Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Paulides indicated Igor wasn't part of the team. Maybe he is a pawn they are using here. I'm sure this will be news to Igor.. But, maybe he was already talked to about this. He may not be a part of the team now.. LOL. As much as I hate to admit this, just about everything "leaked" and published by Lindsay has been true - regardless of the denials by Ketchum and Paulides. So, not sure why I should believe either of them now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) @Melissa, not sure if it has been said for but Ketchums PR person has said she did not say anything about psychic Sasquatch communication in that conversation with Meldrum, in fact upon hearing about the FB post it she sounded amused or bemused, not sure. Edited November 28, 2012 by VioletX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I'd much rather believe Paulides than RL. A lot of what RL posts just isn't true IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Disotell made it clear that one can indeed determine that a new (or rather, previously unknown) species exists from its DNA alone, and one can tell approximately where on the family tree it should be located. So it is said by the great skeptical scientist. I hope that sinks in around here. I'm sorry SY , but I have to disagree with you, Dr. Ketchum's study was not the appropriate venue for this methodology, if that is what was used, to draw her conclusions....All I can say is that is not a recommended use for identifying new species and you will find that at the GenBank website if you choose to look there. Here is a snipit that sums it up despite what you inferred from what you were reading. http://www.ncbi.nlm....books/NBK21088/ Sequence variations exist at defined positions within genomes and are responsible for individual phenotypic characteristics, including a person's propensity toward complex disorders such as heart disease and cancer. As tools for understanding human variation and molecular genetics, sequence variations can be used for gene mapping, definition of population structure, and performance of functional studies. http://www.biomedcen...1471-2156/11/32 Unfortunately, SNP resources are not readily available in the majority of non-model species lacking genomic resources. With this in mind, we set out to establish a set of SNP markers to identify differences between Fundulus populations and species. http://hapmap.ncbi.n...ghapmap.html.en The way that a population is named in studies of genetic variation, such as the HapMap, has important ramifications scientifically, culturally, and ethically. From a scientific standpoint, precision in describing the population from which the samples were collected is an essential component of sound study design; the source of the data must be accurately described in order for the data to be interpreted correctly. From a cultural standpoint, precision in labeling reflects acknowledgement of and respect for the local norms of the communities that have agreed to participate in the research. From an ethical standpoint, precision is part of the obligation of researchers to participants, and helps to ensure that the research findings are neither under-generalized nor over-generalized inappropriately. The use of careless and inconsistent terminology when describing the populations represents a failure in all three of these areas. You've switched arguments from "she isn't qualified to interpret human DNA" to "she isn't qualified to ID new uncatalogued species DNA" . Truth is she's done alot of work on both human and animal DNA, been involved with genome studies, identified criminals, 911 victums, animal and human paternity, etc etc etc. The fact you wouldn't choose her to do this study is irrelavant. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 @Melissa, not sure if it has been said for but Ketchums PR person has said she did not say anything about psychic Sasquatch communication in that conversation with Meldrum, in fact upon hearing about the FB post it she sounded amused or bemused, not sure. You missed my point entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Incorrigible1 - as much as I would love to get into a conversation about what you just posted - I fear it would be the last thing I ever did on this forum... So, I will sit here and watch the fireworks others light off. LOL. You could tell it in the Tar Pit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) At least its getting hot again. Paulides said on CtoC that he dont know when it will publish, BUT as things have gone he is expecting/thinking/believing on something like SEVEN TO TEN days! I like that kind of SOON http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2VQfQm3VeHY Edited November 28, 2012 by Data Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I hope the journal is a reputable one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 It pains me to say this, but RL has not exactly been wrong in all of this. In fact, he's the very reason for two of the longest threads on the first page; this and the Sierra Kills thread. Much of what he has said either panned out or at least prompted clarification, but either way he has actually been a... *gulp*... pretty reliable source in all of this. Do I feel the need to take a shower every time I visit his blog? Of course. Is some of what he posts sensationalist crap just to drum up attention? Undoubtedly. But to me he has become the "Jose Conseco" of Bigfoot- the insufferable creep who turns out to be right for all the wrong reasons. Why do I bother to post this? Because I believe he is RIGHT about the Sierra Kills bodies. Way back when this all started, it was because he reported that Ketchum was using DNA from two BODIES, then there was a huge scramble to correct that report, which was then replaced with the completely unbelievable story that they went back several weeks later and couldn't find the bodies, but found a nicely filleted slice of meet off the thigh. I could never quite buy that story, and now I am 100% sure they have the bodies. RL reported it, he has described Bobo's behavior exactly the same way I saw it, and Ketchum's behavior only makes sense if they have undeniable proof. I believe there's a good chance we get the slam-dunk, all-inclusive, full-package Bigfoot report complete with HD footage, full DNA sequencing, and bodies. The only thing left to squabble over will be where he fits on the tree and whether Ketchum interpreted the DNA correctly, but the question of existence will be answered. Knowers, I believe you are about to be vindicated; I certainly am rooting for you! While I'm in pain from spewing coffee out my nose from your opening paragraph, I reluctantly gave you a +1 for your analysis that might explain the behavior of Dr. Ketchum vis a vis the possibility of bodies in the freezer. It is an intriguing idea, but if I were forced to make a choice to go "all in" or fold on this theory I'd probably fold. We are all on a draw here, so to speak. They had a choice. The choice was to remain quiet as others do when information is leaked. This statement in and of itself makes me think this was an organized "leak." Honestly I have never seen so many leaks coming out of a group of people who are doing work like this. The wording and timing of the press release is curious to say the least. Given the number of people with some level of "in the know" on this project, from those that submitted samples, to colleagues (some in the loosest of terms), to facebook friends, it is rather surprising how little information has actually become public to date. Going back through this thread the mantra used to be to blame her for not being forthcoming enough, now the mantra seems to be that she's giving too much information. Regarding the press release itself I would have to think that prior to the release she would have had conversations with the journal, which may explain the delay from the outing of the information to the release. On another note I'm most impressed with folks that have taken time to actually contact Dr. Ketchum's office to seek clarification of certain issues, such as Particle Noun's confirmation that Dr. Meldrum's comments of psychic (or otherwise) communication with sasquatch didn't originate from Robin. FB/FB noted the following interesting bits of information that were confirmed by Robin: The DNA has 46 chromosomes Dr. Ketchum's theory is that sasquatch came from a hybridization event about 15,000 years ago Of the 106 samples studied there were "5 good samples" from 3 individuals with at least one male and one female The ancient hominid was more archaic than Neanderthal or Denisovan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 You missed my point entirely. You missed my point entirely. No, I got it, I am sure Meldrum has had some experiences that gave him the fuel to have a go at Robin Lynn, but in this case it was not true and meant to be a joke I guess, but not taken as a joke by some... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) At least its getting hot again. Paulides said on CtoC that he dont know when it will publish, BUT as things have gone he is expecting/thinking/believing on something like SEVEN TO TEN days! I like that kind of SOON Ketchums latest release (email response to the blog Bizarre Zoology) states "The paper will be out hopefully in the next few weeks. We do not have a date yet but feel it is soon." My feeling is that she's waiting to see if the Mayans will let her off the hook on Dec 21st! Edited November 28, 2012 by ScottG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Ketchums latest release (email response to the blog Bizarre Zoology) states "The paper will be out hopefully in the next few weeks. We do not have a date yet but feel it is soon." My feeling is that she's waiting to see if the Mayans will let her off the hook on Dec 21st! Would also be nice. On the other hand, after her epic "soon" fail, she might use more pessimistic terms now. Hopefully she doesnt need the "Mayans". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 "Going back through this thread the mantra used to be to blame her for not being forthcoming enough, now the mantra seems to be that she's giving too much information. " The mantra for serious scientific research should be: "You don't even know this is going on until we are ready for the press conference presenting the final, peer-reviewed findings." Unfortunately, in this field there's too much kid-on-Christmas-morning. They can't wait. Then there's the neighborhood-gossip strain, which is pretty big in this field too. Until we have final, peer-reviewed findings, this is a sideshow. Meanwhile, in Area X, real research is going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Paulides has stated the official release will be in the next 7-10 days Not sure how to embed links from other pages within the forum but it is stated by him in a radio interview in Bigfoot Discussion- Media- David Paulides Clears Recent Dna Misconceptions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 He also states that "igfoot is a 'very unique homo sapien' species". =/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts