Guest Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 SY, but again she said of the 111 tested ALL came back positive for human cytochrome b. I get it that there was screening for known species prior to extracting DNA, and some were not included because they lacked a root, but still, for 100% positive rate on those tested strikes me as odd. Statistically, this is rather unlikely. And sequences matching GenBank - was this 100% matching or 99% matching. For something reported to be closely enough to humans to merit the name Homo sapiens cognatus, I would anticipate the mtDNA to be quite close. MK says no "significant deviation" - but what does that mean to MK? Again, without sequence, and lack of a quantitative rather than qualitative statements, I don't know what to make of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 PERFECT "Southernyahoo". Great dismissal. Well done! Please PM with then with any crow recipes. I've never had any crow, whereas I MUST assume you have? If not, my apologies, coupled with a question. Why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 I bet Melba's data could fit on the tag. The other side would have the garment care: wash in murky water, dry with plenty of hot air. Wait a minute - I just got a message.. Bigfoot prefers dry clean only!! That's some pretty shocking stuff right there. Especially this quote: "The most telling of all the things she told me was that Bigfoot had been psychically communicating with others, and that they (Bigfoot) had chosen her to do this study and prove their existence to the world so that she could lead the campaign in protecting them." Well, I found this comment similar to something said by someone else before..... The most telling of all the things she told me was that Bigfoot had been psychically communicating with others, and that they (Bigfoot) had chosen her to do this study and prove their existence to the world so that she could lead the campaign in protecting them. Bolding mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 (burp!) @ no one in particular, but for sure not at the consumption of crow. Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 SY, but again she said of the 111 tested ALL came back positive for human cytochrome b. I get it that there was screening for known species prior to extracting DNA, and some were not included because they lacked a root, but still, for 100% positive rate on those tested strikes me as odd. Statistically, this is rather unlikely. And sequences matching GenBank - was this 100% matching or 99% matching. For something reported to be closely enough to humans to merit the name Homo sapiens cognatus, I would anticipate the mtDNA to be quite close. MK says no "significant deviation" - but what does that mean to MK? Again, without sequence, and lack of a quantitative rather than qualitative statements, I don't know what to make of it. I use to think some of the BF results were giving false positives for human on less than adequate tests. Most tests were likely mtDNA tests, and since it doesn't recombine and there is whole mito analysis , atleast by Ketchum, I think the previous efforts were likely accurate. I'd love to be wrong and even try again. I don't think any human sample would test at a 100% match in genbank, we would be dealing with a range of human variation and looking for something matching below 99%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 (edited) I had never read the OTL,S blog, but I'm impressed. Some pretty damning investigative work. Or, biased/baseless anti-Ketchum propaganda, as the Ketchum Kampers would put it. I wish somebody could find out how much they have made off of the paper, and the number of daily sales. At what point does the financier(s) go after her? I still think a possible defense could be that it is a published novel, and the science is part of the appeal.(The money given to her could simply just be scientific R&D for her study-story) I guess the 'novel' DNA could be a literal translation. The NephiLemur is one heck of an antagonist! I still can't get the Blair Witch thing out of my head. Before the movie was released, they fed in all of the false back-stories/newspaper clippings/characters/etc so that people could verify things after the movie was released, to add to the veracity of the story. There was only a small window of time to capitalize on the hype before it was all exposed.(Reasonable people already knew it was just a movie, of course) Technically, it was the biggest, and most profitable Bigfoot hoax of all-time. At this point it is pretty clear that she doesn't have anything credible, but she keeps dragging it on for a reason. She does the fringe circuit to generate interest and hype for sales. It's tantamount to doing a book tour. Edited March 18, 2013 by PacNWSquatcher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ksu4 Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Performance art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david75090 Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 (burp!) @ no one in particular, but for sure not at the consumption of crow. Carry on. I think proponents will eat crow when the existence of bigfoot is disproved. I don't think bigfoot's existence has been disproved, yet. Thus, no crow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Ah yes. And since one cannot prove a negative, proponents are always safe. One way street! Sweet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 One can prove false positives. And bigfoot skeptics are decades behind the curve on that. It does one's intellectual standing no good to toss brickbats that add nothing to the discussion. But this has been a bigfoot-skeptic specialty for a long time now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 (edited) I still can't get the Blair Witch thing out of my head. Before the movie was released, they fed in all of the false back-stories/newspaper clippings/characters/etc so that people could verify things after the movie was released, to add to the veracity of the story. There was only a small window of time to capitalize on the hype before it was all exposed.(Reasonable people already knew it was just a movie, of course) Technically, it was the biggest, and most profitable Bigfoot hoax of all-time. At this point it is pretty clear that she doesn't have anything credible, but she keeps dragging it on for a reason. She does the fringe circuit to generate interest and hype for sales. It's tantamount to doing a book tour. I was thinking the same thing, except that viral marketing campaigns are much better executed and seem more realistic. A professional marketing campaign would never have created De Novo using geocities or tripod or whatever service MK used, for instance. They also would have published other papers on more conventional topics and/or created fake back issues to add to the journal's credibility. This, on the other hand, reeks of amateurism and making-it-up-as-she-goes-alongness. Edited March 18, 2013 by leisureclass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 (edited) So, the question in my mind is this.. I am going to pray this does not violate any rules of the forum.. But, here goes. What is the end game? I honestly don't think this is all about a clothing line.. But, if the paper is as bad, as those in-the-know say it is, why would she have even published it? That seems strange to me. Grammar aside, what could she stand to gain by publishing a paper even those close to her say only 1% of the data is represented? Does she have the option to add material to the paper? Does she publish a new paper with the rest of the data? I am trying to figure out what the end game is - I hope it's not about cool t-shirts and accessories.. Edited March 18, 2013 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 ^ I think in her mind the end game was the glory and fame of having made the discovery of the century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Or,, the perception of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts