Guest Cervelo Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 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). testing/page__view__findpost__p__116899 Game, set, and match If Ketchum's results hold. Bigfoot wins, Skeptics lose. Oh Mulder your a trip reminded me of this!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TooRisky Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 (edited) 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?. What kind of curve could that be... My best guess is a high and inside curve, this always fools em' Were the results somehow unusual, even more than might have been guessed?... My best guess is two jeeps and a truck' Which is the best to expect... Can you predict what will be revealed when we can finally read the report?... Best prediction is that, yes there will be a tomorrow and rain in the future... Edited November 8, 2011 by TooRisky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 If Ketchum's results hold. Bigfoot wins, Skeptics lose. And if the results don't hold, what then? A tie? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 ketchum's paper has been rejected by several journal's. Her results are non verifiable and therefore cannot be authenticated as necessary to be published by a reputable journal. There are some questions as to the validity of the data she pulled from the sample. In addition, there some inconsistacny in her results that cannot be confirmed by subsequent testing due to inadequacy of samples. Most reviewers are of the opinion that she has mis interpreted dna from a modern human. I am not optimistic that she can get her paper published by a journal. It obviously won't convince anyone in mainstream science of the existance of bf. We need to move past this subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted November 8, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted November 8, 2011 .....ketchum's paper has been rejected by several journal's. Where did you hear this information?....and, how do you square it with this? I am not optimistic that she can get her paper published by a journal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Oh Mulder your a trip reminded me of this!! And you remind me of a man who can't accept when an argument has been refuted. ketchum's paper has been rejected by several journal's. Her results are non verifiable and therefore cannot be authenticated as necessary to be published by a reputable journal. There are some questions as to the validity of the data she pulled from the sample. In addition, there some inconsistacny in her results that cannot be confirmed by subsequent testing due to inadequacy of samples. Most reviewers are of the opinion that she has mis interpreted dna from a modern human. I am not optimistic that she can get her paper published by a journal. It obviously won't convince anyone in mainstream science of the existance of bf. We need to move past this subject. Sources? Otherwise this post should be deleted as a deliberate falsehood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kronprinz Adam Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 I hope DNA will not be identical to humans, but something different...(a contaminated sample?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 And you remind me of a man who can't accept when an argument has been refuted. Sources? Otherwise this post should be deleted as a deliberate falsehood. This is my point. There are numerous statements regarding Ketchum supposed paper that are not accompanied by sources. I have not seen a single verifiable source relating to this topic other than statements made by members of this forum. It it your position that statements that assume Kethum's paper will be published need not be accompanied by a source, but statements to the contrary need a source or they will be deleted. The topic of the tread asks for speculation. "Kethcum's report will say....." For one, it states that there will be a paper without citing a source. Should we delete the entire thread. If I have missed the source that says Ketchum will publish a paper that proves bf and then please point me to it. Otherwise, please don't ask that statements that are contrary to your viewpoint be deleted. If Ketchum's results hold. Bigfoot wins, Skeptics lose. Source as to the results obtained by Ketchum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 ketchum's paper has been rejected by several journal's. Her results are non verifiable and therefore cannot be authenticated as necessary to be published by a reputable journal. There are some questions as to the validity of the data she pulled from the sample. In addition, there some inconsistacny in her results that cannot be confirmed by subsequent testing due to inadequacy of samples. Most reviewers are of the opinion that she has mis interpreted dna from a modern human. I am not optimistic that she can get her paper published by a journal. It obviously won't convince anyone in mainstream science of the existance of bf. We need to move past this subject. Anyone could come to that conclusion Bigfootnis, I know that it has crossed my mind. I'm all ears, I will be happy to move past this just as soon as you tell me how you know this for a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 (edited) Big, I think you nailed it by the way. They are out shopping the "results" to find someone to support their conclusion. Without a arm, leg, head, or get ready Mulder A BODY. Ya got nothing but some really interesting DNA! Oh ya this is IMO does that make it all better gang! Edited November 8, 2011 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 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. Sources please. How do you know the data throws a curve ball. Where can I access the data to draw my own conclusions. Somewhere it was said/ written that the bigfoot DNA in Dr. Ketchum's samples "threw them a curve." Source? As I've posted before in the most scientific way! Results say DNA human mumbo jumbo Conclusion Bigfoots real Source please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) Big, We are on the same team bud Edited November 9, 2011 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 This is my point. There are numerous statements regarding Ketchum supposed paper that are not accompanied by sources. I have not seen a single verifiable source relating to this topic other than statements made by members of this forum. It it your position that statements that assume Kethum's paper will be published need not be accompanied by a source, but statements to the contrary need a source or they will be deleted. The topic of the tread asks for speculation. "Kethcum's report will say....." For one, it states that there will be a paper without citing a source. Should we delete the entire thread. If I have missed the source that says Ketchum will publish a paper that proves bf and then please point me to it. Otherwise, please don't ask that statements that are contrary to your viewpoint be deleted. Source as to the results obtained by Ketchum. The source is Dr. Melba Ketchum. I don't know what else to tell you except she doesn't appear to have any real interest in bigfoot world or need to write a paper for any material reasons. Tell me why you doubt this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted November 9, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted November 9, 2011 Somewhere it was said/ written that the bigfoot DNA in Dr. Ketchum's samples "threw them a curve." In the spirit of providing sources, I can vouch that David Paulides on his blog #109 as I remember said that the (and this is paraphrased because I did not get a screenshot of it and don't think the Wayback Machine would copy the original), dna acted unlike anything anybody had ever seen before. This was reported in a previous thread I responded to and could be searched. As soon as I questioned/challenged that statement in a post (above mentioned) and discussion ensued, that part of his blog was redacted within about 24 hours as I recall. You can attribute that response to the BFF thread/discussion as a coincidence I suppose (esp. if you are very naive ). I assume word got back to him that something was said that couldn't be explained ..... or maybe something "slipped out" that somebody wasn't willing to have "out there" at the time. (Only David Paulides can tell you for sure why the redaction). There probably have been other sources discussing the "threw them a curve" issue as well. The above is just one of the pot boiling incidences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Anyone could come to that conclusion Bigfootnis, I know that it has crossed my mind. I'm all ears, I will be happy to move past this just as soon as you tell me how you know this for a fact. I don't know that for a fact. It is my best guess as to what is going on. I would think that if her results were conclusive that this would have already been published. I make no claim to inside information. ketchum's paper has been rejected by several journal's. Her results are non verifiable and therefore cannot be authenticated as necessary to be published by a reputable journal. There are some questions as to the validity of the data she pulled from the sample. In addition, there some inconsistacny in her results that cannot be confirmed by subsequent testing due to inadequacy of samples. Most reviewers are of the opinion that she has mis interpreted dna from a modern human. I am not optimistic that she can get her paper published by a journal. It obviously won't convince anyone in mainstream science of the existance of bf. We need to move past this subject. I want to be clear. I do not have inside information and the above is my best quess as to what is going on with the paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts