Leaderboard

It is my understanding Justin did not actually send the sample to Ketchum. Justin said he was away hunting at the time of the mailing, that it was Justin's wife that actually selected the sample from the freezer and mailed it to Ketchum. Did your vetting of the samples confirm this?

Wha? Guilty until proven innocent - that makes a lot of sense. Might as well put Kitakaze on the list too for making all of his claims...until we get 100% confirmation.....From conclusive evidence, Not personal belief.. Let's not be biased now. Green: "I did not start collecting Sasquatch information until 1957. Prior to that all I did was include a made-up Sasquatch story in a 1955 April Fool edition of my paper." So now a simple April Fool's joke makes one a hoaxer, huh? Man you guys are really stretching.

Well... that was certainly something. Unbreakable, unburnable native made rope that happens to electroconductive, all the while under a paramilitary contract... I can't believe I'm saying this, but our hope may indeed lie with Rick Dyer.

There are plenty of opportunities for bias in the scientific method. There have been repeated examples of editorial bias. The reviewers are also human with bias in each of them. That said, the reviewers should be reviewing the material submitted, and place no bearing on the source of the submission (hence blind). Their main goal is to evaluate if the science is solid, based on methods that have been utilized correctly. Who submits the article should not be at issue. The editor selects reviewers who have the qualifications and knowledge to evaluate if the science is solid and the conclusions reached are based on the proper statistical rejection of the null hypothesis. Proper utilization of the scientific method never 'proves' something is true .... it establishes that it is statistically unlikely that the conclusions reached are false. They could still be false, but statistically unlikely. As for the results never being published, that is up to Dr. Ketchum. Even if a journal rejects a submission, the author has the option to submit to another journal, or self-publish and let the world review. By going through the long process of scientific review, it would add significant 'weight' to the findings and credibility to the results. I think that she was correct in pursuing this option, as slow as it is.

Actually that is where the real power of the platform stands out. It gives you the ability to find a multitude of needles in the haystack, characterize them and identify them (if they are identical to or related to known entities). The software will allow the researcher to organize the information so that it is possible to determine the significance of the data. Basically, you would look at the number of times a particular sequence (or group of related sequences) occurred relative to all other sequence groups in the mix. So, with this sample, if nucleic acids from 3 mammals were present, you should be able to put them in order as to their level of contribution. You would also most likely see sequences related to bacteria, fungi, and viruses, as well. It's really the computing system that multiplies the synergy between nucleic acid amplification and DNA sequencing to organize the massive volume of information. You couldn't get through much of it performing manual analysis and organization of the data. This technology can be used to breakdown and thoroughly assess a very complex sample. For example, a study involving sewage samples would allow for the development of a genetic profile of the community, what it was consuming (plants and animals), and what was plaguing it (parasites, bacteria, viruses). That's basically what Derekfoot has said - I've just elaborated a little.

One big divide is kill/no kill.

Dyer is a known hoaxer, a racist and a sociopath, and much like those who forgave Biscardi after numerous proven hoaxes, there will be those that defend him out of a hope to prove the exsistance of bigfoot, over common sense. This is not to say that I don't believe that bigfoot might exsist, what I am saying is that giving Dyer any second chance, exemptions from his past or even a grain of confidence, will give him (or Biscardi) the motivation to continue. Dishonesty is a characteristic and a personality trait (in my opinion), you cannot turn it on and off and while one may not always tell lies, fabrictions or stretch the truth, the foundation for that particular character trait is always there. You don't see Matt Whitton defending his friend Ricky, quite the opposite. http://www.thecryptocrew.com/2011/12/matt-whitton-of-georgia-hoax-talks.html http://www.thecryptocrew.com/2012/05/rick-dyer-releases-photos-of-bigfoot.html All you have to do is visit Dyers website to see a sociopaths thought process in action, after all why be defensive while telling a lie, when it is much easier to muddy the waters surrounding a lie by going on the offensive. Classic sociopath behavior. http://bigfootevidence101.blogspot.com/ And just to drive the point home as to what sort of "man" dyer is. http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2011/12/what-is-rick-dyers-mugshot-doing-on.html http://www.bigfootlunchclub.com/2011/01/bigfoot-hoaxer-rick-dyer-arrested-for.html And my favorite http://squatchdetective.wordpress.com/2012/12/26/since-everyone-is-pointing-out-an-old-arrest-of-dyer-let-me-point-out-something-rather-new/ If he were on fire, I personally, consider my urine to be of far more worth than him, and would not see it wasted by putting out that particular fire. GoLd