Guest thermalman Posted April 19, 2013 Posted April 19, 2013 (edited) What is going to be accomplished then if you're arguing about nothing? Edited April 19, 2013 by thermalman
Guest Posted April 19, 2013 Posted April 19, 2013 That's the point. Her paper hasn't proven anything. The paper's not what is being discussed here lately. It's yours and others insistence that her paper has proven something and that's incumbent upon skeptics to prove the paper wrong. The paper doesn't prove anything. It has not set anything up to be dismantled. You know how parents wink knowingly at each other on Christmas morning when their young children thank Santa for bringing them presents? Thermalman? You're being winked over.
Guest thermalman Posted April 19, 2013 Posted April 19, 2013 If her paper hasn't proven anything, why are you all still here kicking tires?
Guest Posted April 19, 2013 Posted April 19, 2013 It's still he said .... She said ...... He said .... She said.... You know the story, just that same ole Friday end of the week stuff... Go back many pages and I think you will find a post that MK has given some Expert, the data to test and should take about 6 months. That's as I recall ...... I figured then it would be about August .... If this is not correct, then post what is correct... Mean while Sykes is still silent..... And he has roughly the same type evidence Melba has ... Explain that ..... It just Takes time Mean while the news about minnow / Dyer and the dead "Hank" are ramping up .... So maybe it is all mute ... The sad thing is i know there is a Sasquatch and the Scientific community STILL can't prove it..All they can do is Just be Skeptical ..... And beat on Melba.....
Guest Posted April 19, 2013 Posted April 19, 2013 (edited) SC, I guess to attempt to reproduce MKs conclusions could take a while. But to show MKs conclusions are incorrect - not so long. Blasting the three contigs against the GenBank data base - about 15 min with another 5 min to realize they appear to not be related to much in the data base. Comparing the three contigs against each other, about another 15 min to realize they are all very different and show little relationship to each other. Pulling up the size of human CH11 and realizing the contigs are 0.5-2% of the size, about 5 min. So within an hour, one who understands genetics can be certain that the data MK presents does not represent a new species that could hybridize with humans or should be called a Homo sapiens subspecies. It took a little more effort to determine that she was actually presenting amalgams of primarily two species (bear and human for sample 26, canine and human for sample 140, with a sprinkling of bacterial/protozoa). 31 is mostly human sequences with no obvious deviation from modern Hss. For the most part single reads were being joined together with most (98-99%) of the intervening sequence not being represented. When you take small 100bp chunks that are homologous and blast them individually, you start to make sense of what is there. Why would anyone spend months reproducing MKs conclusions that are so clearly incorrect? Is there anything in the raw data?? Maybe, but nothing MK has shown us. Her data most definitely does not validate her conclusions. You can wait for this independent analysis if you like. If they come back with the same stuff MK has shown us, I will re-evaluate it and dismiss it as quickly as MKs analysis because it is wrong. If they come up with some alternative analysis that either agrees or disagrees with MKs conclusions I will look at their results and evaluate them. If it makes scientific sense, I will give THE INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS credit. So with respect to MKs nuDNA conclusions, I am not sceptical at all. I dismiss it fully. With respect to her mtDNA results, I am sceptical. With respect to BF and the possibility of it being highly related to humans (and possibly able to hybridize with modern Hss), I remain open minded. This point just has not been proven. Edited April 19, 2013 by ridgerunner
Guest Posted April 19, 2013 Posted April 19, 2013 T-Man The above is called attacking the data and not the person.
Guest thermalman Posted April 20, 2013 Posted April 20, 2013 T-Man The above is called attacking the data and not the person. But, if there's nothing to attack? Why hang around?
Guest Posted April 20, 2013 Posted April 20, 2013 Thanks RR Love your presentations and talking points.... Simply hate to read the long drawnout "proper paragraph" type responses with an agenda. But after reading all of the responses Of "experts" for sequencing the human genome against the MK data, I can not believe that hundreds (if not 1000s ) of samples from hundreds of different submitters have been done by all of the so called experts and the result has always come back basically saying there is no Bigfoot........ I know in my mind that that is basically an Untruth. I know also ALL of the submitters can not be wrong. Therefore to my way of thinking there needs to be some deep insight into changing the ways we are testing DNA.. To heck with MK.. What about the "facts as I know them" Sasquuatch is real... Currently Melba is agreeing with ME and hundreds of others, so why not give her a chance... To a point you have given her an honest chance, using the current methodology for testing... but when that methodology does not produce results that i know are true... then i want some one to update the testing process. Eventually, maybe with a body, the standard way of testing will be "updated". Facts ( a body) will do that.. Then the Academic Sasquatch community will not be able to po pooh the truth with their Agenda... The human genome contains billions of information facts.... How does Any expert know the sequence being used is the proper sequence? Something is being done wrong, maybe you ( the scientific academic community) are "testing" by the standards of the current scientific academic community, from a computer generated program and that program at this time is considered the correct way... But Melba be darned ... Something needs to be changed.... In my younger days I would have welcomed this challenge ..... Therefore my auestion is "where is the "interest" of the Academics ( Meldrum is already there) And the young Scientific community, in postulating changes. IMHO they are cowering to the Tenured Academics community and afraid to change the Agenda. As I understand, Melba's results need to be and ARE being attempted to be reproduced.... God save the Queen if they are not.. I will bite the bullet with knowledge that my knowledge is correct and like Richard Substad will die with it. The remainder of this thread should be in "reproducing" Melba's results... That is my only current interest in this thread. Using current techniques just won't work... BTW ...Biped if the method of attacking the date is not proper .... What use is it?
dmaker Posted April 20, 2013 Posted April 20, 2013 SC, not sure if i am catching your drift accurately, so pardon me if my comments are off base. Are you suggesting that since Melba believes in Bigfoot, and you believe in Bigfoot, then her conclusion must be right? Bigfoot may very well be real ( I don't believe so, but we'll allow for the possibility of course), but that does mean that she has proven that as a fact with this paper. And I do believe that she has already been "given a chance" as you put it, and failed. Sorry, but that does seem to be the general consensus so far. Are you further suggesting that current dna testing results are flawed because they are not proving Bigfoot to be real? And again since you KNOW BF is real, then it must be the testing methods that are wrong?
Guest Posted April 20, 2013 Posted April 20, 2013 (edited) Simply hate to read the long drawnout "proper paragraph" type responses with an agenda. How can you call RidgeRunner's SCIENTIFIC analysis of MK's DATA an agenda? A clear attempt at labeling his analysis as bias because you disagree with him. But after reading all of the responses Of "experts" for sequencing the human genome against the MK data, I can not believe that hundreds (if not 1000s ) of samples from hundreds of different submitters have been done by all of the so called experts and the result has always come back basically saying there is no Bigfoot........ I know in my mind that that is basically an Untruth. I know also ALL of the submitters can not be wrong. Therefore to my way of thinking there needs to be some deep insight into changing the ways we are testing DNA.. To heck with MK.. What about the "facts as I know them" Sasquuatch is real... You do realize that what is in your mind nor what you believe has anything to do with science right? You are taking a faith based approach to science which has no merit or place in the process. With all due respect, it does not matter what you think or believe. It is what you can prove with science. Currently Melba is agreeing with ME and hundreds of others, so why not give her a chance... To a point you have given her an honest chance, using the current methodology for testing... but when that methodology does not produce results that i know are true... then i want some one to update the testing process. Another example of your faith based approach to the science. You are attaching her study to the requirement that it has to be true since Bigfoot is real. That is simply a false association. Bigfoot can still be real and Melba's study can be wrong. They are mutually exclusive. As I understand, Melba's results need to be and ARE being attempted to be reproduced.... God save the Queen if they are not.. I will bite the bullet with knowledge that my knowledge is correct and like Richard Substad will die with it. The queen may need saving since Melba has refused to have her results tested via a third party. She refuses to send back the rest of the Sierra sample to Derek Randles. The remainder of this thread should be in "reproducing" Melba's results... That is my only current interest in this thread. Using current techniques just won't work... Can't reprocude her results if she refuses to allow it. And what techniques would you suggest? Soaking the samples in bleach or using very powerful custom primers that amplify human DNA? Edited April 20, 2013 by BipedalCurious
Guest Posted April 20, 2013 Posted April 20, 2013 (edited) Simply hate to read the long drawnout "proper paragraph" type responses with an agenda. How can you call RidgeRunner's SCIENTIFIC analysis of MK's DATA an agenda? A clear attempt at labeling his analysis as bias because you disagree with him. Well, that is your Bad .... I was bragging on his presentation, not demeaning it, his talking points were clear. Loved his presentation. BTW where did I mention bias..... Oh yeah ... Your agenda..... I forgot But after reading all of the responses Of "experts" for sequencing the human genome against the MK data, I can not believe that hundreds (if not 1000s ) of samples from hundreds of different submitters have been done by all of the so called experts and the result has always come back basically saying there is no Bigfoot........ I know in my mind that that is basically an Untruth. I know also ALL of the submitters can not be wrong. Therefore to my way of thinking there needs to be some deep insight into changing the ways we are testing DNA.. To heck with MK.. What about the "facts as I know them" Sasquuatch is real... You do realize that what is in your mind nor what you believe has anything to do with science right? You are taking a faith based approach to science which has no merit or place in the process. With all due respect, it does not matter what you think or believe. It is what you can prove with science. Where did I say FAITH..... Geeze gal ....you are on a roll ... I believe in Bigfoot and my self... Science couldn't prove the ancients were right about the world is round until they got out of the dark agenda rooms of the "Dark Ages". Currently Melba is agreeing with ME and hundreds of others, so why not give her a chance... To a point you have given her an honest chance, using the current methodology for testing... but when that methodology does not produce results that i know are true... then i want some one to update the testing process. Another example of your faith based approach to the science. You are attaching her study to the requirement that it has to be true since Bigfoot is real. That is simply a false association. Bigfoot can still be real and Melba's study can be wrong. They are mutually exclusive. Her study is right until it is proven wrong ...... As I understand, Melba's results need to be and ARE being attempted to be reproduced.... God save the Queen if they are not.. I will bite the bullet with knowledge that my knowledge is correct and like Richard Substad will die with it. The queen may need saving since Melba has refused to have her results tested via a third party. She refuses to send back the rest of the Sierra sample to Derek Randles. Don't disagree... The BALL is still in her court ...... Not yours ... My opinion / your opinion don't count for much .... So whose mind are you going to change by attacks and not discussion. The remainder of this thread should be in "reproducing" Melba's results... That is my only current interest in this thread. Using current techniques just won't work... Can't reprocude her results if she refuses to allow it. And what techniques would you suggest? Soaking the samples in bleach or using very powerful custom primers that amplify human DNA? Yeah, why don't you do that and write a paper about it and start a thread about it Nuff said about my faith, you seem to interject Faith in to too many of your posts. Leave my Faith out of it. I hold my Faith higher than you evidently do since you toss it around so loosely. I don't take cussin lightly about my Faith.... Edited April 23, 2013 by BigGinger To Remove Offensive Content
Guest Posted April 21, 2013 Posted April 21, 2013 Where did I say FAITH..... Geeze gal ....you are on a roll ... Get a life .... You didn't. I was classifying the basis of your argument. Her study is right until it is proven wrong ...... It was already proven wrong in the peer-review process and by multiple highly qualified people on this forum and elsewhere. My opinion / your opinion don't count for much .... Agreed. But RidgeRunner's opinion counts for a whole lot as he is a geneticist. A geneticist who says Melba's claims are not supported by her paper. Nuff said about my faith, you seem to interject Faith in to too many of your posts. Leave my Faith out of it. I hold my Faith higher than you evidently do since you toss it around so loosely. I don't take cussin lightly about my Faith.... I see no problem using the word faith as several of it's definitions is suitable for what I believe the basis of your argument is. It has nothing to do with what you are thinking (and expressly prohibited on the forum) faith /fÄTH/ Noun Complete trust or confidence in someone or something Allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty Firm belief in something for which there is no proof : complete trust Something that is believed especially with strong conviction
georgerm Posted April 21, 2013 Posted April 21, 2013 SC, I guess to attempt to reproduce MKs conclusions could take a while. But to show MKs conclusions are incorrect - not so long............................ Pulling up the size of human CH11 and realizing the contigs are 0.5-2% of the size, about 5 min. So within an hour, one who understands genetics can be certain that the data MK presents does not represent a new species that could hybridize with humans or should be called a Homo sapiens subspecies. It took a little more effort to determine that she was actually presenting amalgams of primarily two species (bear and human for sample 26, canine and human for sample 140, with a sprinkling of bacterial/protozoa). 31 is mostly human sequences with no obvious deviation from modern Hss. For the most part single reads were being joined together with most (98-99%) of the intervening sequence not being represented. When you take small 100bp chunks that are homologous and blast them individually, you start to make sense of what is there................................ Why is BF dna so hard to identify? Seem like from all the samples MK received, that some of them would be real clean BF dna. How could all of her samples be bears, canines, humans but no BFs? Several years ago, we sent a patch of BF skin and hair attached to a lab, and they said no dna could be recovered for one reason or another. We could try it again, since there is still a 1" sample left. The sample is 30 years old, and was stored in a plastic bag. The owner whom I'm in contact with will probably part with another sample. Can somone did up this thread from the old forum. The lab photos and results were published on our forum. Maybe we could do our own testing.
BillMcD Posted April 21, 2013 Posted April 21, 2013 Interesting new commentary on MK's Facebook page. She is pressing on it seems; send money. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Dr-Melba-Ketchum/359075637446173
Guest Posted April 21, 2013 Posted April 21, 2013 (edited) They need $30,000 ?? I would love to see the business plan for how they plan on spending that $$$$. I mean seriously. What would they possibly do that would have any effect on Sasquatches? Lobbying money to make wood knocking and call blasting illegal? Equal rights for stick structures? Edited April 21, 2013 by BipedalCurious
Recommended Posts