah. Good. I didn't fancy running into a bigfoot, even less its bigger meaner cousin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Indeed I noticed an "anonymous" poster on one of the blogs is already using Ketchum's early data, copyright filings, BBB rating and other assorted rumors to discredit her. And here I've been wondering what he's been up to since last posting in this thread. Now I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 There is another possibility: they may obtain the same data, but interpret it differently. Since all this is now out in the open (more or less), I think I can share this information I was given. I still won't disclose names, but the information is now: I was told privately a long time ago to expect this very "finding" by someone close to a certain researcher. According to their information, Ketchum had the "unknown/documented" DNA, but was insisting on presenting the findings as near-human/human hybrid and the other researchers were balking at that interpretation. (The exact term they used was "pounding a square peg into a round hole".) They (the researcher) did make the disclaimer that their information was preliminary, and were witholding judgement pending release of the actual data. Such a "dueling researcher" scenario is near-perfect Skeptic bait, unfortunately. I hope it's not true, but it may well turn out to be. I always felt the Sasquatch Protection angle was a 'Bridge Too Far' for Ketchum though if her conclusions from the DNA were that BF are 'people' then you can see why she was drawn to it. You could see how a conclusion that they were human based on experiences she had or experiences others related to her might carry over into interpretation of the data reinforcing wrong ideas. GK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts