The critics have tried to frame the argument as they always do. If they do not have the facts on their side then they yell and scream as loud as possible. The critics with throw out phrases like "Five Geneticist say the study is flawed and lacks data". Every time
I asked the critics to name the "Mysterious Five" they can not! The critics always make excuses or just stop commenting. By contrast here are the SCIENTIST that support the studies findings and what they say:
David H. Swenson, Ph.D. - Biochemist with over 39 journal publications to his credit. (Click here to read his resume)
Below is his statement:
David H. Swenson
Brien Foerster, Jeff Kart, and other interested parties. I went over
the manuscript by Melba Ketchum on Bigfoot genomics. My desktop had
difficulty with a blast analysis of the consensus sequences. It helped
me understand more about the project. This collaborative venture has
done a huge project that taxes me to fully grasp. I see interesting
homology with a standard human sequence with 99% match for mitochondria.
From my abbreviated study, the nuclear genome seems to have human and
My opinion of the creature is that it is a
hybrid of a human mother and an unknown hominid male, Just as reported.
For all practical purposes, it should be treated as human and protected
Brien, selection of Melba's lab for your studies is a very good call.
Sasquatch is real, as proven by genetic analysis.
Dr. Hascall Hart
Dr. Harts Statement:
1. The mtDNA of 29 samples is essentially human.
2. The nDNA of three samples (26, 31,and 140) has
homology to human nDNA on chromosome 11, but is not entirely human.
3. The nDNA of three samples(26, 31, and 140) is not
related to black bear, raccoon or opossum."
T. Joy Clay Chrisman, Ph.D., PMP
Dr. Chrismans Statement:
I fully support Dr. Ketchum and her research and
appreciate having the research and data. I make a point of stating the
scientific methodology was very sound and all necessary precautions were taken
It takes a lot of courage to come out and agreeReplyDelete
with a study that could jepordize one's reputation. Well done.
So are we just waiting for the data to be put into GenBank? Once the data goes in there, won't the cat be out of the bag? But she is being blocked from putting the data in there if I recall.ReplyDelete
Thank you for keeping us updated on this.ReplyDelete
Because of the Human indicators, GenBank says they need consent of the "source" of the DNA before they will allow it to be entered... Guess what? That isn't going to be possible now, or perhaps ever, depending on how well we might someday be able to "converse" with these creatures.ReplyDelete
GenBank is just putting up barriers to progress. I hope that this is not a conscience effort on their part to refute the claims that the data justifies!
If you are submitting human sequences to GenBank, do not include any data that could reveal the personal identity of the source. GenBank assumes that the submitter has received any necessary informed consent authorizations required prior to submitting sequences.
I also checked to see if there was Neanderthal data - and YES - there is. This is from a fossil bone from Croatia:
This is what Gen Bank will not accept:
The following submission types are not accepted by GenBank:
Sequences <200 bp long
A genomic sequence of multiple exons joined together without the sequence of the intervening introns or without a 'gap' of internal nnns representing the missing sequence
Primer only sequences (These sequences can be submitted directly to NCBI’s Probe database)
Protein only sequences
Sequences containing a mix of genomic and mRNA sequence represented as a single sequence
Sequences without a physical counterpart (consensus sequences)
Your argument is wrong.
TSE, In the case of Dr. Ketchum's Three Genomes Genbank did not follow their own protocols. Melba provided me the email string between her and the Director of Genbank. They did refuse to accept the Genomes because of the "Privacy Issue". When Melba put it was "Homo Sapein" they requested a release form. When Melba asked them to call her so she could explain that this was a NEW SPECIES they refused. They would only accept emails and would not approve them without the release from the "Bigfoot". It was a farce and a obvious effort to block the publishing of the genomes.Delete
Thank you for the clarification.Delete
It is sad, but not surprising - as "Mainstream Science" has become entrenched with an inflexible narrative of history, people, physics, ad nauseum and refuses to allow any alternative views or dissent! It's also evident to many that "Mainstream Science" not only tries to burn dissenters at the stake, but that "Mainstream Science" deliberately hides and destroys evidence that doesn't fit their narrative.
Dr. Paul LaViolette (Physics) notes: Dictatorial internet archive administrators at Cornell University are currently blacklisting cutting edge scientists and blocking them from communicating their innovative findings to the public.
Lloyd Pye notes: FIGHT THE STUPIDS!
Sometimes good people make honest mistakes. This is not about those people. This is about the willfully stupid people who actually work at being ignorant and staying ignorant, and who make it a personal mission to prevent others from knowing more than they know or doing more than they would ever dare to consider. It's about those who scoff at people 300 years ago for believing the Earth was flat, but are convinced they could never believe a similar absurdity. This is about those who ridicule and oppose anything they don't already believe is true, and who will diligently avoid any effort to fairly evaluate new, especially dramatically new ideas.
Stanton Friedman (UFO) notes about the tactics used by his critics:
Debunkers seem to employ four major rules:
A. What the public doesn’t know, we certainly won’t tell them. The largest official USAF UFO study isn’t even mentioned in twelve anti-UFO books, though every one of those books’ authors was aware of it.
B. Don’t bother me with the facts, my mind is made up.
C. If one can’t attack the data, attack the people. It is easier.
D. Do one’s research by proclamation rather than investigation. It is much easier, and nobody will know the difference anyway.
I have noted four major reasons why the big names in science and journalism haven’t jumped on the pro-UFO bandwagon:
1. Ignorance of the data. Scratch a debunker and one usually finds somebody who is putting down what he is not up on.
2. Fear of ridicule in sponsoring a thesis (only about ten have been submitted relating to UFOs) if a professor, or sponsoring a detailed reportorial investigation if an editor.
4.Failure to use our knowledge of technology to understand UFO behavior. They say “It is impossible,” rather than “I don’t know how.”
You mean the world ain't flat?Delete
To funny, so very sad.Delete
Lloyd Pye figures it will take $7 Million to prove that the Starchild is a distinctive species:ReplyDelete
"In this extraordinarily special case, the investment needed is $7 million USD. Why that amount? Every step of the DNA recovery and sequencing process will have to be verified with multiple repetitions until no possible doubt remains about any specific result. Also, in order that those completed results can be confirmed by independent researchers, the entire process must be recorded on film for academic scrutiny and historic posterity."
Lloyd has a very interesting site about the Starchild and he provides great documentation of the genetic work that has been done. Check it out:
Do we know how many scientists in this group that did not agree with her paper and why ?ReplyDelete
Scott. Thanks for the great news! This definitly cheers up a gloomy day for me.ReplyDelete
And to T.S.E,well put Sir. Your second comment,referring to and about mainstream science,is spot on..
Wow i am so glad to hear this. But i believe the powers that be still want this keep quite. I truly believe that if the truth comes out that it could rewrite the historyReplyDelete
of the human race.