Guest OntarioSquatch Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Yeah they were quite far from the data. When the sequences she provided are searched through GenBank, it shows regular human and other known animals, suggesting contamination. There was never DNA attributable to Bigfoot there in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 lol, in case you didn't know, Sykes has already said he doesn't agree with Melba's conclusions. It was confirmed through Rhettman Mullis after Melba's paper came out. As understand it, that statement was an opinion " speculation" etc . Now he will be proving his life's work ,,,,,,,,, " Proof of the Yeti and other related beasts " . I do not think his life's work will be disproving their existence ......... That's been done ( excuse me attempted already by the " Lamers" ). Why spend 2 years to publish THAT? He's not exactly at the beginning of his career ...... More likely the twilight .... I'm just saying. BTW ........ How would proving the existence of The Yeti et al, differ from Melba's project ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 (edited) Sykes might make the discovery of the century, but given what we know so far, I don't believe it's possible for his findings to somehow vindicate the Ketchum study. His findings would have to be different from anything ever seen before. Edited October 9, 2013 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 ^ Well if he has something that will "change our understanding of Human History" then I'd say that falls in line with what Ketchum has proposed. No hints of Giganto in that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SDBigfooter Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 OS, The peer review may be fake but there was some dialogue that disputed what you mention. The sequences that were used were part of specific genes she said she mapped. They are too short to use for doing species identification. I would suggest you read the review. If you are interested at all in what she has released, I think you will enjoy the paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 (edited) "They are too short to use for doing species identification." That might be the case, but judging by the majority of the sequence, it would have either come from a regular human or bear. You'd think someone who's set out to prove Bigfoot through DNA would provide a good sequence, but she never did. I suspect it's because she really doesn't have anything. I've read some of the paper when it first came out and it didn't sound like the typical academic paper. People were discovering problems with certain things in the paper like the phylogenetic tree and some of the references that were used. Definitely not what her supporters were hoping for. Edited October 9, 2013 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 OS, The peer review may be fake but there was some dialogue that disputed what you mention. The sequences that were used were part of specific genes she said she mapped. They are too short to use for doing species identification. I would suggest you read the review. If you are interested at all in what she has released, I think you will enjoy the paper. The paper definitely had some review, this link has all of them I think. Both at Jamez and Nature. http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/2013/09/exclusive-newly-leaked-information.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SDBigfooter Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Here is her response to the Reviewer basically saying the gene (DQ240386.1) she mapped is a Bear. "Sequencing of the mitochondrial DNA with universal primers also would have shown any contamination of the original extractions with non-human DNA. Additionally, that is a single isolate from the black bear 7193328 brain-derived neurotrophic factor. Not only is it present in Sample 26, but it is just as present in Sample 140. Furthermore, DQ240386.1 is 489 bases. I wonder why such a small sequence, ie 489 bases out of 2.7 million bases was the focus of this critique. DQ240386 is statistically significantly aligned with primates and carnivores. In fact, BLASTing DQ240386- ring tailed cats of the raccoon family and seal have as much alignment as Ursus americanus. The maximum score for raccoon and seal are about 850. Maximum score for Ursus americanus is about 900. Max score for Sample 26 is 538." From the Ketchum Peer Review Interesting the Sample 26 was from a shooting incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 "They are too short to use for doing species identification." That might be the case, but judging by the majority of the sequence, it would have either come from a regular human or bear. You'd think someone who's set out to prove Bigfoot through DNA would provide a good sequence, but she never did. I suspect it's because she really doesn't have anything. I've read some of the paper when it first came out and it didn't sound like the typical academic paper. People were discovering problems with certain things in the paper like the phylogenetic tree and some of the references that were used. Definitely not what her supporters were hoping for. I have read nearly all of this thread, sometimes multiple times on certain responses. I have read the entire paper SY presented the ink to ........ Sounded good to me ........... Thanks SY...... I have read the Peer review presentations.... I don't understand all of them but get the gist of the findings... I was tops in my genetics and anthropology classes many years ago, but the Medical field and pay scale sucked me away. But not that far away.... I have read the speculations and opinions of folks that don't like Melba I have read the speculations and opinions of folks that support Melba. There is room for any interpretation "Pro or Con" in those articles.... some of this depends on your mind set. My encounters established my own personal mind set. After all of the studying and reading and comparisons ........My glass is nearly full.... not partially empty..... on the data supplied ...... I have a nearly open mind, especially as pertains to Melba Ketchum. I have No personal feelings one way or the other.... But have HUGH admiration for the Junk she has endured ........ But no axe to grind except with the "Lame Stream Scientific anti bigfoot community"..... My speculations and Opinions are that the Peer review was done properly and accepted with corrections that were concise and acceptable to the Journal(s). My belief is that they were proper back when we were hearing them a year ago. This Opinion has not changed from day one.... The Scientific Community just made it more difficult. Until some outside lab ( or Sykes) tests the entirety of the 3 full genomes, every thing I read on this thread is and will be just speculative and opinions. Hopefully it remains friendly and informative. One question ..... Chimps have 48 chromosomes, and humans have 46, as I recall .... how many has Melba found with her Study.... can't say I've read that anywhere... BTW .... I think Desnisovans and Neanderthals have 46 also... Once again ........ Game - set- match at this point ....... IMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted October 10, 2013 Moderator Share Posted October 10, 2013 IMHO - nobody should be predicting "game-set-match" about anything bigfoot related. Not pro, not con. Neither side has been right yet. Every time it looks like the door is slammed, there's one more thing leaving reason for hope. Every time it looks like confirmation is at hand, something goes wrong. And every apparently binary decision comes with an unexpected third option that keeps the question unsolved even when answers come. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 IMHO - nobody should be predicting "game-set-match" about anything bigfoot related. Not pro, not con. Neither side has been right yet. Every time it looks like the door is slammed, there's one more thing leaving reason for hope. Every time it looks like confirmation is at hand, something goes wrong. And every apparently binary decision comes with an unexpected third option that keeps the question unsolved even when answers come. MIB C'Mon Man This started on post number 220 quoting Mulder ..... but was used for the naysayer side... anti Melba type thingy That was Just an Opinion. ... It has been used both ways .... Besides, since when did a written opinion stop the game...... ????? As Yogi said " It ain't over til its over, and that's a fact ..... but IMHO ....... it looks like the beginning salvo for the final game and eventually the final point is about to be served .... check the Bigfootology site for more info... The plot thickens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 there is no hope whatsoever of Sykes results confirming anything about what Ketchum's report says. Zero probability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 ^ how much different can it be? if skyes says it has 2 arms,two legs,covered in hair, then your no hope,Zero probability, goes right down the drain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 there is no hope whatsoever of Sykes results confirming anything about what Ketchum's report says. Zero probability. What, do you have some sort of inside knowledge on the Sykes study? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 Bipedal Curious- from what I have "heard" from is that Sykes will not being comparing the studies nor looking into, confirming or denieing the MK study at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts