hiflier Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 (edited) Norseman, take the blinders off. She and her team weren't the only ones wrestling with the question I posed. If you do not wish to directly answer the question then fine. Just say, "I don't want to directly answer the question." Simple. And it would appear that you think the team is lying when they said this? 10 hours ago, hiflier said: "All submitters, laboratory personnel and human control DNAs showed complete profiles and were excluded as contributors to the profiles generated from the unknown samples. This, coupled with the lack of mixtures, novel profiles and failures with PowerPlex® 16 further eliminated the possibility of human contamination of the unknown samples." Edited August 12, 2017 by hiflier
norseman Posted August 12, 2017 Admin Posted August 12, 2017 Show me the report from a reputable lab that states a Bigfoot hair sample was morphological not related to a human hair. But the DNA came back 100% a match to a human. How many Bigfoot samples did Sykes receive? How many exhibit these traits from his study? Trust? Ketchum hoaxed us. So why should I trust her camp anymore than Ray Wallace, Rick Dyer or Todd Standing?
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 23 minutes ago, hiflier said: Listen up folks and stop cherry picking. Why cannot someone address this question which I have asked more than once here and elsewhere on this Forum?: A hair's microscopy shows that it is outside anything being from a human. The sample has chain of custody. ALL of the DNA from the submitters and anyone else associated with the hair is taken and tested and then filtered out so that what rises to the surface is the real DNA of the hair. It tests 100% Human. Question.......AGAIN........How can that be? It'd be either hybridization or genetic engineering, but ketchum's results aren't indicative of either one. The sequence she provided as part of her paper fits the profile of intentional contamination. She also had multiple samples from both Mary Green and Adrian Erickson (both hoaxers) in her study, and claimed that the DNA results from their samples indicated that they were from actual sasquatch. The total number of samples that she claimed were from sasquatch was also a major red flag.
hiflier Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 (edited) 13 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said: It'd be either hybridization or genetic engineering, but ketchum's results aren't indicative of either one. The sequence she provided as part of her paper fits the profile of intentional contamination. She also had multiple samples from both Mary Green and Adrian Erickson (both hoaxers) in her study, and claimed that the DNA results from their samples indicated that they were from actual sasquatch. The total number of samples that she claimed were from sasquatch was also a major red flag. This is the first sentence in the abstract at the beginning of the paper. The bold underline is mine: "One hundred eleven samples of blood, tissue, hair, and other types of specimens were studied, characterized and hypothesized to be obtained from elusive hominins in North America commonly referred to as Sasquatch." One has to be a stickler for wording to catch little things like that Edited August 12, 2017 by hiflier
bipedalist Posted August 12, 2017 BFF Patron Posted August 12, 2017 (edited) 22 minutes ago, norseman said: Show me the report from a reputable lab that states a Bigfoot hair sample was morphological not related to a human hair. But the DNA came back 100% a match to a human. How many Bigfoot samples did Sykes receive? How many exhibit these traits from his study? Trust? Ketchum hoaxed us. So why should I trust her camp anymore than Ray Wallace, Rick Dyer or Todd Standing? Unfortunately, all the front-loading of scientific colleagues engaged in the "science" of this report are as blind as the process of procuring the journal to present the results are to the whole mirage. But I digress, this Olympic prospect is the best thing we got going to date that has been purblicized by known people that have some street cred If Sykes says that hair can now be digested for DNA analysis without bulbs and skin tags then maybe this project can cut the mustard for us. Edited August 12, 2017 by bipedalist
hiflier Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 Unfortunately you are wrong. Yes most were criminologists but their years of experience with Human as well as animal DNA, of the sample extraction, and processing of that DNA made them well qualified to be on the team and do this work. A few of these were Law Enforcement people. I find it impossible for them to be actively involved in the project and refer to them as being 'blind" in any way.
norseman Posted August 12, 2017 Admin Posted August 12, 2017 If I was a Texas lawyer that had any of my clients convicted on their "DNA evidence"? I would be petitioning a Texas judge right now to have the results thrown out!
hiflier Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 A research all of their court records to check the veracity of their evidence skills is going to take you a long time. Because until you do and find something unfavorable (and not just one case either!) then their bearing on the Genome Project is major.
Martin Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 23 minutes ago, hiflier said: Unfortunately you are wrong. Yes most were criminologists but their years of experience with Human as well as animal DNA, of the sample extraction, and processing of that DNA made them well qualified to be on the team and do this work. A few of these were Law Enforcement people. I find it impossible for them to be actively involved in the project and refer to them as being 'blind" in any way. Criminologist are trained to treat evidence differently and look for results that are different than genealogists. All of that is covered in the ARS article.
hiflier Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 Genetics, which is what this is all about, is not genealogy. Where did that come from? Sure there was comparison done to haplotypes but not specific so and so beget so and so. The study was tantamount to a maternity/paternity case. It wasn't genealogy, it was genetic linking.
Martin Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 You right sorry... genetics not geneology. Ketchum completed the process just as a would be expected for a forensic scientist. Parts a pieces of DNA and huge blanks in between due to degradation. This where Ketchum study fails and the expertise of someone from forensic sciences ends.
norseman Posted August 12, 2017 Admin Posted August 12, 2017 Let's move the Ketchum discussion here, 1
hiflier Posted August 12, 2017 Posted August 12, 2017 1 hour ago, Martin said: You right sorry... genetics not geneology. Ketchum completed the process just as a would be expected for a forensic scientist. Parts a pieces of DNA and huge blanks in between due to degradation. This where Ketchum study fails and the expertise of someone from forensic sciences ends. They knew about degradation and so chose the samples that were best for avoiding the problem. It talks all about that in the paper. 33 minutes ago, norseman said: Let's move the Ketchum discussion here, That's a very good call, Norseman. I'll need to go through it as it has been a while so I don't repeat things that have already been said there. I'll catch with you eventually there. One thought I will leave for this thread is this: You, the Olympic Project and the Sasquatch Genome project all have the SAME LONG RANGE GOAL in mind. Protecting the species called Sasquatch. There have been many historical instances where people and groups of people who were at serious odds with each other put their differences aside and worked for a common goal that was in all of their best interests. I see this as being no different. Methodologies vary but the focus of the end game is identical. I think it's something everyone should keep in mind as we follow this new investigation. Whatever is discovered that is Sasquatch related or otherwise unknown will be subjected to the same processes as Ketchum's ordeal dealt with. Projects like this need our support. Looking for the good and focusing on that instead of the bad is the key to that support. We have little else going for us otherwise so I hope folks choose to look at the good. It's what I've been doing. Especially with regard to a large diameter non-Human hair that more often than not comes back as being of Human origin. This is an extremely important point to work out and not forget about in the heat of discussion.
bipedalist Posted September 3, 2017 BFF Patron Posted September 3, 2017 (edited) On 8/12/2017 at 11:10 AM, hiflier said: Unfortunately you are wrong. Yes most were criminologists but their years of experience with Human as well as animal DNA, of the sample extraction, and processing of that DNA made them well qualified to be on the team and do this work. A few of these were Law Enforcement people. I find it impossible for them to be actively involved in the project and refer to them as being 'blind" in any way. I am not "wrong" but I choose to disagree with your opinion. Opinions vary, prove me wrong. I would like to qualify my earlier post about Disotell being the man to analyze potential DNA for the Olympic Project. I would imagine he was chosen because he is a known quantity hanging at BeachFoot and such and being on some TV BF study teams. Would not have been my choice, but it is not my money and certainly I'm not on the team that discovered the samples and nests. Doesn't change my opinion of the Olympic Project or the members/players of that team of whom I have great esteem, despite having been dropped on some friend lists due to my political opinions on other platforms. Wishing them good results and good hunting nevertheless. Edited September 3, 2017 by bipedalist 2
aether-drift Posted September 15, 2017 Posted September 15, 2017 Melba & Co. were simply not up to the task. The Denovo article doesn't read like a good piece of science writing in my opinion, much less a revolutionary one. Many, many problems with how the discussion was set up, chain of custody described, and the European haplogroups found. Really strange paper - and I read lots of these - that doesn't make a lot of sense. Disotell is skeptical, qualified, and a good choice for this work (if he can be convinced it's worth his time.) But even if anything comes of this particular analysis, it will have to replicated elsewhere. No single paper or analysis is sufficient to move from hypothesis to theory... Personally I think there is only a very low (one in 10 million) chance of sasquatch being real and therefore my prediction for this latest testing would be that it comes back as a known taxon.
Recommended Posts