Guest VioletX Posted November 27, 2012 Posted November 27, 2012 http://www.yakimaher...a-say-its-human Both Paulides and Dr.Ketchum were interviewed and this should lay some of the speculation to rest. QUOTE- “Some people out there have said we’ve used this word, ‘angel DNA.’ That is not true,†said Paulides, a former police officer in San Jose, Calif. “But there is some very unusual aspects to that male DNA that cannot be explained right now.†Ketchum’s Texas lab didn’t do all of the testing. She said 13 labs — at universities, state-run forensive labs and private-sector facilities — were involved in the process, which included blind studies “and repeatability on most of it.†She said the labs tested 109 samples of all kinds — hair, tissue, blood and saliva. “And all of them had the same results,†Paulides said. “If someone pooh-poohs it, they either haven’t read (the study) or they just refuse to believe it.†Thank you for finding this!
Guest slimwitless Posted November 27, 2012 Posted November 27, 2012 http://www.yakimaher...a-say-its-human Both Paulides and Dr.Ketchum were interviewed and this should lay some of the speculation to rest. That's one of the fairer articles I've seen. This bit is interesting: Reached on telephone Monday, Ketchum said the 50-page manuscript containing the research and DNA findings is still in peer review at a scientific journal. As for whether the premature announcement would impact that, she said, “I hope not. So far we haven’t heard anything that says it’s going to stop it.†As for when the study might become public, she said, “in weeks instead of many months, that’s for sure.â€
Guest Particle Noun Posted November 27, 2012 Posted November 27, 2012 Sorry if this has been covered, but can anyone confirm that Dr. Meldrum actually said this: The press release was frankly premature and unprofessional given the lack of any published reviewed results.It apparently was precipitated by a leak of information that was pubicized. Let's wait and see what the published results will be and how they are to be INTERPRETED.BTW -- the spokesperson would divulge neither a timeline for publication, nor which journal received the submission. She did however inform us that they were in regular communication (psychic?) with sasquatch, and that they (the sasquatch) were enthusiastic about the study and the press release, and are completely supportive of Melba's project. Especially the last part about what the spokesperson said? I've seen that quoted here somewhere but had no idea it was attributed to Dr. M. Sorry if this has been covered earlier or in another thread. If that is an actual quote, I just...I don't even....I mean, why would you even say something like that, even if you believed it to be true. That shows a real lack of self awareness of how to handle the media and questioners in general.
Cotter Posted November 27, 2012 Posted November 27, 2012 Woah! Someone's using RL's blog as a source and considers themselves a rational thinker. Additionally, there was a lot of regurgitated info in there from over 1 year ago. Is this the first time we've heard that the DNA was extracted from a blueberry bagel? Also, the author wants to see a documentary on Bigfoot researchers.........novel idea, I wonder if anyone is working on something like that.
Guest Particle Noun Posted November 27, 2012 Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) Oy, that press release, and the choice of Robin as a spokesperson has put her back on the 1 yard line prior to the release of the paper. The climb is now decidedly more uphill if the paper is released than it needed to be. On the other hand, this proves the point about why not to say anything and keep quiet. Many skeptics had a field day early on asking why she wouldn't talk about the findings and challenging journal policy about silence. Now we see exactly why you don't talk about findings without the reviewed paper to back it up. Oy. Edited November 27, 2012 by Particle Noun
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Posted November 27, 2012 It is funny how people do not actually research why Dr. Ketchum released a statement. Nope, just run to the Blueberry and angleDNA..
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Posted November 27, 2012 NBCNews.com - Meet your Uncle Bigfoot: DNA report claims beast part human: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49980829/ns/technology_and_science-science/
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Posted November 27, 2012 A 50 page, double spaced manuscript translates to about 10 pages in most journals. Way too long for Science or Proceeding of the National Academy of Science. Many journals now have stringent page limits. I can't remember if Nature has an upper page limit. Hmmm. Genes
Guest Particle Noun Posted November 27, 2012 Posted November 27, 2012 Very lazy reporting, but we can expect more of it I think...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted November 27, 2012 Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) I have it on good authority that none other than Vladimir Putin is behind the Russian publication of this study. Once it is documented as a species, he can justify investing the money to capture one, because his goal is to wrestle a Sas on live Russian TV. What better way to bolster his flagging approval numbers with the Russian people than to step into the ring with the hairy monster for the grand submission. Of course, the BF would be drugged into a stupor, and it goes without saying that Vlad would be shirtless. Edited November 27, 2012 by Thepattywagon
Guest Particle Noun Posted November 27, 2012 Posted November 27, 2012 Didn't notice it was the editor of the Skeptical Inquirer who wrote that piece...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Posted November 27, 2012 (edited) NBCNews.com - Meet your Uncle Bigfoot: DNA report claims beast part human:http://www.msnbc.msn...cience-science/ First "mainstream" large market mention that I know of... Edited November 27, 2012 by Mulder
Cotter Posted November 27, 2012 Posted November 27, 2012 @Genes - I wanted to say I appreciate the perspective you bring to the table. Do you feel DMK has torpedoed any chance of american publication by the 'leak'?
Guest gerrykleier Posted November 27, 2012 Posted November 27, 2012 That's one of the fairer articles I've seen. This bit is interesting: Reached on telephone Monday, Ketchum said the 50-page manuscript containing the research and DNA findings is still in peer review at a scientific journal. As for whether the premature announcement would impact that, she said, “I hope not. So far we haven’t heard anything that says it’s going to stop it.†As for when the study might become public, she said, “in weeks instead of many months, that’s for sure.†Note the Idiot in the 'Comments' Section! GK
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Posted November 27, 2012 A 50 page, double spaced manuscript translates to about 10 pages in most journals. Way too long for Science or Proceeding of the National Academy of Science. Many journals now have stringent page limits. I can't remember if Nature has an upper page limit. Hmmm. Genes How can there be a page limit for a big study with lots of data to present (and not just on this topic)? Wouldn't a study on such a controversial subject warrant extensive documentation?
Recommended Posts