Guest Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 Somewhere it was said/ written that the bigfoot DNA in Dr. Ketchum's samples "threw them a curve." This has me really wondering. What kind of curve could that be? Were the results somehow unusual, even more than might have been guessed? Only time will tell, but meanwhile... Can you predict what will be revealed when we can finally read the report?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobZenor Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 (edited) I just did make a prediction of sorts in another thread. The rumors make a pretty good description of something that would be a big curve ball. There are all sorts of things it could be that have nothing to do with the rumors. It is hard to think of anything that would throw off the analysis of the results proving a bigfoot other than having modern human DNA in there. The most likely explanation for something like that would be hybridizing. I don't really like the idea of it being evolved from a modern human. The date of other rumored DNA, 2.25 million years since the populations diverged, pretty much exactly agrees with what I have been saying I thought a bigfoot likely was. Recent hybrids and unknown amounts of gene flow from our population into theirs would really complicate this. It makes for a logical scenario. It is like a mystery movie and you figure out the ending before the movie is half over. I just hope I am in the right theater and this movie doesn't turn out to be a comedy or a disaster movie. Edited November 6, 2011 by BobZenor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 (edited) LOLOL....that analogy was pretty good Bob. I hope the same thing and saw your other post about the non coding human DNA. You ought to copy that post and put it here since it is relevant. Edited November 6, 2011 by Jodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wudewasa Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 Ask para ape, he has psychic connections... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Biggie Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 In reference to Monty Python: Para is no more. He has ceased to be. He is an ex para. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 As I've posted before in the most scientific way! Results say DNA human mumbo jumbo Conclusion Bigfoots real Acceptance by mainstream Not until you get a body Back to you Matt at Bigfoot heaquarters! This program brought to you by Zagnut, biggies favorite snack! And Marlboro "biggie says litem if ya gottem!" and kids don't forget your Bigfoot decoder ring for biggies secret message for all you "knowers" at the end of our program!! To much? Sorry got a little carried away I'll go film something thats really nothing and post it later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 I reckon that IF the DNA is conclusive and Ericksons film footage isn't questionable, at the least they will get some mainstream scientific interest in pursuing the question of Bigfoot. If any of her data is askew, I think the entire thing will be dismissed as contaminated DNA tho... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 Acceptance by mainstream Not until you get a body DNA does not spontaneously generate itself. it comes from physical biological samples (hair, tissue, blood, bone, etc) Simply put, DNA = body. Any objective scientist must admit this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 (edited) And again correct but backwards! Haven't we done this dance before Mulder can't we just agree to disagree! Edited November 6, 2011 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 In reference to Monty Python: Para is no more. He has ceased to be. He is an ex para. He's pining for the fjords, even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 And again correct but backwards! Haven't we done this dance before Mulder can't we just agree to disagree! No, because you are wrong. You can't have DNA w/o having a sample from which that DNA came. That sample came from a creature. DNA = sample = creature. Unless you are prepared to show that Dr Ketchum's lab (and all the other participating labs) are part of some massive conspiracy to manufacture fake DNA , then it's "game over" for the Skeptics if they have one shred of intellectual integrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wudewasa Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 and kids don't forget your Bigfoot decoder ring for biggies secret message for all you "knowers" at the end of our program!! To much? Sorry got a little carried away I'll go film something thats really nothing and post it later WAIT! THERE MORE!!! If you send in 15 dollars, 3 "Mrs. Butterworth's Pancake Mix" box tops, plus $4.95 shipping and handling, you'll receive a magical clove of garlic that will attract black nosed sasquatches, plus a valuable coupon for a free trial sized package of "Jack Links" jerky autographed by Tom Biscardi! ACT NOW BECAUSE SUPPLIES ARE LIMITED!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 And, to once and for all put a stop to this "DNA useless w/o a body" BS, I'll link to my post in the other Ketchum thread. I linked to multiple articles showing conclusively that DNA IS used to identify species absent a body (indeed it is often the ONLY way to identify some closely related species). Game, set, and match. If Ketchum's results hold. Bigfoot wins, Skeptics lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Maybe it will say it's not a primate? or that it is the same as Neanderthal? Or has a gene for invisibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 And, to once and for all put a stop to this "DNA useless w/o a body" BS, I'll link to my post in the other Ketchum thread. I linked to multiple articles showing conclusively that DNA IS used to identify species absent a body (indeed it is often the ONLY way to identify some closely related species). Game, set, and match. If Ketchum's results hold. Bigfoot wins, Skeptics lose. Well, that's not entirely true Number one, being skeptical isn't a race to see who is correct. it's merely adhering to an idea of real proof and not speculation and "belief". Number 2, if the results come up as very near human with some primate DNA as yet unknown, or so close to human as to be confusing, the "man" is likely to say that the samples were contaminated during collection and worthless. It may not be fair or correct, but that's what you can expect. Number three, Once again, there are those who "believe" Bigfoot is real, and those who "believe" Bigfoot isn't real. But there are also many of us who are skeptical because we have yet to presented with solid evidence either way, yet find Bigfoot compelling due to sightings, footprints...etc I just don't buy into anything. I require evidence. That doesn't mean I "lost" if Ketchum's report comes back as a clean, honest, positive result. I will be as excited as anyone, I won't feel like i "lost" This isn't the Superbowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts