Guest Jodie Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 My concern is the paper hasn't been written yet because trying to unravel what this is, is much more complicated than she anticipated, just as she said on her wall on facebook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 My concern is the paper hasn't been written yet because trying to unravel what this is, is much more complicated than she anticipated, just as she said on her wall on facebook. What are you suggesting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Maybe she has been asked to provide additional materials such as photos or video to go with the DNA results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Oh Mulder your a trip reminded me of this!! Very funny! Great movie. Bogart is an all time great. I think Bigfootnis was merely speculating, as was requested by the thread starter. I wonder why the TBs here won't commit and offer their speculation concerning the end results. Jump in. The water is fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) 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. Good sleuthing!! I think that Paulides comment likely was a paraphrase of what Ketchum told him early on. This is consistent with my speculation that Stubstad and/or Ketchum may have had the idea that if a DNA sequence wasn't in Genbank, then it was from an unknown species. That just isn't true. Ketchum now knows that, and from her lips to Paulides ear. And from his ear to the deletion of that claim from his site. Jus my impressions. I could be wrong... For example, I thought that Penn State would have changed the locks on the football offices by this afternoon. I was wrong. Edited November 9, 2011 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 What are you suggesting? That it is probably only partially written or not written at all because the testing and re-testing isn't done yet..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 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? Where can I find Dr. Ketchum's actual statements regarding the subject paper. Has she actually said that her results conclusively establish the existence of bf? Has she actually said that the paper has been submitted for peer review? My doubts come from the general history of how things seem to pan out in the world of bigfoot. The way information being released feels like a misinformation campaign similar to those used by politicians. A good example is the issue surrounding Obama's place of birth. On a side note completely unrelated. Has anyone ever noticed that their spell checker suggests that Bigfoot be capitalized. This assumes that there is only one Bigfoot and not an unknown animal. Subtle things like that inform people more than they realize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Here is Ketchum's latest statement, as posted at NABS, David Paulides' website. http://www.nabigfootsearch.com/bigfootblog.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Unless I completely misunderstand how DNA testing works, shouldn't the DNA show that it's either from an undiscovered, unclassified biological entity, or it isn't? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) 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. DNA manufacturing conspiracy is a stretch I posted this article before on another thread. Very good info. http://www.nytimes.c...ence/18dna.html Edited November 9, 2011 by Tautriadelta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted November 9, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted November 9, 2011 Here is Ketchum's latest statement, as posted at NABS, David Paulides' website. http://www.nabigfootsearch.com/bigfootblog.html ...they threw us curve balls even with their DNA which can be as elusive as they are. Thank goodness we are past that! (from blog #114 NABS) ^^^^^^ So the elusiveness could refer to obtaining quality sample, problems in sequencing or analytic tests/testing or maybe just that some tissue sequences easily and other does not. Well, they are past that. So, they refined their techniques, got enough samples and sequences and/or finished sequencing multiple different types of samples such that maybe results are lining up the rest of the paper. I'm sure there could be more to it but these are just some speculations based on my rudimentary knowledge of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) Where can I find Dr. Ketchum's actual statements regarding the subject paper. Has she actually said that her results conclusively establish the existence of bf? Has she actually said that the paper has been submitted for peer review? My doubts come from the general history of how things seem to pan out in the world of bigfoot. The way information being released feels like a misinformation campaign similar to those used by politicians. A good example is the issue surrounding Obama's place of birth. On a side note completely unrelated. Has anyone ever noticed that their spell checker suggests that Bigfoot be capitalized. This assumes that there is only one Bigfoot and not an unknown animal. Subtle things like that inform people more than they realize. Oh where to start on this? I heard on the Squatchdetective show, where they had interviewed they Dr. Ketchum off the air, that the paper was out of peer review, or at least I thought that was what they said. I trust those guys when they say they talked to Dr. Ketchum. However, when other forum members listened to the show in archive they heard different things. Then I read her facebook post about the project being more complicated than she thought, once again, I am making the assumption that someone did not sign up on facebook as Dr. Ketchum. No mention was made on that facebook post about where the paper was in the process and I thought that was curious. I began to wonder if that paper had been written. I don't doubt that she is, or has been, running samples for testing and sending them out for verification.Her actual statements are that you will be surprised at the results. I agree with you about how things usually pan out in bigfoot world. Edited November 9, 2011 by Jodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Unless I completely misunderstand how DNA testing works, shouldn't the DNA show that it's either from an undiscovered, unclassified biological entity, or it isn't? RayG It is my understanding that reading DNA is not that simple. It is also open to some interpretation. Their is variety in DNA among human beings. I think you can draw conclusions like "characteristic of a primate" or "characteristic of human". I don't think you can say "we are unable to classify this dna. Therefore it must be from a bf. You can say things like 99% chance that it is not human. 99% it is not chimpanzee. Some may claim that the sample is from a "humanzee" rather than an unknown species. This is my simple lay opinion and I can be way off base. Oh where to start on this? I heard on the Squatchdetective show, where they had interviewed they Dr. Ketchum off the air, that the paper was out of peer review, or at least I thought that was what they said. I trust those guys when they say they talked to Dr. Ketchum. However, when other forum members listened to the show in archive they heard different things. Then I read her facebook post about the project being more complicated than she thought, once again, I am making the assumption that someone did not sign up on facebook as Dr. Ketchum. No mention was made on that facebook post about where the paper was in the process and I thought that was curious. I began to wonder if that paper had been written. I don't doubt that she is, or has been, running samples for testing and sending them out for verification.Her actual statements are that you will be surprised at the results. I agree with you about how things usually pan out in bigfoot world. I read her purported statement on facebook. I was curious as to whether curveball meant some findings in the dna that she was suprised about, or referred to some point or argument made by someone else about her findings that she did not anticipate. I also noted that she said project rather than paper. This infers to me some monatary interest. I suppose we will have to wait and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) Jerrywayne :lol: I like a good sense of humor. Edited November 9, 2011 by Jodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted November 9, 2011 Admin Share Posted November 9, 2011 Game, set, and match. If Ketchum's results hold. Bigfoot wins, Skeptics lose. Mulder, while I agree that DNA will do it, I didn't realize we were playing a game. I would think everyone wins including BF. They'll be the new star at the zoo, can't wait! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts