Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 (edited) Imagine you are Justin and think you shot an adult BF and child. You can't contain the secret as you wait for results which you hoped would be back in weeks, but probably months. They don't come back, but the lab you sent the sample to assures you you are "in" the group testing positive (by whatever means) as Bigfoot. Before six months have passed the entire Bigfoot community knows of your claims and it goes public fairly big. And on and on it goes, from initial reactions to the dogged followers. It's now two years after the event and you still don't have any results from the first lab, and now a second lab you chose tells you it's bear, and that they mis-tested initially, reading your DNA from a large sample with hair and on eliminating that possibility by matching to you (humm... wish I knew more about lab procedures..) that in fact the sample is Bear? Did I get that right? What is a poor hunter to do? I am impressed they have released this, and imagine I won't be the only one looking to the correspondence, or future results from future labs...or Ketchum or Sykes...who could guess it would go this torturous way? Oh, besides you, you Unbeeeleeevers! Don't bears have a different number of chromosomes...aren't there quick and dirty tests for that kind of species difference? Wow, ..it may be 2013 is the Year of the End of BFers....and we witnesses shall do what? Maybe return to our lives? I did not see this coming really, I believe Justin in the essential details, that he shot two BFs.... This is really interesting. Justin, by taking these steps, does not feel like a con man to me...but, I can be fooled, anyone can, if one seeks to deceive...he just doesn't seem to be trying to deceive anyone, but get an answer too. Edited December 26, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Correct. Disotell says her time frame of 15000 years is impossible. Impossible to evolve from sludge in 15,000 years, I would agree, but that is not what Ketchum claims. She says a progenitor hominin species mated with Modern humans 15,000 years ago, and the hybrid breed of progenitor/modern human now persists. It may be possible the non-hybrid progenitor still persists also, though it's mito is not turning up in the samples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 This announcement kinda takes the wind out of the bf community sails. Ketchum can't get past peer review now the Sierra story was the 3 bears and a whole lot of booze apparently? All eyes turn to Sykes now. And he is way behind schedule already. It just ain't gonna happen folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Did Neanderthals use fire? Tools? Irrelevant. If Bigfoot is half us and have Neanderthal? Then why isn't those things associated with Bigfoot? That's not what I said, nor what Ketchum claimed, Norse, and you know it. So let's explore this unknown paternal side of Ketchum's theory for a moment. It has to be very close to us.......and had to be living 15000 years ago. The hobbit? They were on a island in SE Asia 15000 years ago and four feet tall. Not a likely candidate. I also understand that Homo Erectus manufactured stone tools and used fire..... again not a likely candidate. Anybody else have any likely candidates? Did they start fires and use tools? Again, irrelevant. [ I am very familiar with horse and ass hybrids called a mule.........it's a one time event. You don't breed John and Molly mules.......they are sterile. No, but you can breed tigons and ligers, both hybrids I posted links to proof of that some time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 My "position" on P&G is fairly well-documented. I don't think the crap thrown at either by the "skeptical" community is in any way valid either. That is exactly my point Mulder. You can call the people who think this way whatever you want - but for all the complaining and all the corrections - nothing has changed.. The skeptics don't care what those in this community think. Why? Because we are called, "bias". Which isn't necessary incorrect. We do care about the outcome of all these various projects. I have been watching this storm build on the horizon for a long time. Now, its knocking at the door. If Melba were a friend of mine - I would grab her by the shirt collar and drag her inside. It just seems to me like others who know her - aren't just leaving her outside - but putting a lighting rod in her hand. Of course, this is just my opinion.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Wow, ..it may be 2013 is the Year of the End of BFers....and we witnesses shall do what? Maybe return to our lives? The case for BF does not rise or fall solely on the Smeja Steak, or the PGF, or any other single piece of evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 26, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted December 26, 2012 (edited) How likely would a journal give extra consideration or have additional patience because of either the other labs named in the paper or the co-authors? Unless a member of the study team is a co-author AND ed./assoc. editor of the accepting journal there would likely be no DIRECT benefit (this assuming it would be impossible to keep such a study blind in terms of write-up). Unless a big named government physics or biomedical institution were involved or top international paleoanthropology institution, again I'd think there would be little to no benefit. Put Biscotti on the end of the authorship, you'd see some blowback I'm sure. All in all, it's either got the right stuff or it doesn't, sink or swim on it's own merits. It is curious a lab seems unable to remove contamination (or the concern) from such a large sample. It was my understanding that techniques today, given the sample as both hair and tissue, eliminate contamination reliably? http://bigfooteviden...ino-shares.html *The only human DNA present in the sample was found to be a match for Justin Smeja’s own DNA.[3] An integral quote from the citation above. Edited December 26, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 The case for BF does not rise or fall solely on the Smeja Steak, or the PGF, or any other single piece of evidence. It all depends on what Melba says in her paper about this "steak".... I hope she didn't call it "bigfoot"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 I should expand on the Smeja result finding in relation to the Ketchum study. Smeja is one sample out of over 100. The finding of "bear" vis a vis Smeja's sample in no way affects findings relating to the other 100+ samples studied. It all depends on what Melba says in her paper about this "steak".... I hope she didn't call it "bigfoot"... That would start a fight. Then again, so would Ketchum finding an unknown, proving it was an unknown, but frakking up and calling it an unknown near-human. I've said for some time that this would be a possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 I could be wrong - but didn't Melba say she only used 3 samples for the paper she wrote - Justin's sample being one of the three? If any of the other "samples" display the same thing as Justin's sample - then they are done too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 (edited) The case for BF does not rise or fall solely on the Smeja Steak, or the PGF, or any other single piece of evidence. You are correct (I hope!) and the why I will, as stated, be eager for the other data to arrive. I try to keep the faith, because the alternative thinking is too cynical, and that is true for me on most topics, objective thinking is best often (exceptions for compassion, mercy!,love). I do tend to believe that Truth and Wisdom, etc will rise to to the top, even with market forces, so idealistic by choice In the case of Bigfoot though, with my experience now, as a witness, then researcher, then forum poster, I have been... there is't even a single word for i t...been, amazed, eyes opened, shocked, at the depth of the evidence dismissed, the depth of intrigue and back stabbing, and now conviction our Government knows more than most of us. It's so complicated, the cross purposes in Bigfootery, and the responsibility as citizen to accept perhaps a Government policy unseen (if true), ... and that "Wow" was a realization that "it" might not happen in our lifetimes..for reasons that might be justified politically, but certainly not because Bigfoots don't exist! I still tend to think, "Nah! No way, it's just Paranoia born from Bigfoot rejection/ridicule! Our Government would not withhold such knowledge!" .I hope so, it seems Oxford and Sykes shall be the final say? And those samples. Edited December 26, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 (edited) Impossible to evolve from sludge in 15,000 years, I would agree, but that is not what Ketchum claims. She says a progenitor hominin species mated with Modern humans 15,000 years ago, and the hybrid breed of progenitor/modern human now persists. It may be possible the non-hybrid progenitor still persists also, though it's mito is not turning up in the samples. She may as well be claiming that, it appears that her theory has gotten about the same reception from the scientific community. Some unknown mated with us and produced Bigfoot, how the heck did that occur enough times to produce a viable breeding population that survived to current times undetected? Much less developed all the extrordinary capabilities that they are proported to have. Theory smeary....another word for just making up stuff to fit ones conclusions, no different than the "I heard a strange owl call and a twig snap" therefore Bigfoot must imitate owls.....ahhh sure maybe that person should stay out of the woods. And maybe Dr. K shoulda stayed out of the deep end of the DNA pool.....theres a truth train coming in the form of a train wreck IMO. But hey keep filling in the blanks with "it's possible's" and "it could happens" and we'll see how far it gets in the real world, can't wait and wait and wait zzzzzzzzzzz oh here we go! 5,4,3,2,1 and we have.....opps Edited December 26, 2012 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 I could be wrong - but didn't Melba say she only used 3 samples for the paper she wrote - Justin's sample being one of the three? If any of the other "samples" display the same thing as Justin's sample - then they are done too. Why would she go to the trouble of running a complete genome on what would have obviously shown to be bear DNA in the initial stages of testing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 You would have to ask, Melba, but I do remember her saying Justin's sample is included in the paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest reelback Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Yes, I actually think Heidelbergensis or a descendent would fit her criteria. But it would have to be a group that became isolated in an environment that would cuse it to become taller and hairier. There was actually an isolated group in south Africa that evolved to be over 7 feet tall so it's not as crazy as it sounds. Isolated group of who/what? Can you provide a link? Imagine you are Justin and think you shot an adult BF and child. You can't contain the secret as you wait for results which you hoped would be back in weeks, but probably months. They don't come back, but the lab you sent the sample to assures you you are "in" the group testing positive (by whatever means) as Bigfoot. Justin, by taking these steps, does not feel like a con man to me...but, I can be fooled, anyone can, if one seeks to deceive...he just doesn't seem to be trying to deceive anyone, but get an answer too. Sorry, who assured him, and how? Can you substantiate that? Or did he claim that? I heard him specifically say in an interview that he let the baby BF die in his arms. I dont think you can really tiptoe around that one. From the beginning that story never added up. Now it does. Ketchum can't get past peer review Can you substantiate that claim? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts