Guest VioletX Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 Good deducing Z. How unusual is a study with mutant genomes research? Should we be hopeful?
bipedalist Posted November 30, 2012 BFF Patron Posted November 30, 2012 Perhaps the article will give us the Hominid equivalent of this kind of study and help us place the new Taxon on the tree.
Guest spurfoot Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) bipedalist, no doubt you have noticed that orangutans have orange hair, a long philtrum, robust supraorbital torus, long arms, thrust forward neck, and a nose similar to you know who. Edited November 30, 2012 by spurfoot
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) Supposedly someone leaked part of the paper that was sent to the journal for peer-review! Here's the link. http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/11/ketchums-response-from-peer-review.html It's very persuasive. Edited November 30, 2012 by squatting squatch
Guest Nalajr Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 I thought she had a Sassy Steak to test. Why no mention of that? Is she saving it for round 2? Can she NOW tell what journal she is working with? It now seems like talk of journal embargoed material and TOP SECRECY was all a ruse or am I reading all this wrong? Nalajr
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) Got to have a little humor with everyone so serious. Edited November 30, 2012 by squatting squatch
steenburg Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 Following along with this thread is exhausting to say the least. It seems to me that everything on both sides of the argument is all based on hear say, rumor, and what ifs? Granted I to have many questions on the samples used and how they were obtained,etc etc. Hopefully when the report is released these questions of mine will be answered. But I will still wait to see the report before making up my own mind despite all the red flags being raised. Now just assuming the report does pass per review, And somehow becomes excepted by the scientific community as factual, to me personally I feel the real important fact is not what she claims the sasquatch to be but the fact the report claims that they exist in the first place. that is what the general public will care about more than anything else, if it cares at all? If the report does not pass per review, and in the end is dismissed as nonsense then the whole thing has been a 5 year colossal waste of time. The simple facts are that nobody is going to know for curtain until the report is released. That is what I am waiting for. Thomas Steenburg
ThePhaige Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) Supposedly somebody leaked the paper sent to the journal for peer-review! Here's the link.http://bigfooteviden...eer-review.html Looks very persuasive Very interesting while we are discussing Adding new Hominins the media is all about Ad Hominems, and all this before any of the real evidence is advanced..heh sure seems there are a ton of folks real worried about this thing. Been pretty darn predictable to this point. Edited November 30, 2012 by ThePhaige
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) My concern is these rumored special primers Ketchum had to develop to extract the bf dna. Wasn't it mentioned she was going to patent them? If she had to use those primers she'll need to freely distribute them to other scientists to confirm her results after the paper publishes. Edited November 30, 2012 by squatting squatch
Guest slimwitless Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 Should we be hopeful? I guess I'm not feeling it. Someone help me out. Serotonin signaling?
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) I TRULY believe that 12/5/12 will be the day of days in the BF world,it will be known as B DAY !!! Edited November 30, 2012 by zigoapex
Guest BFSleuth Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 The DNA came from the Sierra Kills, one juvenile and one adult correct? FB/FB asked Ketchum's PR person and it was confirmed they did complete genome sequencing on five samples, which included three individuals, both male and female. Well the real article I referenced is due 12/5 next Wednesday and it may not be it but its is the first one I have seen with all these strange keywords. I have monitored this Newswise Embargoed stuff for months and this one is different and fits the 7-10 days timeline laid out by Paulides last Sunday on C2C, Please keep us advised.
Guest BFSleuth Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 Here's the question posed to Robin by FB/FB and her response: "How many samples of the 106 submitted contained Sasquatch DNA? Robin's answer was hard to follow but we took it there were: "Five good samples, from three separate Sasquatch individuals". Robin indicated "there was at least one male and one female". "
Recommended Posts