Guest Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Proof? You can believe whatever you want. You are obviously not very familiar with the whole thing. Biscardi was trying to sell pictures of the body on his website. He never lost any money and never attempted to take any legal action against Whitten and Dyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 (edited) Not sure if this was posted yet but Adrian Erickson finally updated his page and jumped back in the game. Nothing groundbreaking but they seem to be staking claim to their piece of the credit to a possible release of relevant information. http://www.sasquatch....com/index.html Edited December 9, 2012 by Polypodium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Nice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 (edited) *Correct circumstances*? Care to elaborate? Which scenario is more *Likely* if Ketcham's thesis is correct? Your *correct* circumstances or this>>>> For the human mDNA to *take hold* and permeate the SAS population, it would take repetative mating with human females. No it wouldn't, the first offspring would likely have inherited enough traits from the father to end up living a feral existence like the rest of her paternal ancestors. By the second and third generation the whole human aspect was probably just a footnote and soon forgotten in the flood of incoming BF DNA. If more human characteristics would have emerged, she might have somehow ended up in a nearby settlement, shacked up with the village idiot because nobody else would have wanted to take in such a ugly creature. Edited December 9, 2012 by HODS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scout1959 Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 *Correct circumstances*? Care to elaborate? Which scenario is more *Likely* if Ketcham's thesis is correct? Your *correct* circumstances or this>>>> For the human mDNA to *take hold* and permeate the SAS population, it would take repetative mating with human females. It's not hard to figure out. The mating produces a girl. That girl has human mtDNA her 'female' offspring after many generations (it was speculated earlier in the thread that it could be 700 generations) ends up being the only surviving mtDNA family for the entire race of BF. Maybe this article can help you out. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19331938 Even so, by that time, you will have collected a large number of people in your ancestry. So it's not surprising that any two people in any one country probably won't need to go back many generations before finding a common ancestor. More specifically, imagine the simplest case of a population of a constant size - say a million (the approximate size of the Holy Land at the time of Jesus). If people in this population meet and breed at random, it turns out that you only need to go back an average of 20 generations before you find an individual who is a common ancestor of everyone in the population. If you go back on average 1.77 times further again (35 generations) everyone in the population will have exactly the same set of common ancestors (although they will be related, of course, through different routes in all the different family trees). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest crabshack Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 The mating produces a girl. Odd how that some what matches the Cherokee Legend of the Tsul 'Kalu "it took form and began to grow, until, when he reached the âsï, it was a baby girl" from http://www.bigfootphenomena.webs.com/legend.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Not being in the loop I don't know exactly where it is, and if I were in the loop I would not be allowed to say. That there is a paper is a safe conclusion as JDL said earlier. She's got too much to lose if there isn't one, and too many people have confirmed that they have participated in the study by sending samples. If you want to argue that the paper ultimately will not be accepted, go knock yourself out. It's a fair opinion. Arguing that this is a giant hoax and that there was no study and is no paper at all, ignores the facts, unless you are prepared to call people like southernyahoo a liar... I disagree with Mulder on almost everything. I don't disagree with the above comments. There has to be an end purpose to this story. A hoax would not have an end purpose. There is a paper, imho, although I think most folks here will be disappointed in its general and scientific reception and appraisal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Many keep speaking of Sasquatch raping human women and some speak of Sasquatch as if it is the result of one lone birth, but to me the likely explanation would be a group of the "unknown" in the equation that cohabitated with a group of modern humans. I don't see this "unknown" as having to be some sort of horrid beast. True they would be very different looking from us, but that doesn't mean they would have to rape human females or would have been seen as a threat by humans. It also seems to me there could be male humans who also mated with females from the "unknown" group and am I correct that females resulting from those couplings would carry the "unknown" group's necessary DNA? And if this was happening, mass cohabiting and interbreeding that is, and the offspring were not "shunned", and especially if these groups were remote from other humans and/or shunned by other human groups, eventually the interbreeding would result in a group that did not resemble humans or the original "unknowns" and had became what we know as Sasquatch. This is just a theory, or more of a "wild guess". Shoot holes in it or whatever. I don't know enough about DNA to know if DNA would support that happening. If not, hopefully someone will explain how and I can put that one to rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 No it wouldn't, the first offspring would likely have inherited enough traits from the father to end up living a feral existence like the rest of her paternal ancestors. By the second and third generation the whole human aspect was probably just a footnote and soon forgotten in the flood of incoming BF DNA. If more human characteristics would have emerged, she might have somehow ended up in a nearby settlement, shacked up with the village idiot because nobody else would have wanted to take in such a ugly creature. Sorry..I just don't *buy that*. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Not sure if this was posted yet but Adrian Erickson finally updated his page and jumped back in the game. Nothing groundbreaking but they seem to be staking claim to their piece of the credit to a possible release of relevant information. He even has a phone number for the media. I guess the rumors of his departure from all things sasquatch were premature. It's also interesting that Erickson is saying he knew something was up when all their (pre-Ketchum) samples kept coming back "Eastern European". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 (edited) Did anyone notice Ketchum comparing her claims to the discovery of the new Cercopithecus monkey in that plusone journal. She failed to mention (or just had no idea) that they had living type specimens in captivity. And people wonder why her credibility is called into question. She's quoting journal articles without even understanding the "facts" about the discovery. Ouch!! Edited December 9, 2012 by rockiessquatching Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Sorry..I just don't *buy that*. But you're willing to accept that somehow against probability that these successive offspring somehow managed to retain human phenotypes and survive in wild conditions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 And based on your statements, if other papers do disagree with the Ketchum paper, you'll dismiss then as close-minded ivory-tower people. "How dare they question my hero, don't they know she'll be the next Galileo!" Hardly. I'll be wondering just what's going on, and look for more information. I've said several times before in this thread that I do think she has the DNA to prove BF, but I'm dubious about exactly what she claims BF is. I personally lean more toward the Meldrum camp on what BF is. However, like him, I'll happily say I was wrong if Ketchum can prove it's a near-human hominid. Mulder you crack me up. Using the word "facts" does not equal their actually being any. You cannot prove that a paper exists any more than i can prove that it doesn't. The only difference is that i refer to my position as my opinion. You refer to yours as being a fact. Because it is a FACT that southernyahoo sent a sample to the study and received his results. He has made a public statement to that effect. Are you calling him a liar? From the study: Researchers’ extensive DNA sequencing suggests that the legendary Sasquatch is a human relative that arose approximately 15,000 years ago as a hybrid cross of modern Homo sapiens with an unknown primate species. “Our study has sequenced 20 whole mitochondrial genomes and utilized next generation sequencing to obtain 3 whole nuclear genomes from purported Sasquatch samples. The genome sequencing shows that Sasquatch mtDNA is identical to modern Homo sapiens, but Sasquatch nuDNA is a novel, unknown hominin related to Homo sapiens and other primate species. Our data indicate that the North American Sasquatch is a hybrid species, the result of males of an unknown hominin species crossing with female Homo sapiens. Hominins are members of the taxonomic grouping Hominini, which includes all members of the genus Homo. Genetic testing has already ruled out Homo neanderthalis and the Denisova hominin as contributors to Sasquatch mtDNA or nuDNA. “The male progenitor that contributed the unknown sequence to this hybrid is unique as its DNA is more distantly removed from humans than other recently discovered hominins like the Denisovan individual,†explains Ketchum. “Sasquatch nuclear DNA is incredibly novel and not at all what we had expected. While it has human nuclear DNA within its genome, there are also distinctly non-human, non-archaic hominin, and non-ape sequences. We describe it as a mosaic of human and novel non-human sequence. Further study is needed and is ongoing to better characterize and understand Sasquatch nuclear DNA.†If I were to distill the Ketcham thesis down to ONE fundamental *Achilles heel*, it would be the notion that an *UNKNOWN* species was around 15K years ago to mate with a human. This simply goes against ALL anthropological evidence. Other than other primates at the time, there is absolutely ZERO evidence or scientific data to support the notion that another hominid species coexisted with humans (Homo sapiens) AT THAT POINT IN TIME. You would have to go back at least 30K years to see another..Neander...and we know they interbred with modern humans because most humans alive today still have some of their genes (except certain African types). The type of creature posited by Ketcham would have to be RADICALLY diverged from us..even more so than Neanders...to give rise to a creature like BF. I just don't see how the study can overcome this fundamental fact. Yes..I'll await for all the *evidence* to come in...but I have to tell ya'all....it *Ain't gonna happen*...not this year..not next year...not in your lifetime. Well,,heck....NOT EVER. The "hobbit" co-existed at the same time as man, so there's that claim debunked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Just out>> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 I disagree with Mulder on almost everything. I don't disagree with the above comments. There has to be an end purpose to this story. A hoax would not have an end purpose. There is a paper, imho, although I think most folks here will be disappointed in its general and scientific reception and appraisal. This at least is an arguable and defendable opinion. Did anyone notice Ketchum comparing her claims to the discovery of the new Cercopithecus monkey in that plusone journal. She failed to mention (or just had no idea) that they had living type specimens in captivity. And people wonder why her credibility is called into question. She's quoting journal articles without even understanding the "facts" about the discovery. Ouch!! Once again: DNA comes from sample. Sample comes from critter. DNA = critter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts