The Ketchum Report (Continued)

[Guest]

The posts to this thread have really slowed down. Whenever I pop in to check, the Dyer Again thread is always before this one. That kinda prove my point that I stated a few days ago that this was make or break week?! Mr Noel?

Couple more days and this will be old news that barely got a whisper of media coverage. C2C and some web sites. Not exactly the earth shattering, news alert that breaks in with live tv coverage she promised. Tick tick tick people. Release the vids and data! The community is moving on to Dyer and also Sykes. Your moment in the sun is about over.

[Guest]

If she releases the study "in sequence" as chapters or parts, was it apparent in the manner in which her publication is titled or subtitled?Having not read the paper, I'm asking. From what I've seen it is not Roman Numeraled as if it is a piece-meal paper.That said, you can read back to page 175 of the original thread and see where I predicted the effort could very well lead to multiple sequenced 'studies'. (p. number approximate lol). It would make sense if she has all the wonderful and beautiful, never seen before data that is described so glowingly.If the big dogs show up to the table, I hope it is soon and declarative in some sense, to get people off the sidelines.

from Ketchum et al

"Additional studies in the future will expand to the analysis of the entire genomes from samples 26, 31 and 140."

"Further studies with additional phylogenetic tree analysis will further elaborate the relationship between Sasquatch and other primate lineages."

I like your "dog" analogy, though I think if collaboration is to happen, she will have to give up being the alpha dog (senior author) after this way this paper was written and handled. I have no idea if MK would be one to do this

Edited February 21, 2013 by ridgerunner

[Guest]

from Ketchum et al

"For each sample, the subsets of genes were concatenated to produce a long, single sequence used to generate a supertree. The length of the concatenated sequences was 656,048 (26), 541,435 (140), and 74,589 (31). These concatemers (supercontigs) were used to find sequence homologs and generate phylogenetic trees. The genes represented in the selective supercontig were DLG2, NTM, ODZ4, FAT3, CADM1, SOX6, DSCAML1, NCAM1, GRM5, MPPED2, PKNOX2, KIAA0999, ZBTB16, and SHANK2. The lengths of the selective supercontigs were 293,249 (26), 235,738 (140), and 39,582 (31). The size-filtering generated supercontigs that only included genomic regions with long sequences, and created phylogenetic trees similar for all three samples, where the average branch length to Primates is 0.02 for all three samples. The Sasquatch consensus-selective supercontigs were used to create a set of phylogeny trees utilizing BLAST pairwise alignments (Supplementary Figures 4-6)."

Question: if they had 30x coverage of the genome for each of these samples, why are the contigs so different in size? This would suggest they are not the same species. Does any recall if MK states WHICH of the samples she is identifying as BF, or does she claim all 111 were? I may have missed it somewhere.

[Cotter]

^Who's on first?

Yikes....that was hard to just read, much less understand.

[Guest]

I think it is safe to un-buckle those seat belts. No mention of Ketchum et al in this weeks copy of Nature or Science, and no PubMed citation yet.

[Guest]

She has lost support from most of the die hards here, no hope in the outside world.

[Cotter]

^ I know, even the skeptics have lost interest in pointing out the flags.

Not sure if even Lasse Viren could come back from this.

Yikes.

[Northern Lights]

I was clicking on random BF YouTube videos today and came across something I found very interesting. It was an old interview Dr. Meldrum did promoting his new (at the time) book Legend Meets Science on C2C. I knew it was old because they said Borat was the number one movie in the theaters that week.

What I found interesting was the backlash he encountered by bringing out the book within the community and his own university and how much he had to defend what he was doing. Another thing he said (and I"m paraphrasing) that really struck me was the peer review process is not critically important. He said it's good to have things run through that process, but it shouldn't be held as the only measure of importance for the work being done.

So, it appeared that Dr. Meldrum held the opinion at least at some point in his career that peer reviewing had limitations. Well, I thought it was interesting.

[Guest]

not all have abandoned her, and I don't think we would be getting real numbers on those voices yet as the skeptic, dissapointment roar so loud..,but it will die down and eventually we will get some "official' review or replication....so

: http://bf-field-jour...chum-has-3.html

for those that know BFs are real and also trust many of the submissions we expect there to be DNA of BFs in this mix of data MK has produced and the idea those three genomes are enough to catapult this into recognition still remains a hope for many, and I don't know that isn't justified, seems we can hang on a few more...days, weeks? Or until Sykes I guess. Or someone.

.

Edited February 21, 2013 by apehuman

[Cotter]

^ Ape, good link. It gives me a smidgeon more hope.

AND, if DMK is experiencing what she says.....it does make sense.

Thanks again.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Not only unbuckle the seat belts but disembark the plane altogether. Stick a fork in it it's done!

[Guest]

I think it is safe to un-buckle those seat belts.

If GenesRus and Theagenes come in here now and say - what you just said ridgerunner -- I think I am going to be sick.. Is there nothing that can be salvaged - at all?

[Guest Scout1959]

not all have abandoned her, and I don't think we would be getting real numbers on those voices yet as the skeptic, dissapointment roar so loud..,but it will die down and eventually we will get some "official' review or replication....so

: http://bf-field-jour...chum-has-3.html

for those that know BFs are real and also trust many of the submissions we expect there to be DNA of BFs in this mix of data MK has produced and the idea those three genomes are enough to catapult this into recognition still remains a hope for many, and I don't know that isn't justified, seems we can hang on a few more...days, weeks? Or until Sykes I guess. Or someone.

.

And just in what way do they think finding out that BF is really out there would void Darwinism?? If anything it validates it...

For crying out loud!

[Guest]

If GenesRus and Theagenes come in here now and say - what you just said ridgerunner -- I think I am going to be sick.. Is there nothing that can be salvaged - at all?

There may very well be something to salvage - I actually think there is likely BF nuDNA sequence in there somewhere. And I don't have much problem with the mtDNA or or hair analysis. I believe there has been a problem with the processing of the raw data. I think the eureka moment for science is yet to come... but the immediate roller coaster ride is over, imo. We are into round two (or three or four, depending on how you want to think). Please don't be sick... Personally, I am past the disbelief, anger, sorrow, and now acceptance of what it is.

[Guest]

Apehuman, there is another posting on that blog where Melba answers a few questions, she even sent him the correspondences with Genbank.

http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/2013/02/bigfoot-dna-study-update-dr-ketchum.html#more