Erickson Project

[Guest]

nona said:

Anyway, what did he spend 2.5-3.0 million on? Did he put that money towards building Dr. Ketchum a new DNA diagnostics lab from the ground up. I thought she already had a lab before this all started. If you have high school students doing DNA projects that are worthy of being published in journals how much do you think one would really need to spend?

He bought the Kentucky place and paid for Dennis Pfohl and Dr Leila Hadj-Chikh to work/ live there for 5 (?) years.

Anyone know if anyone is living at the farm now?

sufferin suckertash..must have been a page behind, sorry

Edited July 26, 2011 by megatarsal

[Guest Stubstad]

OK, everyone, calm down!

True, I am really not sure whether or not Ketchum will be successful. I do believe in her data, but on the other hand I haven't seen any data since about 9 months ago. Thus almost everything I have reported re. data analysis is from my own analysis, not Dr. K's. Several have remarked too that I only have a small "snippet" of data, which is true. On the other hand, all of my conclusions are based on these data, not someone else's interpretation. I sincerely doubt that my interpretation is incorrect--as far as it goes, which is only the mito data from (in fact) 3 complete mito sequences, only two of which I have reported on for various reasons.

Re. Erickson: Sorry, I simply can't say any more about his work. What I can say is that more than one habituation site is involved, and more DNA samples than from a single site. I do believe he has spent around 3.0 m $ of his own money, but I'm not his book-keeper, so this may be correct or not. In any event, it is a WHOLE lot of money with little if any chance of even a partial recovery. Suffice it to say that this is NOT about the money from Adrian's (or my) point of view.

About holding your breath--I probably am unsure how long we can hold our collective breaths. Dr. K may surprise me (and in fact I hope she does) and achieve some level of peer review so her findings CAN be released. The question is: will the data be included? If the data are not included, I can personally guarantee that her work will not receive scientifically credible peer review and will lead to more controversy than already exists. That is why I can say "hold your breath" because I think everyone--even Dr. K--realizes that these findings are SO important that a repeat of the "experiment" with new data, by a different group of scientists, will be absolutely necessary to achieve international recognition of an extant species or subspecies called the "sasquai" in plural. And this assumes that Dr. K reaches the conclusion I believe she will--that these creatures, in one or several "forms" or haplotypes, actually exist. I'm pretty sure they do, based on only two complete mitochondrial sequences, but I am NOT 100% sure. I certainly do not know anything about their etiology as a whole--only a bit about their maternal lineage(s).

Richard Stubstad

[Guest]

Richard- What do you mean when you say "If the data isn't included"? Are you talking about the statistical analysis that you did or something similar?

[bipedalist]

I certainly do not know anything about their etiology as a whole--only a bit about their maternal lineage(s).

Thanks for the further update Richard. I don't understand your reference to etiology above ..... in what reference are you using the term?

I read the word etiology as meaning "the cause". Do you mean genotype or phenotype?

[Guest believer]

Got the latest National Geographic today.

Page 120 article. "Part Ape Part Human."

Thought for a second that a information release got past us.

Can I post the picture from the magazine anyone? Any legal issues?

[Guest]

You can link to the article and pic but I don't think you should post the pic here.

[Guest]

Richard- I have a lot of questions that I never got around to asking before you left the last time. One of them I wanted to know was what program did you use to do your statistical analysis? I remember you said something about an excel spread sheet but that's all I remember you saying about it.

[Guest believer]

Thanks Jodie

Just trying to keep our folks informed:)

[southernyahoo]

Richard- What do you mean when you say "If the data isn't included"? Are you talking about the statistical analysis that you did or something similar?

I would hazard a guess he means the sequencing data, so that independent analysis could be done. Though I think repeatable results from independent labs will be included in the paper from what Ketchum has stated.

[Guest nona]

That appears to be so, and my bad, stubstad did mention the 3 mil. I take it you haven't been following these projects and DNA stuff very long.

I've followed it a little bit. I read the earlier thread about Stubsad's finds. It didn't jive with me much. Other than that and my discussion with you I don't know much about the details. I pop in on the threads every once in a while. Seems like there is a bunch of rumors going on though, so it's hard to keep things straight.

[Guest COGrizzly]

Tried to find an "Emoticon" to emphasize my dis pleasure....did not happen.

Almost as disappointing as "Antelope Island" in Salt Lake City Utah...

[Guest Stubstad]

By "data" I mean the actual sequencing data (eg. 15,569 pairs of data for the mito), not only the conclusions or interpretations. Sometimes such data are revealed in terms of "polymorphisms" compared to the CRS (Cambridge Reference Sequence). This works as well.

I used EXCEL for my data analyses, since only the mito data were analyzed, plus a single gene on the nuclear side (also "interesting" but not reported). EXCEL has much better statistical capabilities than ACCESS, although it may be necessary to use ACCESS due to the sheer size of the database for a single sample on the nuclear side.

Also, I did not report the actual data or polymorphic sites. I'll leave that to Dr. K, who by now has a whole lot of additional data. The data I reported on merely got "us" started & perked our interest due to the unlikely event of two mistakes or misif=dentifications in a row based on Samples 1 and 2--both from the same mitochondrial Eve (or close relative thereof) back around 15,000 years ago. The literature (not me only) supports this conclusion very, very strongly. But none of you can check it out for yourselves, since Dr. K has not released the actual data yet.

By "etiology" I mean both the male and female lineage source(s) of the creature called sasquatch (assuming it exists). While based on the data I have reviewed and analyzed, the female side is Homo sapiens sapiens in 3 out of 3 cases, on the male side I don't know at all. Therefore, the male side could come from another hominid source (eg. Denisovan) or from another stone-age or earlier Homo sapiens sapiens. The former would be called a hybrid while the latter could be called a feral human or even a "cave man".

Finally, 3 out of 3 does not mean that the 4th, 5th and 6th mito sequence will also be 100% human. In fact, there is a reasonable albeit relatively small chance that a few of these creatures could have an etiology on the female side that is not human (but rather another, more ancient hominid).

I just don't know for sure, and therefore I will not venture a guess based on only three mito sequences.

Richard Stubstad

[Guest]

Well how did your lab work turn out? Are you still in remission? I hope everything is still good in that respect.

I guess by now you must have read the allegations on the Squatchdetective blogsite. Do you mind commenting on your past and supposed current association with Tom Biscardi or how you are connected to Lindsay? I would love to hear both sides and now is as good a time as any to set the record straight from your perspective. I think we would all be interested in what you have to say about it.

[Guest]

I guess silence is golden? http://www.wavlist.com/soundfx/014/cricket-2.wav

[Guest HairyGreek]

I guess silence is golden? http://www.wavlist.com/soundfx/014/cricket-2.wav

Jodie with the zinger!