Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 Author R.W. Ridley - the progenitor (sorry, couldn't resist) of this thread, has posted his take on these developments. LINK Matt Moneymaker is clearly upset by the findings and has been speed-tweeting his dismay. One must remember that Dr. Ketchum lured Moneymaker’s sugar daddy away from his organization in order to fund the DNA project. Therefore, we have to take Moneymaker’s claims with a grain of salt. I’m not saying he’s a dishonest guy. I simply saying his judgment may be impaired. Excellent! That makes a great deal of sense actually.
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 The study hasn't been published and your calling it science? No, I'm saying the tone of the articles are not objective and scientific, but snarky and deresive. It's easier to make fun of "the verterenarian" and "the woman" than it is to talk about the science of DNA and discuss what she is saying about the findings.
Guest thermalman Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 Author R.W. Ridley - the progenitor (sorry, couldn't resist) of this thread, has posted his take on these developments. LINK Brilliant find Slim. +1 Very conservative yet informed opinion.
Guest slimwitless Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 Yeah, and it didn't seem to change her conclusions when they were mapped. What she must have seen and knew from certain genes predicted what the whole nuclear genome would say. Are you sure? I guess it depends on when she first used the word "hybrid". I'm thinking someone had a hunch that panned out. After all, why even bother with the nuDNA if your mtDNA tests kept coming back modern human?
Guest SquatchinNY Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 I have been reading MM's comments about this. My goodness, more hate than I have seen all day. Which is quite a bit. The entire thing screams "jealosy". Is there any evidence Ketchum is a scam, like he says?
Guest VioletX Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 Brilliant find Slim. +1 Very conservative yet informed opinion. Well balanced view and the guy sounds like he is calm about it, unlike some of us,lol ; )
BobZenor Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) A few pages back I posted an Application called "Sasquatch the Tribe revealed." I was hoping someone who understands this whole DNA thing could chime in and tell me how this compares to what she is saying now. Also, if someone could explain this to me, I would appreciate it. Also discussed is how testing has ruled out ape cross and any ancient contributor and that Sasquatch is indeed a modern human with some genetic mutations accounting for their physical appearance. [/Quote] * POINT OF REFERENCE: This quote above is from the application - NOT her recent release.. Just thought I should make that clear. The "ruled out ape cross" --- what exactly does that mean? May sound like a silly question - but I know others are wondering too. It is confusing and imprecise verbiage. She may have been speaking directly to the convergent ape theory where bigfoot is supposedly related to gigantopithecus. She could rationally discount that and that wouldn't change just based on the mtDNA. That would assume that giganto is more closely related to orangutans. The modern human with mutations is directly contradictory to what she is saying now. I wonder if there is evidence to back that up like if it has some genes closer to the other non modern human hominids sequenced. It could be just too many genes are different for that to logically stand. Those are the sorts of questions that hopefully the paper will answer. It seems like it must be pretty old to state that it is a modern human with mutations at least I would hope so. Edited November 30, 2012 by BobZenor
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 That does it... cage match. "In this corner, a highly speculated upon and yet still non-existent paper versus the self-proclaimed "only scientific group in search of Sasquatch!" Everyone loses. Man I am so bored with this noise. I can't wait to see the actual data.
Guest gerrykleier Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 It seems as though if we were just 'weeks' away from publication Dr K would be able to circulate copies of the paper to Scientists and the Science Media, provided they did not speak about them until the study was published. If so, there are probably people out there right now who have copies of the study and are working their way through it. We are not likely to HEAR anything from them publicly however.... Maybe someone knows someone? GK
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 Nope. No science here. Please look elsewhere.
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 Matt Moneymaker is clearly upset by the findings and has been speed-tweeting his dismay. One must remember that Dr. Ketchum lured Moneymaker’s sugar daddy away from his organization in order to fund the DNA project. Therefore, we have to take Moneymaker’s claims with a grain of salt. I’m not saying he’s a dishonest guy. I simply saying his judgment may be impaired. Excellent! That makes a great deal of sense actually. Being new to all this speculation and guessing about the existance of or against Bigfoot (personnally I believe....just call it a gut feeling.) what I don't understand is why Moneymouth is upset, and who was it that lured moneymouths sugar daddy away: and who is the sugar daddy? My only guess is that Moneymouth had his eyes on a huge cash prize of his name in the history books of being the instrument to the worlds greatest discovery.
Cotter Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 Treadstone - Wally Hearsom is the 'Sugar Daddy' He's pumped tons of money in the BFRO, then allegedly (may not allegedly) funded some genome sequencing for Dr. Ketchum.
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 treadstone: I have been following this for many years, much of the story on THIS board. Over the years, Matt has been spiteful, nasty, and downright mean to ANYBODY that is not doing things his way, for his organization. He has acted like a spiteful child on numerous occasions. I don't even think you CAN ascribe motive, at this point, I just believe that is his nature. In case anyone thinks I am being unfair, there are a NUMBER of posters, some in this thread, who have been cast aside by BFRO, and had their memberships terminated for disagreeing with MM. Also, the founder of this BOARD once uncovered coding in a webpage that included a rant FULL of personal insults directed at members, here. I do not know Matt, have never met him...but his reputation is widely known.
Guest thermalman Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) Well balanced view and the guy sounds like he is calm about it, unlike some of us,lol ; ) Wa do ya mean Vx? Edited November 30, 2012 by thermalman
Guest Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 One possibility is that there is more than one species of wild North American hominoid. I'm not expecting identical findings....although, OK, that might not be the reason... I suspect base on the numberous reports that I have read where the description was given. That there is a variety of different species. My own belief is that each group has genetic grown to its current state of appearance. In a few thousand years - perhaps less - their intelligence and appearance will be even different than that is currently being presented to us/
Recommended Posts