Guest Tyler H Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 this is the sequence that MK published. I just aligned it to my own MK sequence file, and it is 100%. If all the samples were of similar quality - maybe. The tissue sample was clearly sitting out in the open for some period of time and then presumably contaminated with human at the time of collection. The "bear" may have been somewhat degraded by the time the "human" was introduced. In the generation of the contig, they are looking for regions of homology at the ends, then linking them up. This process is not well described in the paper. The raw data should have more quantitative information on how many reads any particular sequence had, but that data has not been made available. Again all of the regions of homology are small, with no region of more than one sequence read equivalent (ie 50-150bp). I too suspect the error came in on the assembly of the fragments. Yes, this was the same problem with my lab, when they tried to assess the "percentage" of each contributor present - who knows how badly the DNA hadd degraded in either one. You could, for instance. have a large mass of bear tissue, with little viable DNA, and a small amount of conatminant human DNA, but which was very fresh and therefore had similar amounts of DNA present. Not a single thing. I just see these constant attacks by Ketchum's competitors, but no one has had access to the data to try to replicate, or fail at replicating, her results. Until then it's just character assasination, innuendo, and petty sniping. OK, I see now J Sasq... you just haven't been following this topic very closely. I can see having your opinion in that case. But if you look around on this forum, you will find that Bart Cutino and I did extensive testing with some of the samples that were also submitted to Melba. You will also find several credible, credentialed scientists who are open to the existence of this animal, but whom have vetted Melba's data and found it utterly lacking (not just a bit deficient, but truly shoddy.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest J Sasq Doe Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 But, just because YOU don't have proof - that doesn't mean it isn't being talked about. I don't have proof because it is not my allegation. It is your claim, and the responsibility for proof is yours. this paper and its outcome the final straw?? The outcome of this study has not been reached by any stretch of your imagination. The outcome of PGF is still going on. Surely you are not that naive as to think this is over already, before even one acknowledged expert has had a chance to get the data and replicate the results? Maybe it's just wishful thinking on your part? If the faint-hearted are going to wither in their beliefs simply because of an online onslaught by Ketchum's competitors, then that is their choice, and be sure to give them a warm welcome when they get there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) I will tell them you wish them luck J Sasq Doe. I don't have anything to prove - I am simply bringing up what I am hearing from others and posed it as a question for those reading this thread. I can see how that might bother you though. Talk to Melba - it isn't my study that got peoples knickers in a bind. But, instead of getting researchers to sign up for her "protection" club - they are going the other way entirely.. Personally, I think that's too bad. But, everyone is entitled to make up their own mind and after all the laughter being directed toward this community, as of late, I can see how that might happen. Science wants a body... So, more are planning on doing just that - than ever before. That is the reality. Edited February 28, 2013 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BartloJays Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) "Needing a body"...I feel very strongly that this will be the repercussions and residual effect of this manuscript and the new reality.....it won't even be an argument anymore imo I always believed we could do it with DNA but would only get one good shot and if that failed, "the idea" is poisoned (regardless of what the science shows) just like the subject itself because of the perception of improbability without a physical specimen. I am, and have always been "no kill" and I would never have the guts to pull the trigger (thought is sickening to many of us that've seen one), however, my objective isn't to play another 5 yr game of hide and go seek with absent monkeys either or as Kit would say, "play woods and wildmen." (I love that LOL) I selfishly want it ('discovery") and don't care who, how what, where. but I want it for "me" and "you." Might be time to "go big, or go home," but I'm not going home until it's done. Edited February 28, 2013 by BartloJays Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 There are more than you know of Bart - who are saying the exact same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Sadly more and more are thinking that a dead specimen is the only viable solution to solve the answer of what is sasquatch. I know this will sound loony but is it possible that even with a body that DNA technology today can't solve the riddle completely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scout1959 Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 So a report comes out hinting that these creatures may in fact be extremely closely related to us and MORE people want to kill one.... There really is no hope for humanity, you people are pathetic. Poor you all are soooo frustrated about trying to prove that bigfoot is real, so much so that you're willing to kill something that may well be just a stone throw from human... pathetic. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) I'm not sure I follow - what part of Ketchums study says Bigfoot is even close to human? The most definitive results I have seen were the Bear/Smeja sample - and I would not condone taking out Smeja.. Not sure I follow you. Ridgerunner, Theagenes or GenesRus -- is there anything you found that said bigfoot was human or close? It also strikes me - that if you don't want people to take up the "kill" approach - taunting them may be a bad idea. Just a thought. Edited February 28, 2013 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 The bar is set high - that is just the way it is. A body, fully made available to science, will change all of that. What would happen to the body if it had fully "human" mtDNA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 Who are these competitors J sasq doe is talking about? I didn't realize Ketchum was in a competition with some other group or people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted February 28, 2013 SSR Team Share Posted February 28, 2013 There are more than you know of Bart - who are saying the exact same thing. Many, many more.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) "No one else was volunteering to do this?" What do you mean? With very minimal effort, (in my view - I mean, sure, a few hours of phone calls and emails) I have many labs that are willing to do this... and at orders of magnitude lower cost than Melba billed. So who is it that would volunteer to take hundreds of submissions of samples, screen them all morphologicly, extract DNA where possible, and write a paper to be peer reviewed , demonstrating and proving without fail, the source of the samples without charging the submitters? Who were they gonna bill? Edited February 28, 2013 by southernyahoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 (edited) Ah, Melba was paid quite handsomely. She sure didn't do it for free. I don't believe she did it out of the goodness of her heart. Edited February 28, 2013 by squatting squatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 I'm still confused as to why anyone would pay her to ruin everyone's samples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 She did not volunteer, she was paid handsomely. When you agree, contract , to do a job, certain standards must be met in order for the job to be deemed complete. If you hire a plumber to stop a leak under your sink and the leak continues, do you say, well he, she tried? Why did she have an “F†rating with the better business bureau? She took people’s money and did not complete the work!!!!!!! You bring up an interesting point. What were the reasons of why she was singled out to perform such testing? I could choose to pick about a dozen possible and reasonable reasons of why.....but would rather have the correct non speculative answer....with verification (links).? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts