DNA findings prove BigFoot is Real...

Wed Dec 26, 2012 1:40 pm » by **Spock**

She addressed all those issues in the first hour of her interview. Mainly, she didn't go public, someone within her group did, which drew attention from an anxious scientist in Russia, which she responded to. Her intention was to never let this information out until it had been peer reviewed.

I agree with you 1000%, "Cause they're jackasses that still won't take it seriously". They are the bloggers and armchair scientists she refers to in the interview, they know as much about the study of DNA as I do.

Wed Dec 26, 2012 1:56 pm » by **Nihilgeist**

Spock wrote:She addressed all those issues in the first hour of her interview. Mainly, she didn't go public, someone within her group did, which drew attention from an anxious scientist in Russia, which she responded to. Her intention was to never let this information out until it had been peer reviewed.

I agree with you 1000%, "Cause they're jackasses that still won't take it seriously". They are the bloggers and armchair scientists she refers to in the interview, they know as much about the study of DNA as I do.

Seeing as though this was a month ago, I was hoping by now this data would be 'published', but it hasn't. Nothing would please me more than seeing this rubbed in the faces of gawker and the hipster shits of io9.com.

Wed Dec 26, 2012 2:14 pm » by **Phaeton**

ZetaRediculous wrote:As you said Spock, this is very big news. Hopefully it will get in power to stop any kind of hunting of Sasquatch.

The fact that it seems to be an offshoot/hybrid of reasonably modern humans really does put into question what should be done about it's habitats.

Dr Ketchum has provided lots of videos and multiple proof of non-contamination. So the question is... Why isn't this in the MSM???

Might it be because the acknowledgement of such a new creed of humanoids would in effect undermine the whole scala of primate > human evolution 'evidence'?

We have come so far with this institutionalisation o/t evolution theory, would be a crying shame to let it all crumble on account of some upright walking apes, wouldnt it.

Wed Dec 26, 2012 2:27 pm » by **ZetaRediculous**

Nihilgeist wrote:
Seeing as though this was a month ago, I was hoping by now this data would be 'published', but it hasn't. Nothing would please me more than seeing this rubbed in the faces of gawker and the hipster shits of io9.com.

The review process can take quite a while to come into action, first it will be disseminated among other scientist then if it is passed as valid science it will be sent for publishing. I'm not sure how long it will be in the hands of the peers, but I do know that publishing can take up to two months alone. My ex was a proof reader and copy editor for scientific journals and sometimes she would go though a document three or four times before it was sent to the printers.

Phaeton wrote:
Might it be because the acknowledgement of such a new creed of humanoids would in effect undermine the whole scala of primate > human evolution 'evidence'?

We have come so far with this institutionalisation o/t evolution theory, would be a crying shame to let it all crumble on account of some upright walking apes, wouldnt it.

I would believe that this would strengthen the argument for evolution not diminish it.

Wed Dec 26, 2012 3:00 pm » by **Spock**

Phaeton wrote:Might it be because the acknowledgement of such a new creed of humanoids would in effect undermine the whole scala of primate > human evolution 'evidence'?

We have come so far with this institutionalisation o/t evolution theory, would be a crying shame to let it all crumble on account of some upright walking apes, wouldnt it.

That is my guess. Like she said, there are some scientists that won't believe the evidence even if the body were produced, and I think it is because it flies in the face of what they consider sacred, making them no different than the Westboro Baptist crowd as far as zealous dogma goes (of course we see that all the time).

Interestingly, when asked if it was a stretch to say that this was "bigfoot" she said that there were numerous samples tested; mostly hair but also skin, blood and fluid from eyewitnesses as well as one where she was present when the sample was collected, so the chain of ownership was also validated.

Then she admits that it is ONLY HER BEST GUESS as to how the unknown primate nuclear DNA being mixed with the human mitochondrial would be through cross-breeding (not in those exact words), but immediately that poses a different question; what then if not by cross-breeding? Artificial splicing would be the only alternative I can think of.

Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:13 am » by **Headhunter711**

Good Morning...and happy holidays!!
It generally behooves me to depart from subjects of an EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL nature, but in my humble opinion formed from superficial research there may be a connection between what is referred to as UFO'S
and the species referred to as Sasquatch (at least, SOME of them).
Here is my humble offering of a news segment featuring Dr. Ketchum:

Upload to Disclose.tv

Good Work, Spock Hopefully more information will surface! :cheers:

Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:55 am » by **Cia212**

100 samples? I was thinking there was a new singular sample - a discovery.

That makes me wonder why all of the other tests have been easily explained as known species.