Olympic Peninsula Nesting Area Update

[norseman]

Send the sample to a competent geneticist???

[hiflier]

OK. Are these folks competent geneticists and if not, why not?

 

Dr. Patrick Wojkiewicz- Director of the Shreveport Laboratory of the North Louisiana Crime Lab System and the Technical Leader of the DNA section.

 

Aliece Watts- BS, MS, MT(ASCP), PBT(ASCP), F-ABC is a founding partner and the Quality Director for Integrated Forensic Laboratories, Inc., alumna of the University of Texas at Arlington where she also taught Introduction to Forensic Science Laboratory, Forensic Biology (DNA) and Methods in Forensic Biology Laboratory

 

David W. Spence- trace evidence supervisor with the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences, Criminal Investigations Laboratory, at Dallas County, Texas.

 

Dr. Andreas Holzenburg- professor of biology and director of the Microscopy & Imaging Center at Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas.

 

Dr. Douglas G. Toler, MD- clinical pathologist at Huguley Memorial Hospital in Fort Worth, Texas, for the past 30 years. His specialty also includes anatomical pathology.

 

Dr. Tom Prychitko- molecular biologist with a background that also includes evolutionary biology, microbiology and biochemistry.

 

Dr. Fan Zhang- Bioinformatician at the Department of Academic and Institutional Resources and Technology, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, Texas. Next Generation Sequencing, Genome-wide association studies, Proteomics, Pathway Analysis and Functional Analysis, Cancer Epidemiology, Molecular and Genetic Epidemiology.

 

8 hours ago, Martin said:

Uh, Ketchum has a Chewbacca mask on her home page as a real bigfoot. 

 

And what do you think Sasquatch looks like?

 

Edited August 9, 2017 by hiflier

[Yuchi1]

When JFK ~(1962) said we were going to land a man on the moon, there were plenty of folks with a Luddite mentality toward such an idea.

 

Ketchum took the aforementioned study results to the people at Nature magazine for peer review. After they saw them, it was so far outside their world of nine dots, they allegedly said it was too sensational for their scientific community. IIRC, they never said it was a scam rather too much science for their people to digest at one time. Even "science" apparently has its limitations, at least for now.

 

[Twist]

5 minutes ago, Yuchi1 said:

When JFK ~(1962) said we were going to land a man on the moon, there were plenty of folks with a Luddite mentality toward such an idea.

 

Ketchum took the aforementioned study results to the people at Nature magazine for peer review. After they saw them, it was so far outside their world of nine dots, they allegedly said it was too sensational for their scientific community. IIRC, they never said it was a scam rather too much science for their people to digest at one time. Even "science" apparently has its limitations, at least for now.

 

 

Do you have a source you could provide where nature stated it was to much science?

[Martin]

Hiflier,

 

Are you saying that the Erickson Project picture is a real sasquatch?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 9, 2017 by Martin

[Yuchi1]

11 minutes ago, Twist said:

 

Do you have a source you could provide where nature stated it was to much science?

 

IIRC, they said it was too sensational, per Melba Ketchum. Reach out to her for confirmation of this. 

Edited August 9, 2017 by Yuchi1

[Twist]

I'm looking for a source from Nature where they stated it was to much science.    Not hearing it from the person slighted by Nature.

[Yuchi1]

Then, perhaps you should contact the good people at Nature.

[Twist]

Or perhaps since you referenced it you could provide an actual source.  Your the one making a claim that one of the biggest publishers of science papers couldn't handle this much science.

 

[Incorrigible1]

1 hour ago, Yuchi1 said:

When JFK ~(1962) said we were going to land a man on the moon, there were plenty of folks with a Luddite mentality toward such an idea.

 

Ketchum took the aforementioned study results to the people at Nature magazine for peer review. After they saw them, it was so far outside their world of nine dots, they allegedly said it was too sensational for their scientific community. IIRC, they never said it was a scam rather too much science for their people to digest at one time. Even "science" apparently has its limitations, at least for now.

 

Fanboy fantasy. When asked for source, retreats. Par three for this course.

[hiflier]

For some reason Ketchum's paper and it's status was "leaked" to Moneymaker by someone at Nature. Don't ask me why something like that should have ever happened but it does show the paper not being accepted for publishing. And it shows it from a source other than Ketchum. Maybe this belongs in the Matt Moneymaker thread? From here: http://cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/mm-sasquatch-dna-project/ 

(all bolding is mine as are the comments in red):

 

"Heard from a reliable source connected with an article reviewer for Nature (a major science journal published in the UK) that the Ketchum paper was handed back (i.e. not *rejected*) for several reasons. One of the reasons: The paper “does not contain a testable hypothesis”. Not that the paper writers forgot to include something … It’s apparently more an issue of what is, and what is not, “testable” … and it’s a very technical matter that may not be resolved any time soon …

 

Supposedly that’s just one problem with the paper … There are more: The writers were very obviously “not zoologists” but they needed to be for a paper like this. (they didn't need to be, Matt, they needed to be geneticists to do this work, which is what they are!) There is an undeniable silver-lining to this situation though: The paper was submitted to a major scientific journal and was under serious review by several top shelf scientists around the world. Hence, many elites of the scientific world are having serious discussions about the bigfoot/sasquatch topic for the very first time. Those elites are considering the issue of DNA trace evidence (from hair, blood, skin, etc.) sufficing as solid evidence to establish the existence of the species.

 

I do believe a wheel has been set in motion that was not in motion before. There’s a growing awareness among scientists that there is private funding available for a top-shelf, A-team effort to prove the existence of the species through DNA evidence. Thus, if Ketchum can’t produce a publishable journal paper about her own work, for whatever reason, there will be some highly qualified scientists who will be willing to jump in at this stage. IMO that was the threshold that needed to be crossed. Matt Moneymaker

 

I especially liked Moneymaker's second jab at Ketchum.

 

Edited August 9, 2017 by hiflier

[WSA]

Believing a species will be proven through only DNA might be the root of the problem. I don't believe it ever could be. It is probably what Nature is referring to when they reportedly stated the results would not be "testable".

[Martin]

So Ketchum says this : 

 

 

"For all of the people speculating on the Erickson project, Adrian and I have agreed to set aside the NDA to tell you that his group is a successful participant in this project. His research project to obtain the DNA samples is separate from us. His samples will be in the paper along with all of the successful submitters. And, yes, his great footage will come out so lets let all of the rumors go, OK? And once again, please know that we are at the mercy of the journal as to when we can announce. Thanks!"

 

There are no geneticists on your list and most seem to be involved in criminal forensics.  

 

Here is an excellent article: https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/07/an-honest-attempt-to-understand-the-bigfoot-genome-and-the-woman-who-created-it/

 

Then the Erickson Project releases the videos below of a fake sasquatch and Ketchum calls it a "novel hominin hybrid species" determined as a result of her DNA study. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Yuchi1]

4 hours ago, Twist said:

Or perhaps since you referenced it you could provide an actual source.  Your the one making a claim that one of the biggest publishers of science papers couldn't handle this much science.

 

 

This came from Melba Ketchum. If you wish to cross reference, again, contact the people at Nature.

2 hours ago, WSA said:

Believing a species will be proven through only DNA might be the root of the problem. I don't believe it ever could be. It is probably what Nature is referring to when they reportedly stated the results would not be "testable".

 

 

WSA, allegedly, the maternal DNA (from ~5 of the 100+ samples submitted) came back as basically from "Eve" or all the women of the world. The paternal DNA came back as "unknown species" hence the hybrid connotation and Nature's alleged refusal to go any further with the process. As far as Mr. Moneymaker goes, would he have a vested interest in continuing the "mystery"? If so, there's probably a pile of others in the same class as some people are making $$'s off keeping the gambit going.

[WSA]

Thanks Yuchi!, as I recalled at the time. So yeah. I know that many consider all that is required is to have a sample come back with this kind of result, and Wah-lah: Bigfoot confirmed. Would that it could be that simple, we now know. You cannot make a dent in the wall of opposition with that until you have a type specimen to point to and say, "And it came from that!"  Then, of course, DNA is just one piece of redundant information, not a confirmation of the species. 

 

If there is one, legitimate reason for Nature to have declined the paper, that is probably it. You cannot "test" those results in the sense you can't  just wander over to your BF corpse, pluck out a hair and reproduce the results, or not, and make a verifiable conclusion others cannot reasonably doubt.

 

 But there is some use for DNA testing we shouldn't overlook. Each and every time a sequence comes back with something similar to that nDNA result Ketchum published, it is another dent in that wall. Enough times that comes back as the conclusion, you elevate her findings to a point of reasonable probability.  Not exactly "testable", but close enough for Government work.