Guest Jodie Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 I certainly hope that you continue doing so after everything is said and done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 I've never tested "unknown" DNA before and only read about it. Maybe you can tell me why its taking a year and a half and why they stopped taking submissions but are again, until they stop temporarily. (so I was told via email by the lab) They also explained a little about the NDA which made me not want to submit anything at all. I think if you took the amont of DNA data used in the discovery of the Denisova people and multiplied it times the number of samples in Dr. Ketchums study you'd have a good idea why it is taking so long. Knowns can be Id'd with a short 1500 base pair segment of mtDNA while phylogenectic placement uses alot more to define the new species. You're basically giving away your sample and the rights to publish it or use it however. She owns the results from the portion of the sample I sent her, the rest remains with me, for repeat study or whatever. Thats fine if your purpose is served in those ways. The thing is, I'm willing to speculate some about this whole thing. (and it does take two, youve been cool with me - i apologize for taking an attitude with you i just think this whole thing stinks) I see these tests ending up as non conclusive at best, and human at fair guess. So what happens when they come back with something that matches say, 3 or 4 % of humans? Denisova is said to have interbred with some of our human ancestors so that wouldn't be unheard of. Or, maybe even human DNA that isn't on the comparison database. It would boil down to percentages of relatedness in that case And we'd be describing a new haplogroup of humans if actually new. By the way, I'm curious about the hairs you found. Did you check out to see if that area had ever been used for farming or was it fenced etc? Hair looks a little like bovine or alpaca hair. Just curious what you were able to find out about the land and its history etc. It wasn't fenced and I don't think the land had been used in farming for a very long time, there was remnents of a small building that had long since been torn down in the immediate area. I didn't find any cow patties in the area anywhere that would have suggested bovine or bison foraging. Whats your theory if not bigfoot what is your second guess, or more common animal guess? Based on my observations of the tree twists and the fact that we found five cockle burrs on the ground with the same hair wrapped around them, it struck me to be suspicious from the get go, but I was still willing to entertain that it was likely a known animal. Best nonbigfoot guess would have been bovine or bison. If bovine perhaps from the highland breed to account for the length of the hair, bison are pretty shaggy up front. If not those then the longshot would be something like an alpacca, bear, lamma etc. It would have to be an animal that was clever enough to get those burrs out of it's hair though, they didn't just fall out , the sample was a 100 hairs easy and most with attached roots. They were pulled out during the growth phase in my opinion. We started testing them because we didn't want to guess, and obviously DNA would remove the quess work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 127 Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 (edited) It wasn't fenced and I don't think the land had been used in farming for a very long time, there was remnents of a small building that had long since been torn down in the immediate area. I didn't find any cow patties in the area anywhere that would have suggested bovine or bison foraging. Based on my observations of the tree twists and the fact that we found five cockle burrs on the ground with the same hair wrapped around them, it struck me to be suspicious from the get go, but I was still willing to entertain that it was likely a known animal. Best nonbigfoot guess would have been bovine or bison. If bovine perhaps from the highland breed to account for the length of the hair, bison are pretty shaggy up front. If not those then the longshot would be something like an alpacca, bear, lamma etc. It would have to be an animal that was clever enough to get those burrs out of it's hair though, they didn't just fall out , the sample was a 100 hairs easy and most with attached roots. They were pulled out during the growth phase in my opinion. We started testing them because we didn't want to guess, and obviously DNA would remove the quess work. As for the DNA stuff a wait and see is all you can do at this point. Have you been given a result? I think some of what you said above makes a lot of sense about the hairs. That is why I asked some specifics there. I saw the website with the photos of the hair and read what you posted. If it was an alpaca or bovine it probably was rubbing against the tree to get those burrs off of it. Edited October 24, 2011 by 127 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 If any of you here on this forum have worked with me you'd know I'm a very honest person and very true to my field of research. I do not question your honesty. You have a good reputation and seem to be a good fellow. My question is this: has General posted anything here that has surprised you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Yes I've been informed of the results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 127 Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Yes I've been informed of the results. If you say "unidentified primate" I'm gonna hurl a stanky hair ball. Well, I hope that you've identified your hairs then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wild eyed willy Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 This question is for any of you out there: Is it possible that the DNA results suggest something other than human but undefined? Or will whatever the result is, be difinitive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Let’s recap the attributes of the animals General says he killed (in no particular order). Bigfoot Youth (BY) -- “rounded†mouths like humans, with no tusks or fangs, enlarged but not long canines, similar to a gorilla’s. BY -- black hands, with palms padded like a dog’s paw, with fingers of same proportion to palm as in humans. Bigfoot Adult (BA) and BY -- omnivores. BY and BA --- smarter than any other animals in the wild. BY --- around 40 lbs. BY --- communicated, “talked†like humans, in the vocal way of the deaf, with no ape like grunts. BA and BY --- “Bad body order x 12 mixed with a coyote.†BY --- eyes like humans. BY --- looked very different than the BA. BY --- dark brown hair. BY --- appeared unafraid yet worried and panicky. BA --- color of a pale coyote. BA --- no “cone-headâ€. BA --- “8’ tall and was hairy and walked like a man.†BY --- facially “somewhere in the middle between human ape and boxer [dog].†BA --- compared to Roger Patterson’s film subject, “it was so much like that but totally totally different and not even close in appearance†and it looked “as different from patty as chuck norris and the cable guy.†BA --- 600 lbs. BA --- not muscular looking, not fat, not as wide as generally portrayed in recreations. BA --- when shot, it ran on two legs, and then on all fours, then on two legs, then on all fours before it left view. (this part was in Randles’ recounting). If there are attributes I missed or if General would like to add more information, please add to this list. 　 　 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 127 Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 This article had a nice bear. Watch it turn out to be bear DNA. It was one of them thar "miss identherthighs" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 No he hasn't posted anything that's surprised me. I do know the whole story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 127 Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Derekfoot: Are there any photos of this "steak"? If not, I'm going to go ahead and disregard this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 This question is for any of you out there: Is it possible that the DNA results suggest something other than human but undefined? Or will whatever the result is, be difinitive? The discovery of undescribed primate DNA would not be sitting in Ketchum's inbox or outbox for a year nor would it be hung up in peer review. And it isn't a rabbit or a gibbon DNA. So what does that leave? And why would Paulides, who seems to be in the inner circle, keep talking about human DNA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Derekfoot: Are there any photos of this "steak"? If not, I'm going to go ahead and disregard this. Let me answer that: there are no photos of the steak. I guess you'd better disregard the whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Jodie, what are you implying? Why would I not continue to sleep well after everything's said and done? If the General's lying to me and Melba's lying to me then that's on them. I have been completely forthright and honest about everything from the start. There are things I can't talk about due to the NDA, but surely you understand that. If these two people I trust are lying to me and my reputation is tarnished later than so be it. That's a risk I'll take because I believe them. Either way I will sleep well because I have done nothing wrong. DR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 127 Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Let me answer that: there are no photos of the steak. I guess you'd better disregard the whole thing. Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts