hiflier Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 (edited) Question for everyone. It's a multiple choice type but here's the rub: Ya gotta do a bit of reading first: From here: http://www.sasquatchgenomeproject.org/linked/novel-north-american-hominins-final-pdf-download.pdf "All submitters, laboratory personnel and human control DNAs showed complete profiles and were excluded as contributors to the profiles generated from the unknown samples. This, coupled with the lack of mixtures, novel profiles and failures with PowerPlex® 16 further eliminated the possibility of human contamination of the unknown samples." The paragraph is stating that: 1) all of the samples were contaminated 2) some of the samples were contaminated 3) none of the samples were contaminated Take your time. It's important because if they find something in the nests it's going to go through this exact same process. Edited August 12, 2017 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 I need to read more.....now where have I heard that before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, norseman said: I need to read more.....now where have I heard that before? Ah, but this data is different. Not anecdotal. Can be falsified. Can be, and was, repeatable. And besides, this is way more fun than reading those moldy old reports Edited August 12, 2017 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 Unfortunately there wasn't a complete genome there! Just fragments of known animals and human! So unless Melba is going to rewrite the book on biology? She has nothing! She can repeat it as many times as she likes! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiiawiwb Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 2 hours ago, Martin said: The hair Ketchum tested was seen to come directly from that chewy masked creature. Were all of the hairs tested for their morphology hair from the Chewy mask? Do you have an authoritative source for this assertion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 Yep, YouTube that citadel of integrity. Hiflier, your tenacity is admirable in facing down some of the locals hereabouts who are feeling threatened with the truth, in their own perceived sandbox. Remember, the truth is never a factor with them rather, it's all about posturing, preening and popularity. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 (edited) 58 minutes ago, wiiawiwb said: Were all of the hairs tested for their morphology hair from the Chewy mask? Do you have an authoritative source for this assertion? No. Hairs came from 26 different locations. The map for those locations in in the .pdf I linked. Norseman, that's all the same one-sided ridicule. that's been around for the last 5 years. Those people started laughing and snickering right out of the gate and did not stop. What's your point? More of the same? The video is all scofftic bias. Are these folks supposed to be intellectuals of some kind because they couldn't hold a candle to the any of the experts on Ketchums team. Not one of them. Too bad too because they seem like OK Humans until they start to pretend to be smart. The Sasquatch Genome Project team would eat them for breakfast LOL.So do you prefer these folks over say someone of the caliber of these folks: Melba S. Ketchum1 (Corresponding author) Patrick W. Wojtkiewicz2 Aliece B. Watts3 David W. Spence4 Andreas K. Holzenburg5 Douglas G. Toler6 Thomas M. Prychitko7 Fan Zhang8 Ray Shoulders1 Ryan Smith1 1 DNA Diagnostics, Nacogdoches, TX 75965 2North Louisiana Criminalistics Laboratory, Shreveport, LA 71101 3Integrated Forensic Laboratories, Inc., Euless, TX 76039 4Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences, Dallas, TX 75207 5Texas A&M University, Microscopy & Imaging Center, Department of Biology and Department of Biochemistry & Biophysics, College Station, TX 77843-2257 6Huguley Pathology Consultants, P.A., Ft. Worth, TX 76115 7Helix Biological Laboratory, Detroit, Michigan, 48202 8UNT Center for Human Identification, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX 76107 And if so why? Oh, I see you haven't answered the multiple choice question yet. Would now be a bad time? 24 minutes ago, Yuchi1 said: Remember, the truth is never a factor with them rather, it's all about posturing, preening and popularity Don't care about any of those things. I've asked a bunch of questions along the way here and thought I'd hang around long enough to maybe get some answers to them. They are not hard questions at all so I don't know why they are being ignored. Ah well, it's late here in Maine so I guess I'll turn and give everyone some time. I'll check in tomorrow to see if there's any progress. Edited August 12, 2017 by hiflier 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 Not one of them? Sure. All of your "experts" are FORENSIC CRIMINALOGISTS......Ketchum didn't even get the bogus taxonomy spelled right on zoo bank. Name one biology geneticist or taxonomist that agrees with her findings......unfortunately they laugh at her because her findings are just that crazy. It's laughable. And that panel of scientists ON a Bigfoot evidence blog tell you exactly why in black and white WHY it's laughable. Ketchum even CHARGED 30 bucks to view her findings on Denovo, which is scientifically unheard of and is something Rick Dyer would pull! But none of this matters to you because you have swallowed her conspiracy nonsense hook, line and sinker! Im really done now with trying to convince you of the REAL truth. If you wanna believe that manbearpig is a reality? Awesome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 What do/did Green, Dahindren, Byrne, Krantz, Fahrenbach & Meldrum all have in common? And yet, they are regarded as the foundational members of Sasquatchery? Some of the regulars around here have the same condition. Could be for the best as Col. Jessup said.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 50 minutes ago, Yuchi1 said: What do/did Green, Dahindren, Byrne, Krantz, Fahrenbach & Meldrum all have in common? They never saw a bigfoot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 Thus is the original sin of Sasquatch studies: The idea the mystery might be scientifically solved is never so important as the need to be the one to solve it. This is being the case, you will never even approach anything like a definitive conclusion on things like this. Ketchum's study and conclusions will always be a tainted product, and what is salvageable, and what was jettisonable will never be determined. There is a lot of truth in the scoftics' claim that it is more about keeping the game alive than actually wanting an answer. Every keyboard jockey and webcam empressario will see to that. Here's a novel idea for us to weigh (and I will presume to say it is hiflier's gist): Maybe Ketchum was on to something, but fell short. Following up on that would be what we call the scientific process, no? Shouting those results down? Not worthy of our efforts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiiawiwb Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 (edited) 11 hours ago, Martin said: The hair Ketchum tested was seen to come directly from that chewy masked creature. That 1/3rd of her genome study is absolute garbage. The Erickson creature is a hoax. That's the entire hair portion. The other 2 were saliva and blood right? The PDF report that Hiflier linked shows hair coming from multiple location. On what basis did you make the statement above which implies "the hair", meaning all of the hair, came from the Chewy mask? Edited August 12, 2017 by wiiawiwb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 Listen up folks and stop cherry picking. Why cannot someone address this question which I have asked more than once here and elsewhere on this Forum?: A hair's microscopy shows that it is outside anything being from a human. The sample has chain of custody. ALL of the DNA from the submitters and anyone else associated with the hair is taken and tested and then filtered out so that what rises to the surface is the real DNA of the hair. It tests 100% Human. Question.......AGAIN........How can that be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 57 minutes ago, WSA said: Thus is the original sin of Sasquatch studies: The idea the mystery might be scientifically solved is never so important as the need to be the one to solve it. This is being the case, you will never even approach anything like a definitive conclusion on things like this. Ketchum's study and conclusions will always be a tainted product, and what is salvageable, and what was jettisonable will never be determined. There is a lot of truth in the scoftics' claim that it is more about keeping the game alive than actually wanting an answer. Every keyboard jockey and webcam empressario will see to that. Here's a novel idea for us to weigh (and I will presume to say it is hiflier's gist): Maybe Ketchum was on to something, but fell short. Following up on that would be what we call the scientific process, no? Shouting those results down? Not worthy of our efforts. I would agree with you whole heartedly except despite Melba being in constant contact with her furry forest friends? She has never attempted to rectify her standings with the scientific community by offering up new and better evidence...... I think the only thing she and crew were onto was fame and fortune. Unfortunately for us serious researchers it just kicks us in the teeth. And makes it that much harder for anyone to take any of our efforts seriously. What she did with her DNA study and Matilda footage is no different than what Rick Dyer did with Hank...... including charging people the price for admission! Let that soak in. 10 minutes ago, hiflier said: Listen up folks and stop cherry picking. Why cannot someone address this question which I have asked more than once here and elsewhere on this Forum?: A hair's microscopy shows that it is outside anything being from a human. The sample has chain of custody. ALL of the DNA from the submitters and anyone else associated with the hair is taken and tested and then filtered out so that what rises to the surface is the real DNA of the hair. It tests 100% Human. Question.......AGAIN........How can that be? How can you believe a single word that comes from her at this stage of the game? Get skeptical! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts