Guest DWA Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Well this entire topic becomes utterly moot unless one or more of the samples are actual intact sasquatch specimens. DNA is the signature of a species identified by a type specimen - which ain't a steak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) How can you reveal the "personal identity" of a sasquatch when no one can even get a clear picture? Edited March 20, 2013 by Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Some of us who have used phony ID may have at least one answer to that question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Well, I suppose she needs this land bridge for her theory to be legit - so maybe if she leaves it in - it will be? The land bridge doesn't help her theory because it raises the question of "What were a bunch of Europeans and Africans doing in Vladivostok?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 @RR is there any data that would indentify a specific person? Ok, I have been thinking on this for a good part of the day. A name identifies a specific person (to a degree). A SSN identifies a specific person. A photograph identifies a specific person. A license plate number identifies a specific person's vehicle. Does ones DNA sequence identify a person? I would say today, it does not identify the average person. If you have a criminal record with a DNA sequence or profile on file, this could potentially identify you. But for most, our DNA sequences are not on record. So does having some random persons DNA on GenBan identify them? No. Does a random fingerprint identify someone? In general no, unless there is a record of there fingerprint out there. So my take on this is that DNA sequence only identifies someone if there is record of it, and can clearly be demonstrated to have come from them. With these suspected Bigfoot samples, not one of the samples can be attributed to an exact individual. Not sample 26, not 31, not 140. And none of the mitochondrial DNA samples either can be attributed to any known BF or human. MK states that all submitters and people handeling the samples have been ruled out from being the source of the human sequences. So, base on the above argument, I don't have any qualms about effectively publishing any random sequence I decide to determine from a sample found on the ground or in a tree in the forest. If I don't know the source I can not identify them. Now, I know this may not follow the letter of GenBanks rule. But MK could simply put a link to any sequence she would like to make publicly available OUTSIDE of a GenBank submission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 the Ketchum Report = 809 pages. What did I learn in this thread? ... Don't hire Melba. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Treadstone said: Question (if you know). Do you know if those who paid 30 bucks for the first paper will have access to the updated paper free of any additional charges? I know this is not your issue Treadstone, but I am just curious if you know the answer to this. Thanks. I'm not privy to any new/old information. My suggestion is to ask her, or her spoke person directly via her Facebook page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) Oonjerah: Don't hire Melba? Well why not? To hear tell you get to go out and do lots of habituating with the Forest People while waiting for your odd results to come in. Edited March 20, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 ^ Hi Slappy, I'm not sure there are 'so many here' that your comment applies to. Maybe a handful, but heck, that doesn't really constitue 'so many' does it? I've long ago stopped supporting the kind Doctor, until more suitable responses and data can be provided. by "so many" i don't mean a majority of this forum, but a number that is surprisingly large given the preponderance of opinions that ms. ketchum's conclusion does not follow from her evidence it's the same sort of deference given to photos, videos, and other "evidence" presented by sources that have proven (at best) dubious in the past. to be sensible we have to assume this "evidence" proves nothing unless is is utterly sound, a claim that is wholly unsupported by what has been presented. i'm waiting and hoping that someone somewhere documents something bulletproof about the existence of bigfoot, but so far there is simply nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Would you do it if the nuDNA and it's connection to the mitochondria had not been independently verified? Or if the people verifying it, wouldn't stand behind their work? No, I would not upload any sequences that had not been verified, especially if those who did would not stand behind their work. But then I also would not have written and published a paper with this scenario either. I am going to speculate here for a moment, and let me know if you think I am totally off base. Could MK be reluctant to make any more data available because she is currently uncertain of its validity and/or wants her own chosen experts to give her the thumbs up before putting more possibly erroneous data out there? I know we can not answer this because we are not Dr. Ketchum. Her stance seems so adamant that I have problems thinking that she might truly be open to reinterpreting her data. Maybe her cautiousness in releasing more data was the point you are making. Correct me if I am mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Ridgerunner - To my mind Genbank consent is a non-issue as far as any bigfoot samples are concerned. Unless the source was HSS, with a known DNA profile, AND could prove that their sample was knowingly submitted from material that was taken without their consent from an area where there was an expectation of privacy it's a moot point. The only time I could envision a successful legal action would be in patents related to HSS material which isn't likely in the context of this study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 the Ketchum Report = 809 pages. What did I learn in this thread? ... Don't hire Melba. Lol. Good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 SY - Which on an unknown, non-HSS sample, which was unwitnessed during the sampling would include no "data" that could possibly infringe on consent or individual identity...so again, I'm not sure MK's logic or yours is quite where it needs to be on this issue. Unless MK is sure the samples are completely HSS? She is absolutely sure that the mtDNA genomes are 100% HSS. So if you find a human hair out in the woods and sequence it's entire mitochondria, Identity markers and all, can you upload it to GenBank? Yes or No? It's that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 No, I would not upload any sequences that had not been verified, especially if those who did would not stand behind their work. But then I also would not have written and published a paper with this scenario either. I am going to speculate here for a moment, and let me know if you think I am totally off base. Could MK be reluctant to make any more data available because she is currently uncertain of its validity and/or wants her own chosen experts to give her the thumbs up before putting more possibly erroneous data out there? I know we can not answer this because we are not Dr. Ketchum. Her stance seems so adamant that I have problems thinking that she might truly be open to reinterpreting her data. Maybe her cautiousness in releasing more data was the point you are making. Correct me if I am mistaken. It would be my precaution to have other scientists verify my results and get written statements from them, then I'd upload the sequences that can be tied to the Novel Y chromosome and demonstratiing it's non-human side which would justify classification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 But you would do that prior to publishing a paper saying those sequences proved them to be something if you were so unsure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts