Guest Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Yes ^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 ^ Isnt that what it has always been from the start? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Yup. And she's selling Bigfoot merchandise now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 2, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted January 2, 2013 Or, rather "soon". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam2323 Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 maybe this year...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 (edited) I just ran into an old post by MM on the Blue Forum from over 2 years ago. Funny how accurate he was in his thinking. Not saying he is correct but these exact things are a huge part of this whole conversation on the Ketchum Report and the Sierra results. From MM... "I don't think they can prove anything with what they have. I strongly doubt they will be able to publish anything in any scientific journal, because the peer review process with tear them to pieces. They don't have DNA that indicates something non-human. Rather, they have DNA samples which indicate human genes. The DNA samples were handled (and potentially contaminated) by humans, so therefore the DNA could have easily come from the humans who handled the samples. Ketchum herself says the DNA primers she uses are so sensitive that they have been known to amplify the DNA of a single human skin cell that drifted through the air and landed on a hair sample ... The bottom line .... if the DNA indicates humans, then her scientific peers are not going to acknowledge that bigfoot exist and are related to humans. Rather, her scientific peers are going to assume (and perhaps rightfully so) that her DNA samples were contaminated." Edited January 2, 2013 by rockiessquatching Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Yup. And she's selling Bigfoot merchandise now. What??? Source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 I just ran into an old post by MM on the Blue Forum from over 2 years ago. Funny how accurate he was in his thinking. Not saying he is correct but these exact things are a huge part of this whole conversation on the Ketchum Report and the Sierra results. From MM... "I don't think they can prove anything with what they have. I strongly doubt they will be able to publish anything in any scientific journal, because the peer review process with tear them to pieces. They don't have DNA that indicates something non-human. Rather, they have DNA samples which indicate human genes. The DNA samples were handled (and potentially contaminated) by humans, so therefore the DNA could have easily come from the humans who handled the samples. Ketchum herself says the DNA primers she uses are so sensitive that they have been known to amplify the DNA of a single human skin cell that drifted through the air and landed on a hair sample ... The bottom line .... if the DNA indicates humans, then her scientific peers are not going to acknowledge that bigfoot exist and are related to humans. Rather, her scientific peers are going to assume (and perhaps rightfully so) that her DNA samples were contaminated." Well, that's a huge assumption. I'd like to see their evidence that "contamination" is more likely than a novel hominid. And MM in that post is STILL making inaccurate claims about the results (surprise surprise). Ketchm didn't claim they were human (HSS), she claimed they were a NON-human hominid close enough to us to interbreed with us but decidedly NOT us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 (edited) Without any knowledge of the players it is hard to know exactly what is so. One thing that strikes me as critcal, and I have said it before, I don't believe there is any way that someone like Matt Moneymaker would be so emphatic in his claims that Dr. Ketchum's report is flawed if he did not know something. Dr. Meldrum has run away from these claims and Disotell says just send me several hundred to several thousand base pairs of data and he will tell us if a new primate is running around out there. What Bigfoot camps are supporting her claims? I do not wish to be antagonstic, but do her supporters have inside information, or are they going strictly on blind faith and a bunch of wishfull thinking. It is hard to believe that almost two months have gone by since her press release and still no facts. Edited January 2, 2013 by LTBF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 2, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted January 2, 2013 I just ran into an old post by MM on the Blue Forum from over 2 years ago. Funny how accurate he was in his thinking. Not saying he is correct but these exact things are a huge part of this whole conversation on the Ketchum Report and the Sierra results. From MM... "I don't think they can prove anything with what they have. I strongly doubt they will be able to publish anything in any scientific journal, because the peer review process with tear them to pieces. They don't have DNA that indicates something non-human. Rather, they have DNA samples which indicate human genes. The DNA samples were handled (and potentially contaminated) by humans, so therefore the DNA could have easily come from the humans who handled the samples. Ketchum herself says the DNA primers she uses are so sensitive that they have been known to amplify the DNA of a single human skin cell that drifted through the air and landed on a hair sample ... The bottom line .... if the DNA indicates humans, then her scientific peers are not going to acknowledge that bigfoot exist and are related to humans. Rather, her scientific peers are going to assume (and perhaps rightfully so) that her DNA samples were contaminated." Hah, if he doesn't know the difference between fraternal and identical Sasquatch twins walking down the road from unrelated BF's how is it that he is going to divine something in the realm of DNA clairvoyance? Like I said if the study publishes, contamination will be the least of anyone's worries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 I too, found the twin thing crazy, but something in my gut says he would hedge his bets if he thought their was anyway she might be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 2, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted January 2, 2013 (edited) Without any knowledge of the players it is hard to know exactly what is so. One thing that strikes me as critcal, and I have said it before, I don't believe there is any way that someone like Matt Moneymaker would be so emphatic in his claims that Dr. Ketchum's report is flawed if he did not know something. Dr. Meldrum has run away from these claims and Disotell says just send me several hundred to several thousand base pairs of data and he will tell us if a new primate is running around out there. What Bigfoot camps are supporting her claims? I do not wish to be antagonstic, but do her supporters have inside information, or are they going strictly on blind faith and a bunch of wishfull thinking. It is hard to believe that almost two months have gone by since her press release and still no facts. Russian on-line science and web publishing comes to mind. Increasingly, I'm seeing it as the only way out. Then again, 7 months for a lab to do what B&T asked for is a whole lot of time too. Scott Nelson will be way ahead of us if the translations are slow in coming..... Edited January 2, 2013 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 (edited) is there any geneticist who knows anything about the canadian patent ketchum has? and could you explain it to me. also how does william woods and nicholas ketchum and her new company come into the picture? maybe not at all but I was wondering. Edited January 2, 2013 by catt.thre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Like I said if the study publishes, contamination will be the least of anyone's worries. Well you already heard Disotell mention the contamination and now with the Sierra results we are seeing the same thing. He predicted this even before the Sierra shootings took place so love him or hate him he has a good track record at predicting how things play out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Wouldn't web publishing or Russian on-line science still require the ACGT? Was it seven months to do the work, or seven months to find the labs, find the money, and to release the data? I hope to be wrong, but I see the way out as never releasing the data, but continuing to describe the interpretation of the results to friendly folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts