Guest SDBigfooter Posted September 17, 2013 Posted September 17, 2013 Clearly there are ethical concerns. I don't know what happened to this woman but it does seem that she fell off the deep end a little bit. However, I have to think that if Bogfoot exists, she knows the truth. She has been able to see first hand samples of things I could only dream of seeing. I am beginning to think there is not a person in the world who could successfully prove a creature's existence with only partial samples.
bipedalist Posted September 17, 2013 BFF Patron Posted September 17, 2013 (edited) Apparently the claims are that it passed but the attorney for the journal quashed the effort. Then said attorney supposely allows the journal to be bought?! Alrighty then. http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/2013/09/exclusive-newly-leaked-information.html#more I see the Casey Mullins email associated with the call for papers. Wasn't this person discussed as being a known quantity within her study? I'm not sure what to think of the weighted author choice of peer review model but I know the typos and grammar errors are a little strange as is the formatting/style/prose of the email. Edited September 17, 2013 by bipedalist
Guest Posted September 17, 2013 Posted September 17, 2013 (edited) It's a closed group on Facebook called bigfoot community. You'd have to join to see the posts, but here is a screen shot. *Screenshot removed due to language*Here is a link to the Facebook page where Sally Ramsey is actively debunking the latest Ketchum "proof of peer review papers"https://m.facebook.com/?_rdr#!/groups/302563073109138?view=permalink&id=632390860126356&__user=100002031800446Sorry. Mods, sorry about the cussing in the screenshot. I didn't think about it until after I posted it. Please adjust as you feel fit. Edited September 17, 2013 by chelefoot Screenshot removed
Guest Posted September 17, 2013 Posted September 17, 2013 Edited for posting. Derek Randle's posts wanting his sample back.
Guest SDBigfooter Posted September 17, 2013 Posted September 17, 2013 The review is pretty interesting. From what I have read, it seems the(my) biggest question is: Did she not include the full DNA sets on purpose? She specifically studied three different samples which all showed similar results. She mapped a number of different genes to describe the creature and different tests to determine it is a non-human primate. She released the sequences that define the genes she mapped, or at least some of them. She provided 2.1 million base pairs of data in total when the full animal is actually a few billion bases. One gene, which is about 500 bases was looked at by the reviewers and found to possibly be bear. However, Ketchum countered that it is too small of a gene to be independently used to test for species identification. She claims that seal and raccoon match the gene about as closely as bear. Anyways, if it is real, it does support Melba.....except for the fact that she did not release the full data sets (many terabytes). If it is fake??? Ouch. That seems to be the claim of Sally? That the review papers are fake? Sounds like a soap opera.
WSA Posted September 17, 2013 Posted September 17, 2013 This morning's NYT's had a piece discussing how the idea of each cell in any one body having exactly the same genome might not be as true as once thought. I'll try to find it and post it. How much havoc would that wreak with trying to classify an unlisted animal, from only a few samples? Complications, complications....
Guest DWA Posted September 17, 2013 Posted September 17, 2013 (edited) ^^^And as I keep saying: If you can't point to that big guy over there and say, there's where we got it, all you have is something interesting. Particularly if H. sapiens DNA is present. People on this thread seem to have spent a lot of time educating themselves on DNA sequencing. They're forgetting how it's used. How does your DNA tie you to a crime scene? We have already identified you. We know where the samples come from. You don't identify a species with DNA. The only exception is when an already-identified population is separated from what were previously thought to be conspecifics based on DNA analysis of individuals. Edited September 17, 2013 by DWA
Guest Posted September 17, 2013 Posted September 17, 2013 (edited) ahh... no comment.... I did have several and then deleted. Honestly...don't care about this situation anymore....and except for the exercise of trying to learn the significance of reviewer comments.... it seems like a dead horse... I may in a few months care more... time to let Sykes weigh in so, hah, am sorry for this post and never mind! Edited September 17, 2013 by apehuman
southernyahoo Posted September 17, 2013 Posted September 17, 2013 You don't identify a species with DNA. The only exception is when an already-identified population is separated from what were previously thought to be conspecifics based on DNA analysis of individuals. There is a growing list of new species that wouldn't have a new name if their DNA didn't support that notion. It's not just that they are seperate populations. This is why Sykes would explore the possibility of bigfoots existence using DNA. Ketchum too. Like I've said before, even with a specimen on a table, if the DNA doesn't say non-human, you still don't have a new species, and you'll play hell trying to write them into any protection legislation as a wild animal. It won't work.
Guest DWA Posted September 17, 2013 Posted September 17, 2013 (edited) There is a growing list of new species that wouldn't have a new name if their DNA didn't support that notion. It's not just that they are seperate populations. This is why Sykes would explore the possibility of bigfoots existence using DNA. Ketchum too. Like I've said before, even with a specimen on a table, if the DNA doesn't say non-human, you still don't have a new species, and you'll play hell trying to write them into any protection legislation as a wild animal. It won't work. I'll believe that when I see it. If the thing people are seeing is on a table, and the DNA says same species as Joe from Secaucus, I'm hunching contaminated sample. And...what WSA said. Simply put: science isn't going to make a call on this particular species without a type specimen; and "steak" isn't cutting it. Edited September 17, 2013 by DWA
Guest Posted September 17, 2013 Posted September 17, 2013 Actually DWA the state of Calif. says a peer- reviewed DNA study AND a better clip than the PGF within the state boders would suffice as protection if wild animal. If close to human, it all depends because if close to human it( the subject ) lives in the wild and is in the line of fire sort of speak. If close to human a protection for indiginous people is a slam dunk according to my assemblywomwns office. Alittle harder if not because it just takes longer is all with the Cal. F&W comm. and all the administrative law.
Guest DWA Posted September 17, 2013 Posted September 17, 2013 Actually DWA the state of Calif. says a peer- reviewed DNA study AND a better clip than the PGF within the state boders would suffice as protection if wild animal. If close to human, it all depends because if close to human it( the subject ) lives in the wild and is in the line of fire sort of speak. If close to human a protection for indiginous people is a slam dunk according to my assemblywomwns office. Alittle harder if not because it just takes longer is all with the Cal. F&W comm. and all the administrative law. Well, the kipunji was accepted on a photographic holotype. I didn't say what the type specimen had to be, other than either an animal, or a part of one that could in no way be any known animal. (An arm, a leg, a head, even a significant part of a skeleton or skull ....that sort of thing could get us there. A "steak?" No.) If a video convinced scientists, OK, I'd want to see that video too. But it would likely be enough for me with or without the DNA. I mean, Patty is. To me. If any authority says a peer-reviewed DNA study and a video reference would suffice for protection, whoopee! I'd say. It's about time! Note that they aren't talking so much about "scientific confirmation that x is x" as they are "this is enough for us to treat it as a real animal and protect it under law. Now we need to confirm exactly what it is."
Guest andy1867 Posted September 17, 2013 Posted September 17, 2013 Sally Ramsey along with Derek Randles are now coming out and speaking against Ketchum. Derek wants his sample back from Ketchum (actually wants it sent to Wally) so it can be independently tested. This would be the Smeja sample that Derek submitted to Ketchum for testing. Ketchum still refuses to return the sample. Surely , if anyone wants this proving ...beyond doubt....The samples should be sent to some independant authority. You can't have people who have a vested interest, touting samples about, thats simply breeding doubt.# I'll admit I'm new to all this, but from what ive read on here, whatever the Ketchum papers prove or disprove, its all going to be greeted with a jaundiced eye now...and that simply brings us back to where we started ...doesn't it?
southernyahoo Posted September 17, 2013 Posted September 17, 2013 I'll believe that when I see it. If the thing people are seeing is on a table, and the DNA says same species as Joe from Secaucus, I'm hunching contaminated sample. There comes a point when repeatability trumps alternate explanations. You saw that already. Andy1867, The samples come from multiple individuals with more than a passing interest in the subject. Some of the samples were tested outside of this study, which also used outsourced labs, they all found the human DNA. My own sample had numerous indications of being deposited by a mammal that lives in the wild, yet did produce human DNA according to this study. So it's not one source for the samples , or one lab testing them. But alas, this is the Ketchum thread, so Ketchum has to take all the criticism for this communities lack of ability to provide one single sample that produces a non-human ape mitochondria.
Recommended Posts