Leaderboard

New people will always keep joining the conversations. It's our duty to keep abreast of the facts and when they ask, give them the information. The Bigfoot world is it's own field. There is no university for it, so everyone is basically home schooled to learn. You have to read up your own, research and read or get out in the field. The only teachers are those that have already done that and share. It's actually a rule to expect people to ask questions and keep answering them no how many times it comes up. It forces us to be a well-informed community. Do opinions sometimes cloud the facts? Sure, but it adds to the critical thinking aspect of it. I bought the paper, read it and thought some of the conclusions could be possible. Of course I didn't understand the data, so I asked questions. And all the answers keep coming back to the same explanation. The data present doesn't equal the conclusions. Could it someday? Possibly, but I didn't pay $30 for possibly. I don't dislike Melba. But I hate a scientific paper that doesn't backup it's claims. Without the data, the paper is a waste of a tree that BF could be peeking behind. RR - The focus is on sample 26, because that is the only sample (that I know of) that has been tested elsewhere, so it has something to compare it to. If she released the data and/or full report that she did and that one of the individual labs did, it could be put to rest. I said the first night the paper was released, I wasn't worried too much about the journal or peer-review, because you can't fake DNA. Now on the flip side, the failure to release anything shows again... you can't fake DNA. What is her delay? The doubt involved only keeps the angst of the community at a heightened state for no reason.

I think I read that she had told you that the sierra sample would give human and known animal results. True or not, this is a logical occurance since all species share sequences that are identical somewhere in the genome, chimps are in the order of 100% identical in 30% of the genome. I have no idea whether one could pick a genome from say a wolf, then ask your software to show you sequences that are identical to a hyena, but it seems likely you would find some. Does that make sense? ETA: If chromosome 11 in sample 26 had for instance two different copies of the same sequence representing both human and bear where there should just be one or the other, then that would be proof the data is bear and human stiched together, but I've not read it intimated in that that way from other analystis. Perhaps I missed it. perhaps the claims of the contigs addressed it, and your PDF visual addresses it , but not well intimated.

Where can I find what exact data she hasn't released? I'm unclear on that due to the flooding of vitriol and hyperbole that has been a part of this thread since she released her data... It's hard to find facts a midst all the emotion.

I think it is indicative of someone who is very suspicious, very secretive and probably has a reason for being such. It's called gamesmanship, and people in Bigfooting that shell out the money for such nonsense are sick and tired of it. Shut it down, shut up or simply put up. Just because he has MM and Bobo fooled doesn't mean others can't see through the commercialism slant.

I think this topic has sufficiently degraded in content. Please continue to use forum chat for the back and forth comments. Should Mr. Dyer ever provide something of substance, we can revisit the topic.

I was referring to Ketchum's prophetic statement made in private to you, of what you would find in the results. I think it is a confusing matter in DNA analysis where you can take segments of sequences and find identical matches to other animals in the same locations. This fact would make it easy to confuse a layman, and it wouldn't necessarily mean you had chimp DNA for instance if humans and chimps were identical at that location while looking at a human genome. Best policy, use a locus known to distinguish species and have large data sets across mammals. I know you feel that was done in your testing, and you may be right about sample 26, but the nuclear genomes does not seem to be appropriate in all places for species ID. Does that make sense?