Guest Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Derek, Do you think the picture on Wally's wall could be a hoax then based on the proportions? If it is a clear picture then it is obviously either a squatch or a man in suit as it doesn't sound like a misidentification could be possible based on the clarity you mentioned. Are you able to talk about differences in the picture compared to the one you saw further? As much is written about different types of Sasquatches across North America, is this picture maybe from a different geographic location then your sighting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Strick Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 (edited) The 'Gates hair' and Snellgrove lake sample were both publicly identified by Ketchum on the relevant TV shows as showing human markers. This was back in the days before NDA'S. If these samples are part of the current study, as Hairy Man suggests, then this hints in which direction her final results will go. However, I'm unsure if Ketchum tested both mitochondrial AND nuclear DNA for TV? Derek, can you say if Dr Ketchum has provided you with a more detailed set of DNA results other than 'modern human'? I think she must have done hence yours and the General's high spirits. If the result was simply 'modern human' I wouldn't be all that excited. At best, it would mean the sample was contaminated and came from a er, um, modern human. At worst, it would mean that I wouldn't recommend cutting any more motel rooms with the General any time soon..... Edited August 12, 2011 by Strick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Regarding the question of what a PhD is, let me put it to bed once and for all: It depends on your field of study as to how many credits and the length of time it will take to earn a doctorate. There is nothing written in stone that says it has to take 3-4 years after you earn a master's degree. There are different kinds of doctorates, those that go into medicine, like Dr. Ketchum have a "medical doctorate". My sister is a pharmacist, she has a "practitioner's doctorate". If I go back to school it will take me about 18 months to earn a "teaching doctorate" in nursing. To say Dr. Ketchum is not a scientist because she doesn't have 12 years of education is absolute nonsense. One usually has to participate in a research project to earn a doctorate regardless of the type earned. Doctorates of any kind require research papers/ projects using evidence based practice techniques i.e. the scientific method. This is the last time that doctoral degrees need to be discussed in this thread or any of the other threads related to this topic. I hope I have clarified this to the Nth degree, now back on topic, try to keep it respectful and to the point, no baiting please, you know who you are. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Why no report? I mean, TV is TV, but if she is implying this is the find of the century in 2009... well...what scientist wouldn't have that puppy in print by now, One that would fail miserably at the objective. This is a rhetorical question, it was a single sample that would need to be repeatedly matched to dozens of other samples to establish a population and thus, a new species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 now I can see why she has to make sure this paper is written correctly....and time taken to make sure the info is correct.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Ok, moving forward, I would like to request a list of things that can be discussed regarding this incident from Derek. It would make it simpler for everyone. It is a touchy subject and I sometimes think that both poster's and Derek read more into things than are intended. So let's simplify this shall we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Point taken Jodie. I don't have any problem talking about most things. I won't talk about the right and wrongs of it anymore. If the General wants to that's up to him. With Prag I can't get a point in edgewise. He and I have been back and forth on a couple different subjects and it's a waste of time to me. I don't need people pointing out the flaws in my research, I know what they are. I'm not perfect, never claimed to be. I can't talk about any DNA results period. I can't speak to the sex of the adult. I can't talk about the exact location. I can't speak of the exact time the paper will be out, because I don't know. Beyond that, I think most other things are fair game. DR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Thanks Derek!! If you don't want to answer a question, just ignore it. For the forum members- If several posts have gone by and your question has not been answered I think you can take that as a "no comment". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Your a good Mod Jodie, this will make it a lot easier to talk about. Thanks DR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slabdog Posted August 12, 2011 Author Share Posted August 12, 2011 Derek and General: Stay focused down range. Don't get distracted by the peripheral discussion / emotion. Take your time. Do it right. Get it done. Slab Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Derek, I might have missed it but have you ever had a sighting? if so can you go into a little more detail about it? as far as Prag is concerned, Ill stick up for him here, he seems like a good dude, and I think you guys have more in common than you think..... as a matter of fact, most of us here have a lot in common, lol........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 I'm training for a dirt bike race for the next three days. I haven't raced for five years so God help me!! lol I'll be away from the computer Saturday through Monday. If there are any new questions I'll try to answer them when I return. DR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 (edited) Yes, I know that a DVM is not a Ph.D. or a masters - no one has been arguing that it is. You don't have to have a Ph.D. nor a master's degree to be a scientist. She has a DVM degree and is board certified. She's a scientist. Why no report on the Gates hair? I'll assume, based on her answer to me, that it's part of this current study. I have no idea if anyone went back to the location for more hair. I'll guess we'll just have to wait. A DVM is considered post graduate, and comes with the title Doctor of Veterinarian medicine, and I believe that is considered a Master's Degree Edited August 12, 2011 by SweetSusiq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 I doubt the DNA results that Derek and the General have been privy to have come back 'modern human' period. The Sierra kill sample is not scat, hair or saliva like many of the others presented for analyisis, but a real piece of meat with skin and hair. Dr. Ketchum would tell you that the tissue tags on hairs like this is a prime source of DNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Strick Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 Dr. Ketchum would tell you that the tissue tags on hairs like this is a prime source of DNA. I'm sure hair is a fine source of DNA, but that wasn't really my point. I was more concerned with the implications around the origin of the flesh sample if Dr Ketchum's analysis came back simply as modern Homo Sapien, ie a human corpse. I should make clear that I'm not trying to cast aspersions on the individuals concerned in any shape or form, and I am certainly not accusing anyone of obtaining the sample by nefarious means. All through this debate I have cautioned against a moral/emotional argument. I imagine that Derek and the General have received very specific information from Dr Ketchum that makes clear that Bigfoot, though sharing much of our DNA, is crucially different from us in some very important respects. Otherwise, all they would have was a big chunk of meat that a scientist had said came from a human - and I doubt they would be so keen to promote this all over a public forum. However, I totally understand that Derek and the General are not at liberty to discuss these kinds of details. A couple of nudges and a few winks would be gratefully received though 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts