Guest Cervelo Posted May 16, 2013 Posted May 16, 2013 Bloggers, pffffttt. I would not put one iota of faith in anything a blogger has to say about anything.DeNovo is nothing more than a single-entry blog.Awesome observation!!!
TimB Posted May 16, 2013 Posted May 16, 2013 DeNovo is nothing more than a single-entry blog. I think that means that OTLS!= DeNovo.
Guest Posted May 17, 2013 Posted May 17, 2013 Tim, Contact Gary Stone in St. George Utah. he can and will confirm all of that , from first hand knowledge, as it was he who had originally set up JAMEZ, and helped Melbas crew in setting up De Novo. let me know if yiou need a phone number or contact info, not hard to find, just takes an inquiring mind and 5 minutes of google work!! If only the bloggers had inquiring minds, huh? Too often they post their unsubstantiated fact which is then regurgitated by a willing readership as fact. You illustrated well the fallacy of putting any stock into unsubstantiated rumors of the OTLS kind. Tim B. actyually Tim, exactly the opposite is true. I specifically and methodically tracked down the original sources for this information, and confirmed it first hand. something you are apparently completely unwilling to do. The information is not unsubstantiated, just the opposite. And since you have such an issue with "unsubstantiated rumors" i thought you would jump at the chance to confirm it for yourself. Not hard, would take you less than 10 minutes. Unfortunately your track record speaks for itself. Anything Melba says, although completely unsubstantiated, and demonstrably false - using her own data, well you accept that as absolute truth and verification for your personal beliefs. While completely dismissing any information to the contrary. I find that to be curious behavior! if you really are seeking substantiation, why not send out an email or 2, and make as simple phone call. The information you get might help open your eyes!
TimB Posted May 17, 2013 Posted May 17, 2013 Tim, Contact Gary Stone in St. George Utah. he can and will confirm all of that , from first hand knowledge, as it was he who had originally set up JAMEZ, and helped Melbas crew in setting up De Novo. let me know if yiou need a phone number or contact info, not hard to find, just takes an inquiring mind and 5 minutes of google work!! If only the bloggers had inquiring minds, huh? Too often they post their unsubstantiated fact which is then regurgitated by a willing readership as fact. You illustrated well the fallacy of putting any stock into unsubstantiated rumors of the OTLS kind. Tim B. actyually Tim, exactly the opposite is true. I specifically and methodically tracked down the original sources for this information, and confirmed it first hand. something you are apparently completely unwilling to do. The information is not unsubstantiated, just the opposite. And since you have such an issue with "unsubstantiated rumors" i thought you would jump at the chance to confirm it for yourself. Not hard, would take you less than 10 minutes. Unfortunately your track record speaks for itself. Anything Melba says, although completely unsubstantiated, and demonstrably false - using her own data, well you accept that as absolute truth and verification for your personal beliefs. While completely dismissing any information to the contrary. I find that to be curious behavior! if you really are seeking substantiation, why not send out an email or 2, and make as simple phone call. The information you get might help open your eyes! 1st- are you saying YOU are OTLS! If so, then why didn't you put that information in the blog about this instead of saying "sources I can't reveal?" If you aren't OTLS!, then you yourself have shown how the cloak and dagger psuedo-journalism that is the bigfoot blogosphere. Thank you for illustrating that. 2nd- Why would I do the work that the blogger that presents him or herself as an authority on bigfoot and Melba Ketchum refuses to do? 3rd- While the moderators don't normally allow personal attacks in this venue, I have no problem with what you say. I have challenged at least two people to cite one example of me taking something as true. You won't find it. I don't even believe in bigfoot- I believe in the possibility of bigfoot. I find it interesting that you try to demonize anyone that doesn't automatically follow your own unsubstantiated belief system. My experiences in life lead me to believe that demonization occurs where facts fail. Have a nice day! 1
bfriendly Posted May 17, 2013 Posted May 17, 2013 (edited) Man......I have finally read something I can agree spot on with ........Show me 1st- are you saying YOU are OTLS! If so, then why didn't you put that information in the blog about this instead of saying "sources I can't reveal?" If you aren't OTLS!, then you yourself have shown how the cloak and dagger psuedo-journalism that is the bigfoot blogosphere. Thank you for illustrating that. 2nd- Why would I do the work that the blogger that presents him or herself as an authority on bigfoot and Melba Ketchum refuses to do? 3rd- While the moderators don't normally allow personal attacks in this venue, I have no problem with what you say. I have challenged at least two people to cite one example of me taking something as true. You won't find it. I don't even believe in bigfoot- I believe in the possibility of bigfoot. I find it interesting that you try to demonize anyone that doesn't automatically follow your own unsubstantiated belief system. My experiences in life lead me to believe that demonization occurs where facts fail. Have a nice day! Hi Edited May 17, 2013 by bfriendly
Guest njjohn Posted May 21, 2013 Posted May 21, 2013 Sy - My apologies for delayed response. My niece was born, had 8 birthdays to attend and came down with a sinus infection so I haven't been logging in. And you're right. I even went back and read the multiple sites I looked up HV1 and HV1 and it was 23,000 - 30,000, not 230,000 - 30,000 which doesn't even make sense lol. I definitely read it wrong and then typed it wrong on top of that. If you look at what most geneticists say about it, you'll see them mention a (+5) which they believe it's closer to 30 than 23, but even the 23 range is 10k years off the mark, where the 30 is 15k off the mark of the paper. I believe you said your sample was #1 and was around 20k, but the lower range fell within the paper's timeline. That's what I was saying looked fishy. The groups that would cause problems were removed instead of just expanding the timeline. The problem with doing that is that it wouldn't fit the Solutrean Hypthosis (which see wrongly calls a theory) which has it's own problems being accepted. In no way does this disprove anything, but I was just pointing out problems that would pop up when dealing with detailed oriented scientists that would review everything like this. Tim - dismissing only one side is the exact same thing as only accepting one side. I think that's been the issue some have had. You say you don't support Dr. Ketchum, yet you'd only dismissed anything that shows problems with her paper. Even I've said things were wrong when people posted erroneous information. It's all about perception. I accept that most people assume I'm anti-Ketchum when there hasn't been anything positive released about the paper that hasn't been debunked while I've researched the claims. I've tried my hardest to respectfully report the information I've gathered, but I can't control every poster that responds to that information. And as someone who holds a degree in journalism, I am fully aware of the level of journalism present in the community. I can do my best to raise the level here, but as a whole, it won't happen overnight unless you, the readers, demand better.
TimB Posted May 21, 2013 Posted May 21, 2013 I was discussing OTLS!. Not you John. I've understood what you put out there and have already expressed my opinion on it in the more appropriate venue. I don't participate in the anti-Ketchum dogpile because I don't want to be associated with the vehemence that seems to be part of it. I have no personal agenda so I have no interest in the non-paper issues that seem to be the focus on this discussion. I'm not qualified to judge the paper itself so I have to read what trained experts say. And THEN I have to take them at their word that they are who they say they are. It's hard to do that on an internet forum. Basically- for every argument against this paper there is an argument that says otherwise and vice-versa. There's nothing definitive anywhere and until there is, there's simply no proof just opinion. 1
Guest njjohn Posted May 21, 2013 Posted May 21, 2013 There hasn't been an argument for the paper... at all. Anything that has come out in support has been proven false or they've backtracked their claims once they looked deeper. Trust me, I wish there was more news out there that made this a debate. I'd have a lot more to write about. I did my research into each of the support releases hoping there'd be something there. And every time it came up empty. If it was valid science, there would be a lot of debate. It's one sided because it falls short of what's required. Science without data becomes an essay with poor citations. And I agree for the most part on OTLS!. I prefer actual sources that can be named but sometimes anonymous sources are necessary because of legal issues, employment threats, etc.. but if you ONLY use anonymous sources, and OTLS! isn't the only one that does it, it's not good journalism. I prefer to use anonymous only if they release documents that I can verify and they backup already existing claims. Rhettman's release was information that was leaked multiple times in the past, but because all the past information never had Dr. Ketchum's name attached to them, they've been denied over and over. Anonymous sources have a place, but they can't be the only place.
southernyahoo Posted May 21, 2013 Posted May 21, 2013 8, 139, 18* HV2 (human specific) only 46-137 Partial HV1 (human specific) screened only I think if samples 46 to 137 were of a single haplotype she would have included this as a significant finding, It's still human and would strengthen her conclusion, so I'm still considering that this represents a large subset of the samples that were only identified as human with partial HVR1 and HVR2 reads, then included in the haplotype table. It is confusing because there is another table listing HV as a haplotype. Either way, it's not truely discarded because it's there and wouldn't change the working hypothesis of a hybrid human. It might influence the "when" part but that is also influenced by "When" the new world became populated by humans or humanoids and might require more data than is available concerning the actual mutations associated with that haplotype. Having an older haplotype wouldn't necessarily imply an earlier cross , but would potentially imply from where the humans came from for the majority of the Haplogroups.
Guest njjohn Posted May 21, 2013 Posted May 21, 2013 I agree with you about the When part, but it's part of the whole big picture. The claim is it happened at a specific point, so you can't deviate the when. Remember the leaks about the failed peer review based on the timing? That adds up now when you put this together with it, doesn't it? If it's HVR1 and HVR2 reads, that entire page can be discarded to the error and requires the DNA reports for each sample to verify which is which. If it's HV1 and HV2 haplotypes, it could be a coincidence that the time periods that don't fit the hypothesis were only screened, but it calls it all into question. Being human alone doesn't prove anything because that was only a part of the overall hypothesis. It requires the nuDNA analysis to be correct also. And being human doesn't prove anything at all because it's simply human.
southernyahoo Posted May 21, 2013 Posted May 21, 2013 They had enough to find the haplotype... And I'm not stating perception as fact. Here's the table. Table 2—List of Mitochondrial DNA Haplotypes Sample Number Haplotype 26 H1a, one novel SNP 1, 2, 12, 36, T2b 28 H1 35 H10 29, 44, 46, 138 H2a2 39b,41, 42, 43 T2 37 H12 11 A6L2c 31 LOd2a 38 V2 24 H1s 4,37 H3 33. 95 H 140,168 D 81 C 71,117,118 L3d 8, 139, 18* HV2 (human specific) only 46-137 Partial HV1 (human specific) screened only HV2 and HV1 originated around 230,000 years ago from the end of Neanderthal until they broke off to H haplogroup at about 23,000 years ago which fits the timeline. All the HV1 and HV2 samples were just not included in the other supplementals, except the master list of who submitted what. Besides the obvious error on the HV1 that the range 46-137 would include samples of other haplotypes, you don't think it's fishy that all those samples just vanished from the rest of the paper? And if that's not an error, but a statement that all of those samples included some HV1 sequences, that would show contamination with two haplotypes, wouldn't it? There was enough DNA to get the haplotype that is listed in this table and then the other supplementals that are linked along with the hypothesis doesn't include any of those that contained HV1 and HV2. That's what I was pointing out. And I clearly said it was perception that it looks cherry picked for the hypothesis, that part wasn't stated as fact. I'm pretty clear when I state my opinion. If someone can give an explanation, I'm all ears. I'm reading right out of the supplementals that anyone can look at. But to me (opinion coming), it looks like you've got every sample that fits the timeline expanded on, and every sample that goes back much further than the hypothesis is just screened. What if the older samples proved the timeline went back further? I completely understand what you're saying about different amounts of DNA, but are you understanding that these were all samples that they were able to test and obtain the haplogroups and haplotypes. If the table had said *these samples didn't return a haplotype due to amount of DNA* then I'd agree 100%. Looking back nijohn, if HV1 and HV2 were haplotypes they would represent the 17th and 18th Haplotypes in the table, when she has reported only 16. From her other statements in interviews, mentioning that she had only 30 - 33 samples that gave a haplotype (if memory serves) 20 whole mito's and another 10 or so giving enough data for haplotypes, I think it is more likely that this represents a partial ID through HVR1 and HVR2. She may have felt it was self explanatory enough, but it has obviously caused some confusion. She could have simply represented the results for those seperately and avoided it. So, if we had this cross sorted to 13 to 15 thousand years ago, do you think the paper would pass? I doubt it, were're still introducing humans with 12 additional diverse haplotypes into the new world long before they are supposed to have arrived by boat. Science would still reject it, and would be highly adverse to the idea there is another living primate amongst us and mating with modern women today, though that is the only way these samples could be from bigfoot and have a human mitochondria.
Guest njjohn Posted May 21, 2013 Posted May 21, 2013 Yeah, I guess mislabeled is probably the correct analysis, but then she misused the term throughout the paper. So not only the timeline being questionable, that misuse and mislabeling in the chart definitely shows reasons it would fail review. Also, check this out... https://www.facebook.com/Shipibospirit And scroll back to Sunday. Coincidence that she's using 3 WHOLE GENOMES story to proceed in the study from the peru skulls? Same story, different community? Notice the complete lack of information related to this paper? Not even about protection at this point, just recycling another study. The improvement to this study.... pay for the conference and get latest information on DNA results. Yes, it could all be coincidence, but everything is mirroring this study, with a shortened timeline and cash in segments for information instead of just $30 after 5 years. Then add the coincidence that Paulides is also no longer doing BF conferences and focusing on UFO and Alien conferences and it doesn't look so coincidental anymore.
TimB Posted May 21, 2013 Posted May 21, 2013 There hasn't been an argument for the paper... at all. I'm sorry John- but I don't agree with you. I am at work so I can't delve into it more but I will later. Anonymous sources are anonymous sources. Regardless of who uses them.
southernyahoo Posted May 21, 2013 Posted May 21, 2013 Yeah, I guess mislabeled is probably the correct analysis, but then she misused the term throughout the paper. So not only the timeline being questionable, that misuse and mislabeling in the chart definitely shows reasons it would fail review. Also, check this out... https://www.facebook.com/Shipibospirit And scroll back to Sunday. Coincidence that she's using 3 WHOLE GENOMES story to proceed in the study from the peru skulls? Same story, different community? Notice the complete lack of information related to this paper? Not even about protection at this point, just recycling another study. The improvement to this study.... pay for the conference and get latest information on DNA results. Yes, it could all be coincidence, but everything is mirroring this study, with a shortened timeline and cash in segments for information instead of just $30 after 5 years. Then add the coincidence that Paulides is also no longer doing BF conferences and focusing on UFO and Alien conferences and it doesn't look so coincidental anymore. There was a similar story already brewing about the Star Child skull concerning DNA and prior to Ketchum's release of the Bigfoot Genome Project. The Star childs nuDNA was also giving novel sequences. So it is not surprising to me that Ketchum might persue the elongated ones from Peru. She has gone too far to turn back in looking for the origins of the novelty she believes she's found. More here.......http://www.starchildproject.com/dna.htm Given the highly contentous nature of the subject matter, I'm concerned that Ketchum would not be able to return to the more mundane DNA studies until she can further validate her research. Going with the flow and new interest generated by the BF DNA paper "would" probably be more lucrative than returning to animal genetics at this point.
Recommended Posts