Guest Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Presuming that this all works out, and the paper gets published ... can all those previous DNA tests over the years, on hair, scat, etc., which all came back as "human", be retested, or compared to the results that Melba's team has produced? Has anyone here had samples tested (outside of this report) in the past, and would you want it retested? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 A statement you have no basis for. The basis is no papers, no proof of the evidence shown, no anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) Presuming that this all works out, and the paper gets published ... can all those previous DNA tests over the years, on hair, scat, etc., which all came back as "human", be retested, or compared to the results that Melba's team has produced? Has anyone here had samples tested (outside of this report) in the past, and would you want it retested? Well, you'd think Dr. Fahrenbach would have a box or drawer full somewhere? Edited December 3, 2012 by GuyInIndiana Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 If he threw away all the samples that he misidentified as bear, cow, & whatever, he probably doesn't have much left. He looked at mine & said it was definitely "bovine" because it was "too black". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 If he threw away all the samples that he misidentified as bear, cow, & whatever, he probably doesn't have much left. He looked at mine & said it was definitely "bovine" because it was "too black". Makes sense. I've never seen a black animal other than a cow. ;^) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) A statement you have no basis for. a statement he has plenty of basis for. I hear a lot of talk about the dna has proven bigfoots real and 13 labs have tested the samples and Ketchum has an elite team of scientists and sceptics better start eating crow. But there's one thing I can say without a doubt, I've seen absolutely no proof of any of it. No published paper, no elite scientists coming out to verify, no labs claiming to be apart of the testing, just talk and a vague press release that flies in the face of a journal embargo for a paper that's supposed to be in peer review. Edited December 3, 2012 by squatting squatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 The basis is no papers, no proof of the evidence shown, no anything? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 absence of evidence is not evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spader Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Sasfooty, your Avatar is priceless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 ^ evidence of absence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 absence of evidence is not evidence. I agree, absence of evidence proves nothing about the Ketchum study being a legitimate study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) The basis is no papers, no proof of the evidence shown, no anything? yes there is, it's just not available to the public yet. many people that signed NDA's have seen it, George Noory from coast to coast has seen it(signed an NDA) and said it's amazing. Your making statements as facts and they are not facts. About it being a hoax can you please give me a good reason why she would do all this and it's a hoax. it cant be money, because the only way she is going to make money is AFTER the paper publishes. Now the man that is paying for all this, I assume is intelligent . wouldn't you think he would pull funding if she didn't have any proof of what she has found in the data ? What you are suggesting does not make sense.if that was the case,she would of had funding pulled years ago. Edited December 3, 2012 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TH68 Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Three complete genomes. Not rumor, fact. Confirmed by numerous labs. I am looking forward to the intelligent discussion that will result once the study is released. HD video will be the icing on the cake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Rumor actually since nothing has been published. Soon right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 yes there is, it's just not available to the public yet. many people that signed NDA's have seen it, George Noory from coast to coast has seen it(signed an NDA) and said it's amazing. Your making statements as facts and they are not facts. About it being a hoax can you please give me a good reason why she would do all this and it's a hoax. it cant be money, because the only way she is going to make money is AFTER the paper publishes. Now the man that is paying for all this, I assume is intelligent . wouldn't you think he would pull funding if she didn't have any proof of what she has found in the data ? What you are suggesting does not make sense.if that was the case,she would of had funding pulled years ago. Thats exactly how it is. People may argue wether the paper gets approved by peer review or not, but why some people think there is no paper is beyond anything we know. Many people have seen the paper at one stage or another. How good the science is only experts can say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts