southernyahoo Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Show that DNA is a new species not matching anything on record. Then step 2- determine through further testing what it actually IS. Hoosier, this is still two steps in one where DNA is concerned, you can't do one without the other. The nearest thing to it tells you what it is, which you would have to show how that is also eliminated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 (edited) Breaking: per Meldrum, Sykes has now also denied "confirming" Ketchum Edited December 14, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Who would have thought that Facebook, a social media site started by a veritable youngster would become the Newspaper of Record, and that Twitter would provide non filtered (and some would say non thinking) follow up completely subjective interviews and reporting. From what i can tell by the time "real journalism prints, publishes, or airs a story its old news on Facebook. Merry Christmas to Everyone (not sarcasm) Hope everyone has a Great Holiday Season! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EABiker Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 (edited) Just a thought for a possible identity of the unknown hominid that bred with humans; the Alma. It could be that a group of these could have followed the humans into North America across the Bering Strait land bridge 16,000 years ago. Both groups would have been hunter-gatherers and would have followed and exploited the coastline for food, so it would make sense that they would be here as well. The stories of human/ Alma breeding from the East always have human males breeding with Alma females. What if the opposite occurred in the new world? The Alma sightings from the East portray the Almas as hairy wild humans; this could be the reason for the Bigfoot’s coat. Edited December 14, 2012 by EABiker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Furthermore, scientists generally reject the possibility that such mega-fauna cryptids exist, because of the improbably large numbers necessary to maintain a breeding population,[2] and because climate and food supply issues make their survival in reported habitats unlikely.[3] Looks like you are on to something... At least the scientific community has rejected them.. The Alma does make sense IMHO... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheellug Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Breeding population.. I can see that one because we don't have a way to actually find them, except by reports. Reports around the country tend to suggest there's plenty. As far as climate and food? They tend to be around water and cover.. so far all reports are typically in woodland or waterways. Food.. plenty of food out there me thinks. The reports that have come in seem to suggest, deer, elk, berries and the like. Bear's get plenty food for their size do they not? Why wouldn't it sustain a squatch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Ummmm...anyone see this yet? Sorry if it's a repeat. http://lasvegascitylife.com/sections/opinion/knappster/george-knapp-i%E2%80%99m-dreaming-bigfoot-christmas.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 ^ I read that article earlier and thought it was fairly balanced reporting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 (edited) Just a thought for a possible identity of the unknown hominid that bred with humans; the Alma. It could be that a group of these could have followed the humans into North America across the Bering Strait land bridge 16,000 years ago. Both groups would have been hunter-gatherers and would have followed and exploited the coastline for food, so it would make sense that they would be here as well. The stories of human/ Alma breeding from the East always have human males breeding with Alma females. What if the opposite occurred in the new world? The Alma sightings from the East portray the Almas as hairy wild humans; this could be the reason for the Bigfoot’s coat. I don't know, most Alma reports I have seen decribe them as more Neanderthalish, like a traditional description of a caveman. How could breeding with modern humans make them "devolve" into something more primitive? You'd think the opposite would happen. Weren't Zana's kids starting to get more human? Just going off one possible case. Edited December 14, 2012 by arizonabigfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePhaige Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 I don't know, most Alma reports I have seen decribe them as more Neanderthalish, like a traditional description of a caveman. How could breeding with modern humans make them "devolve" into something more primitive? You'd think the opposite would happen. Weren't Zana's kids starting to get more human? Just going off one possible case. Not trying to be argumentative,more philosophical perhaps, but how sure are we that Sas is more primitive? My experience is they are extremely intelligent. Would we call the Amish people primitive because they reject much technology most of us readily accept? Perhaps some might argue in the affirmative but that doesn't make it so. Now granted I am on the side of the recent Ketchum DNA report awaiting peer review which has already been pre -vetted even though those whom excoriated it have not actually read the report yet. I'm not afraid to proclaim my contentions that they are in fact more like a race of humans than any other animal or even primate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 On her FB page today Dr. Ketchum noted that requested changes were made to the paper and it was resubmitted to peer review, this was in response to a question regarding the claim that the paper was "rejected" by the journal. Note that she didn't give any dates or times in her statement today or have any indication the paper has/had passed peer review. As her recent interview noted the paper would publish in weeks, not months, it would seem that it may have either passed peer review or it is imminent. The tea leaves are muddled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest poignant Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 I know a screenshot isn't edit-proof, but could we have one please (for those of us who don't have Ketchum on facebook). THANKS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Here you go.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 That screenshot completes me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Bass Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 On her FB page today Dr. Ketchum noted that requested changes were made to the paper and it was resubmitted to peer review, this was in response to a question regarding the claim that the paper was "rejected" by the journal. Note that she didn't give any dates or times in her statement today or have any indication the paper has/had passed peer review. As her recent interview noted the paper would publish in weeks, not months, it would seem that it may have either passed peer review or it is imminent. The tea leaves are muddled. I will say this, if she is hoaxing, then she really going to great lengths to do so. That's why there is a part of me that thinks she really has something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts