southernyahoo Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 If they both had SSQ samples submitted and both got it right, then one confirming the other would still happen regardless of intent. They'll still get compared to each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 What, do you have some sort of inside knowledge on the Sykes study? I do. It's a little thing i like to call COMMON SENSE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 I do. It's a little thing i like to call COMMON SENSE. Yup! Completely agree. I'm surprised people are still holding out hope that MK has anything but bad/contrived data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 There isn't anything for Bryan Sykes (or any scientist) to confirm. If Melba had proof of Bigfoot in the form of DNA, this study and its critical reception would have turned out very different in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 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. You're absolutely wrong there. Ketchum's study will not be confirmed just because Bigfoot is found to exist. Her conclusion was not viable based on the information she had available. Her study is worthless rubbish whether Bigfoot exists or not - it contributes nothing to the matter either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 ^ Unless bigfoot is human of coarse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 I think: Her science is rubbish, but what of her opinion? Bigfoot is a hybrid of us that arose about 15K years ago. I am not anthropoloigst, but that didn't sound likely. Shortly before or after she published her paper, didn't she have a possum as part of the mix? She hasn't covered herself with glory is the nice thing I can say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted October 14, 2013 Moderator Share Posted October 14, 2013 (edited) I think I agree ... if her science and paper are valid, she's failed to explain the connection between the dots that validate it to people who understand it ... I find it unlikely. However, the hybrid idea still might be right. It accounts for very many otherwise loose ends that require a great deal more complexity to account for in other ways. Not ALL, but many many more. That alone suggests .. well, to twist a phrase, lets say I think we should not throw out the hybrid baby with the Ketchum bathwater. MIB Edited October 14, 2013 by MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted October 14, 2013 Share Posted October 14, 2013 (edited) ^ Unless bigfoot is human of coarse. Even if Bigfoot is human, her paper is still rubbish. You cannot tack a correct conclusion onto the end of a paper unless you have shown something in the paper to warrant that conclusion. She did not do so. I think I agree ... if her science and paper are valid, she's failed to explain the connection between the dots that validate it to people who understand it ... I find it unlikely. However, the hybrid idea still might be right. It accounts for very many otherwise loose ends that require a great deal more complexity to account for in other ways. Not ALL, but many many more. That alone suggests .. well, to twist a phrase, lets say I think we should not throw out the hybrid baby with the Ketchum bathwater. MIB Again, there is no if about it - the paper is not valid. It's not about whether her conclusions are correct. It's the fact that she showed nothing to warrant them. It's simply an unsupported opinion, with no more validity than anybody else's unsupported opinion. Edited October 14, 2013 by Llawgoch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 Dr. Melba Ketchum Yesterday at 7:07pm · More for the skeptics: Not to argue but people have been sentenced to death with only PowerPlex16, the results of which will be on the new page shortly. There was a new species of monkey accepted with only 1600 bases of mtDNA when we have 20 whole mtDNA genomes and 10 partial at about 16,500 bases each. That's 330,000 bases just for the 20 mtDNA whole genomes. We have 3 whole nuclear genomes at approximately 9 billion bases (3 terabytes storage). We used about a dozen different labs and used blind studies. Two different labs extracted the samples. We used multiple disciplines that I won't even start to go into including 28 samples of whole genome SNPs at 2.5 million tiny mutation tests per sample. I don't believe what I have proved, I know it! Like·Comment 56 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 If she has 3 full genomes why does she consistently refuse to release the DATA??? according to her she has 3 terabytes of data. why does she refuse to share it??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Dr. Melba Ketchum shared a link. 8 hours ago · Here is the link to the new page on the site http://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/supplemental-raw-data/ Supplemental Raw Data - The Sasquatch Genome Project sasquatchgenomeproject.org 18 Likes·2 Comments Like Comment Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Science Critic really ?You honestly think that data is the entire set of raw data she has? She said before all the data was there yet now she's releasing more. Plus the excuse that "GENBANK" refuses my data. It's entirely laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 How to read Chromatographs: http://seqcore.brcf.med.umich.edu/doc/dnaseq/interpret.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) The releasing of Melba's info above, will surely liven up the BFF boards for the coming winter months. Edited October 23, 2013 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts