Cotter Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Theagenes! If you don't mind. Keep a list of the 'discrepancies' you find. It will be interesting to see the explanations. And thanks for sharing the info. Question - have you looked at the data? It appears that there may be some mis-intrepretation of the data, however, I'd be interested in your thoughts on said data. One more - do you find anything compelling in it? Oh Edit - how many pages is the manuscript? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheellug Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 The paper is around 68 pages? 60 something anyway. For a paper of this size I would think it best to give it a good study over a day or so. Conclusions are one thing and knee jerk reactions are another. I would think that there is some serious conviction of belief to take the great stride of publishing a paper in this manor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted February 13, 2013 Admin Share Posted February 13, 2013 Finally! This whole distraction is almost over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Okay I've read it and I'm going to back through it again, but there are some serious problems. For one thing much of her paper seems to hinge on her sample 26 which from it's description (tissue and hair) sounds like the steak, but when you look up 26 on her table of samples it lists it as a toenail from Arizona. Going through her table listing the provenience of her samples, there is nothing that matches the description of the steak even though it is discussed and described in the main body of the paper. Big problem. Did she go in and remove the obvious references to the steak after the recent bear reveal, but left the main information in the body of the paper? Yikes. One of the other 3 samples that had the nuDNA sequenced is #140. Only problem is her list of samples and their provenience only goes up to #111. Is it supposed to be #14? Who knows. So two of the main samples that she relies on have problems with their provenience. On the mtDNA she has 16 diffenent haplotypes mostly common type for white people in North American, yet she leaps to the conclusion that this means that all of these haplotypes came over as a result of the Solutrean hypothesis with no reasoning at all behind that claim. Nothing. It's a complete non-sequetor. The paper has the veneer of science, but when you actually start deconstructing it, it's a mess. You're looking at the wrong column. Don't look at the #, look at column 5 which is Sample #. You'll find it right there. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Well, there's no page numbers because you view it online, but I cut and pasted all of it into a Word Doc (in case the url should disappear like the video) and it's about 30 pages single spaced with a bunch of images. Elsewhere I found sample 26 listed from CA in another table. So there are some serious discrepencies. Honestly, if this ever was reviewed by anyone legit then she must not have taken their advice, because these are basic issues---making sure the data in the tables match what you say in the text. You're looking at the wrong column. Don't look at the #, look at column 5 which is Sample #. You'll find it right there. Ah got it. What a formatting mess. So it is the "steak." I love how the description/provience is "Tissue found." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Substantive review is good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Okay I've read it and I'm going to back through it again, but there are some serious problems. For one thing much of her paper seems to hinge on her sample 26 which from it's description (tissue and hair) sounds like the steak, but when you look up 26 on her table of samples it lists it as a toenail from Arizona. Going through her table listing the provenience of her samples, there is nothing that matches the description of the steak even though it is discussed and described in the main body of the paper. Big problem. Did she go in and remove the obvious references to the steak after the recent bear reveal, but left the main information in the body of the paper? Yikes. One of the other 3 samples that had the nuDNA sequenced is #140. Only problem is her list of samples and their provenience only goes up to #111. Is it supposed to be #14? Who knows. So two of the main samples that she relies on have problems with their provenience. On the mtDNA she has 16 diffenent haplotypes mostly common type for white people in North American, yet she leaps to the conclusion that this means that all of these haplotypes came over as a result of the Solutrean hypothesis with no reasoning at all behind that claim. Nothing. It's a complete non-sequetor. The paper has the veneer of science, but when you actually start deconstructing it, it's a mess. Thanks for the assessment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SquatchinNY Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 So, what does the DNA say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Well, there's no page numbers because you view it online, but I cut and pasted all of it into a Word Doc (in case the url should disappear like the video) and it's about 30 pages single spaced with a bunch of images. Elsewhere I found sample 26 listed from CA in another table. So there are some serious discrepencies. Honestly, if this ever was reviewed by anyone legit then she must not have taken their advice, because these are basic issues---making sure the data in the tables match what you say in the text. Ah got it. What a formatting mess. So it is the "steak." I love how the description/provience is "Tissue found." If you looked at the picture, it's obviously not a steak Is the formatting messed up because you moved it to word? It looks fine to me. Item #, location, circumstance, date submitted, sample #, type, notes and original finder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted February 13, 2013 Moderator Share Posted February 13, 2013 My virus protection REALLY REALLY doesn't like that page. This Connection is Untrusted You have asked Firefox to connect securely to sasquatchgenomeproject.org, but we can't confirm that your connection is secure. Normally, when you try to connect securely, sites will present trusted identification to prove that you are going to the right place. However, this site's identity can't be verified. What Should I Do? If you usually connect to this site without problems, this error could mean that someone is trying to impersonate the site, and you shouldn't continue. It could be a hacked sight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Okay, so here's the first big problem I mentioned: "All 16 haplotypes from 20 completed whole mitochondrial sequences and 10 partial mitochondrial genomes have indicated 100% homology with human mitochondrial sequences without any significant deviation. Of the 16 haplotypes, most were European or Middle Eastern in origin. African and American Indian haplotypes were also observed. Those samples that did not give enough viable sequence to obtain a complete genome usually yielded sufficient data to delineate a haplotype from the mitochondrial hypervariable region or at least a human HV2 sequence. With the wide variety of haplotypes in the study and especially with the majority of the haplotypes being European or Middle Eastern in origin, migration into North America by these hominins may have occurred previous to the migration across the Bering land bridge. This previous migration is supported by the Solutrean Theory​41-42​​." She's concluding that the large variety of haplotypes that she has mtDNA full sequences for (16 out of 20) indicates hominins that migrated over before the Bering Strait migration. But, it doesn't mean that at all. It just means that she has DNA from 20 humans, mostly white people with a couple of African Americans and Native Americans. These are all haplotypes common to North America today. They are fully human and there is nothing unusual about them. So they can all be thrown out. Only the three that had their nuDNA sequenced are of any use at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 https://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/groups-and-submitters/ I think this might be over. Mary Green and Janice Carter. The latter is tied to the Erickson documentary as well. Good night, my belief in bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) Okay, so here's the first big problem I mentioned: "All 16 haplotypes from 20 completed whole mitochondrial sequences and 10 partial mitochondrial genomes have indicated 100% homology with human mitochondrial sequences without any significant deviation. Of the 16 haplotypes, most were European or Middle Eastern in origin. African and American Indian haplotypes were also observed. Those samples that did not give enough viable sequence to obtain a complete genome usually yielded sufficient data to delineate a haplotype from the mitochondrial hypervariable region or at least a human HV2 sequence. With the wide variety of haplotypes in the study and especially with the majority of the haplotypes being European or Middle Eastern in origin, migration into North America by these hominins may have occurred previous to the migration across the Bering land bridge. This previous migration is supported by the Solutrean Theory​41-42​​." She's concluding that the large variety of haplotypes that she has mtDNA full sequences for (16 out of 20) indicates hominins that migrated over before the Bering Strait migration. But, it doesn't mean that at all. It just means that she has DNA from 20 humans, mostly white people with a couple of African Americans and Native Americans. These are all haplotypes common to North America today. They are fully human and there is nothing unusual about them. So they can all be thrown out. Only the three that had their nuDNA sequenced are of any use at all. No wonder she was "laughed" at by legitimate journals. Edited February 13, 2013 by Jerrymanderer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 This Connection is Untrusted                             You have asked Firefox to connect securely to sasquatchgenomeproject.org, but we can't confirm that your connection is secure.         Normally, when you try to connect securely, sites will present trusted identification to prove that you are going to the right place. However, this site's identity can't be verified.                     What Should I Do?                 If you usually connect to this site without problems, this error could mean that someone is trying to impersonate the site, and you shouldn't continue. It could be a hacked sight It just means someone doesn't have their SSL certifications done properly. Maybe they used a self-signed certificate or something. Don't worry, though, even if you click through the warnings, the site content is currently down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted February 13, 2013 Moderator Share Posted February 13, 2013 thanks Dmaker you have to be carefullo with sights since going into their source code is so easy to fake in notebook and repost that sight for fishing or just disrupting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts