Guest Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 I'd say the arguments are moot due to the fact that we don't know the results, on top of the fact that aside from a few Individuals, a majority of the arguments are being levied by laymen with itchy Google fingers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HucksterFoot Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 subfamily Homininae. The DNA could indicate Australopithecus for example, or perhaps a new genus entirely. This is what I would be looking for to match the best with anecdotal evidence provided for bigfoot. Whatever the result, all of the above would be wonderfully cool, and I would celebrate it as much as anyone. I was looking at the some of the archaic traits ...and then, I had a PZ Myers sighting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homininae Had a chuckle. :] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 If the rumors are true, and we have read between the lines correctly, the DNA report will attempt to show a North American population of variant humans that may be considered a subspecies of homo sapiens. Parn suggests that this may be a genetic variation that will prove not to be outside the genetic boundry of homo sapiens sapiens and the genetic variation was simply not catalogued yet in the genetic data base for humans. The problem is that this variation is apparently specific and found in samples from various locations spanning the continent. Parn suggests, and only suggests, that hoaxing could account for such an outcome. Jodie has argued that the Hupas would not be the likely sample subjects because their genetic material probably is cataloged. I'm more inclined to think zeal oriented overstatements driving the report rather than to think the folks involved are hoaxers. (I do not exclude the Sierra Kills and the Erickson habituation videos from a consideration of hoaxing though). We ought to remember that there are many "ifs" about all of this. If there is a cogent report, if there is a peer reviewed paper, if a published peer reviewed paper is presented well enough to stir up controversy and scientific response, if the scientific response is favorable or damaging, if the report is eventually a catalyst in solving the mystery, or a dead end, etc. etc. I don't think we can reflectively say that the report will advance Bigfoot phenomena as biologic, and not just cultural lore, or that there is nothing to it at all. We will wait and see. (Personally, I would be happier if all this has not been left in the hands of Bigfoot advocates). I have one bad thought that popped into my head the other day. What if the DNA report has been submitted and accepted by a peer reviewed "scientific" creationism journal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 There's an image of Ketchum's NDA here. FWIW, at the same link there's also a comment from Facebook by someone Shawn (the site's owner) must believe is in a position to know: We won't say who said this on Facebook, but here's a heads up about Dr. Melba Ketchum's Bigfoot DNA Study: "Be forewarned: The BF DNA is about to hit the fan." When questioned about the statement, the person replied: "I have been sworn to secrecy deeper than any NDA. Sorry, but watch out...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Well for what it is worth Jerrywayne, what I heard from a sample submitter was that it was not close to human, which matches what we see in sighting reports. I still don't think you can claim bigfoot without a body no matter what the study shows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 I wonder if "sworn to secrecy deeper than any NDA" means in general or any NDA pertaining to bf? It's getting difficult to filter the speculation. Why does every bf evidence process seem to have a "watch out" statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 mitch, I think you overestimate the number of "known H. sapiens in continental North America." The actual number of recorded human sequences in GenBank is much much lower than you think. Certainly not a complete representation of all the variants of H. sapiens. You could probably get the exact number from GenBank. This, I think, was not appreciated by Stubstad or by Ketchum, either. And of those I highly doubt that there was much if any representation from isolated tribes. So almost any Hupa or other isolated tribe would likely have sequences not in GenBank. In light of the frauds that have involved bigfoot in the past, I would say it hardly stretches the imagination to conceive of collecting, say, Hupa specimens in California, then mailing them to Ketchum from various locations around the country. Not saying anyone did that, but if I were going to hoax, that is the way I would do it. By the time some population geneticist wanders into Hoopa 30 years from now, I would have made millions, bought that ranch in Costa Rica, and retired beyond the reach of the law. Ha ha. not so easy numebr to getatforme(lay person)but I tried..my guess is less than 500,000 right now? Wiki says the entire database doubles every 18 months (but's that's all species).. It is a number that is important though in terms of the "BF sample size" if no marked difference, since there are about 7billion of us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Well for what it is worth Jerrywayne, what I heard from a sample submitter was that it was not close to human, which matches what we see in sighting reports. I still don't think you can claim bigfoot without a body no matter what the study shows. Now that is interesting. Wonder if Paulides has got the word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 I'm sure he heard the rumor way before I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 I have to answer that question from two perspectives, jerry: From the perspective of someone who has, with their own eyes, seen one at close range, my visceral reaction is "Absolutely!" From a more generalized perspective, I will say that the evidence as presented to date makes a very strong argument for the existence of BF. I will concede that the case at present does not rise to the level of "dispositive", as in absolute proof, (as in a body). Therefore I would respect the position that BF is an "open question". I do NOT, however, respect the position taken by many Skeptics that BF absolutely "does not and never has existed". If the Ketchum genetic results are as hinted at and the methodology checks out, then I would take that as being final, dispositive proof, and at that point any further disbelief would be (as you put it) "ridiculous and unsupportable". If that sounds like I'm being careful with words, so be it. It's as honest an answer as I know how to give you. Thanks for the reply. I would add that just because you have seen a Bigfoot yourself does not necessarily mean that Dr. Meldrum is correct about a mid-tarsal break or that the Freeman film and tracks are real (as examples). Would you say that what you saw was not human, as in feral human or related human species? A yes or no or maybe will suffice. (Not interested in offering up your sighting to ridicule). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iacozizzle Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 "Be forewarned: The BF DNA is about to hit the fan." Prepare to make the jump to light speed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Ok, when it hits the fan, where am I supposed to look for the splat so I won't miss it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 I was looking at the some of the archaic traits ...and then, I had a PZ Myers sighting. Heh, heh. Looks like one his cronies wrote the article! I wonder if he even knows . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HucksterFoot Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Heh, heh. Looks like one his cronies wrote the article! I wonder if he even knows . . . I'm sure someone had fun pointing it out to him. Fixed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 There's an image of Ketchum's NDA here. Slim, I can verify that the header of that NDA appears to be legit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts