Leaderboard

I find it equally elistist and racist to assume that people who don't agree with Native American folklore as being "factual", are elistist and racist. Once again, a VERY broad brush has been stroked here.

Did you see the national geographic blog and Houston chronicle science blog? They mocked it without reading it. Established scientists don't want to risk their careers. Now that it's published, they don't have a risk. They can run all the tests and say they're going to disprove it. No risk to their careers and if it comes back agreeing with MK's paper, they're surprised.

BUT FBFB said it chapped!!!! Spot on NJ! Given all the facts history and continual lies only one conclusion is possible ......another RD hoax!

Reading this thread makes me see just why there is over 100 billion dollars lost to fraud every year

Yep, if I were a reviewer I wouldn't know where to begin as far as advising her. Her whole premise is flawed because it assumes a priori the existence of BF rather than trying to estabish the existence of BF. Her hypothesis is "Bigfoot is Human" when it should be "an unknown primate lives in North America." Her chain of logic is: 1. These samples came from BF 2. These samples have human DNA 3. Therefore BF is Human The problem is that #1 is never established unless you count a couple of paragraphs summarizing wildman legend, a picture of a footprint and a still pic of the breathing carpet. So the real interpretation should be: 1. These samples have human DNA 2. Therefore these samples came from humans On the three nuDNA genomes from what I'm reading, most of the sequences were consistent with human, some were novel (meaning they just aren't in GenBank), and some didn't amplify. Some of those who have a better knowledge of the technical aspects would be better equiped to elaborate on this, but I believe this would all be consistent with partially degraded human DNA. For what it's worth she says the "steak" was haplogroup H1a. This is a common European type which originated around 13,000 BP in Europe and is common today in those of European descent. It looks like she just looked in the Wikipedia entry for Haplogroup H and copied the references without actually reading the article that is cited. She assumed that this meant that her DNA sample was from a Cro-Magnon from 13,000 BP (hence the Solutrian stuff), but it just means it came from person of European descent. What was Justin's haplogroup---I forget? Sorry guys, but it is what is.

You're looking at the wrong column. Don't look at the #, look at column 5 which is Sample #. You'll find it right there.

The sanest statement yet. "I won't accept bigfoot until you show me physical evidence." "I won't accept physical evidence until you show me the DNA analysis." "I won't accept the DNA analysis until you show me video." "I won't accept video unless it shows the face" "I won't accept video of the face unless I can see the teeth" "I won't accept video of the teeth unless I can see the gums" And so on.....

So if this 'passed peer review' before she bought the rights, but she doesn't know who peer reviewed it, does that mean that NOBODY now knows who peer reviewed it, or even what the peer review process was for the journal in its previous incarnation? That's convenient.

Still looks like good business in the face of institutional obstructionism to me. It advances the ball and it is amusing to me how many people are arraying themselves trying to force a fumble or claim that there was/is a fumble. At the end of the day there will be two arms in the air and a lot of grumbling as the whistle blows. Those claiming there is a hoax now have the study available. You now have hard the hard data you've been demanding all along. Buy it, disect it, and back up your claims with substantive evaluation rather than subjective ad hominum attacks. Ketchum's delivered.

And so the pre-scripted responses are posted well in advance of the release of information. Has anyone considered the fact that you'll be able to respond to the actual data soon and to judge it in advance takes away from your argument? Just consider the fact that you don't know what it is you are talking about yet, huh? Tim B.

FB/FB is a "business" . They are in the business of making every online video they can find into the next best thing since Patterson's film of Bigfoot. If they can make some money along the way stringing people along to watch things like the "tent video" and follow Dyer's sad clap-trap the better for them right? Seems they succeed.... don't get me wrong BF is out there but the number of videos that could possibly be of one are few and far between or not published to date, so they bottom feed on making something like an analysis sound scientific while keeping people entertained. At least that is my take on it and I am a witness. Researcher of the year award to such a comedic Biscardi organizer/organization is tantamount to a business model that is rather transparent I might add.

THREE BIGFOOT GENOMES SEQUENCED IN 5-YEAR DNA STUDY New Research Paper Published Friday Shows Homo Sapiens/Unknown Hominin Hybrid Species Extant in North America DALLAS, February 10th A team of scientists will publish their five-year long study of DNA samples from a novel hominin species, commonly known as “Bigfoot†or “Sasquatch,†on Friday February 15th, 2013. The results suggest that the legendary Sasquatch is extant in North America and is a human relative that arose approximately 13,000 years ago as a hybrid cross of modern Homo sapiens with an novel primate species. The study, “Novel North American Hominins, Next Generation Sequencing of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies,†was conducted by a team of experts in genetics, forensics, imaging and pathology. The team, led by Dr. Melba Ketchum of DNA Diagnostics in Nacogdoches, TX, included Dr. Pat Wojtkiecicz, Director of the North Louisiana Criminalistics Laboratory; Ms. Aliece Watts of Integrated Forensic Laboratories in Euless, TX; Mr. David Spence, Trace Evidence Supervisor at Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences; Dr. Andreas K. Holzenburg, Director of the Microscopy & Imaging Center at Texas A&M University; Dr. Douglas G. Toler of Huguley Pathology Consultants in Fort Worth, TX; Dr. Thomas M. Prychitko of Wayne State University in Michigan; Dr. Fan Zhang of the University of North Texas Health Science Center; and Sarah Bollinger, Ray Shoulders, and Ryan Smith of DNA Diagnostics. In total, 110 specimens of purported Sasquatch hair, blood, skin, and other tissue types were analyzed for the study. Samples were submitted by individuals and groups at 34 different hominin research sites in 14 U.S. states and two Canadian provinces. Ketchum’s team sequenced 20 whole and 10 partial mitochondrial genomes, as well as 3 whole nuclear genomes, from the samples. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) comes from mitochondria, energy-producing organelles in the cellular cytoplasm, and is passed down on the maternal lineage across generations. Nuclear DNA (nuDNA) is the genetic information contained in the cell nucleus and is the equal combination of DNA from the parents of an individual. Initially a skeptic, Ketchum implemented strict protocols to ensure the scientific integrity of the study. DNA samples from submitters and scientists working with study specimens were obtained for use as controls. DNA was extracted from samples using forensic procedures to prevent contamination. Forensics experts examined the morphology of the submitted hair samples against known human and animal samples before beginning DNA testing. “We soon discovered that certain hair samples--which we would later identify as purported Sasquatch samples--had unique morphology distinguishing them from typical human and animal samples,†says Ketchum. “Those hair samples that could not be identified as known animal or human were subsequently screened using DNA testing, beginning with sequencing of mitochondrial DNA followed by sequencing nuclear DNA to determine where these individuals fit in the ‘tree of life.'†After extensive forensic controls to prevent contamination, mtDNA testing of the Sasquatch samples yielded fully modern human profiles. Sixteen haplotypes indicating 100% homology with modern human mtDNA sequences were observed from 20 completed whole and 10 partial mitochondrial genomes. The human mtDNA results are consistent with prior, unrelated mtDNA tests of purported Sasquatch samples from other laboratories. Next-generation whole genome sequencing with the HiSeq 2000 platform by Illumina was performed at the University of Texas, Southwestern on one tissue sample, a saliva sample and one blood sample to produce 3 whole genomes. In contrast to the mtDNA which was unambiguously modern human, the Sasquatch nuDNA results were a mosaic of novel primate and human sequence. “While the three Sasquatch nuclear genomes aligned well with one another and showed significant homology to human chromosome 11 which is highly conserved in primates, the Sasquatch genomes were novel and fell well outside of known ancient hominin as well as ape sequences,†explains Ketchum. “Because some of the mtDNA haplogroups found in our Sasquatch samples originated as late as 13,000 years ago, we are hypothesizing that the Sasquatch are human hybrids, the result of males of an unknown hominin species crossing with female Homo sapiens.†Hominins are members of the taxonomic grouping Hominini, which includes all members of the genus Homo. “Novel North American Hominins, Next Generation Sequencing of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies.†Authors: Ketchum MS, Wojtkiewicz PW, Watts AB, Spence DW, Holzenburg AK, Toler DG, Prychitko TM, Zhang F, Bollinger S, Shoulders R, Smith R Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Exploration in Zoology. 11 January 2013. Specimens yielding DNA were obtained, purportedly from elusive hominins in North America called Sasquatch. Sequencing and genotyping were performed in addition to histopathologic and electron microscopic examination of a large tissue sample

I just gotta say that this thread has GOT to be some sort of psychological experiment or some new fangled cyber candid camera. I don't buy this for one second. As has been said, it's Dyer folks.....Rick Dyer....that should have put everyone's questions to rest. I'm all about converting skeptics and furthering BF Phenom Education, but wow...just.....wow. Nothing in this story makes sense.