Guest Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Mike, Saskeptic is an ornithologist. I wish I could be an ornithologist. The days of having a career as a one-off "ologist" are long gone. So far this semester I've lectured on bison, Pleistocene overkill, Atlantic cod, and short rotation forestry. The students are in for a real treat when we do "chemiosmotic phosphorylation" in a couple weeks! That said, I think the point of the previous comment was to see my reaction simply as a vocal skeptic, rather than anyone with any particular skill in making sense of the data in paper such as the one we've been told Melba Ketchum has prepared. In that regard I agree with you, and I too would be looking for interpretation from geneticists and other relevant specialists. Primarily, I'd be interested in the response from phylogeneticists with experience in reconstructing evolutionary relationships among hominids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 There are "bones and teeth" too? Wow. So, no one else sees a problem with this sudden flush of physical evidence after centuries of nothing but stories? Have the bigfoots suddenly let their guards down? Is it somehow easier to obtain a piece of a bigfoot that a photo of a bigfoot now? Sudden flush? Where have you been? Paulides spoke of a bone going on what, a year and a half ago? This stuff has been in the open for some time, and has probably always been easy enough to find, but not so easy to prove before skeptical assumptions sent the stuff to the trash bin , repatriated, or some obscure drawer in a museum.. It just might be easier to find than to get a clear photo. BTW photo's look like a guy in a suit, or haven't you figured that out yet. PS. You never know Sask, maybe the photo did come first. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I wish I could be an ornithologist. The days of having a career as a one-off "ologist" are long gone. So far this semester I've lectured on bison, Pleistocene overkill, Atlantic cod, and short rotation forestry. The students are in for a real treat when we do "chemiosmotic phosphorylation" in a couple weeks! Boring guy that I am, I'd love to sit in on one of your classes. Especially the Pleistocene overkill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 I wish I could be an ornithologist. The days of having a career as a one-off "ologist" are long gone. So far this semester I've lectured on bison, Pleistocene overkill, Atlantic cod, and short rotation forestry. The students are in for a real treat when we do "chemiosmotic phosphorylation" in a couple weeks! That said, I think the point of the previous comment was to see my reaction simply as a vocal skeptic, rather than anyone with any particular skill in making sense of the data in paper such as the one we've been told Melba Ketchum has prepared. In that regard I agree with you, and I too would be looking for interpretation from geneticists and other relevant specialists. Primarily, I'd be interested in the response from phylogeneticists with experience in reconstructing evolutionary relationships among hominids. Well I stand corrected, but I don't think that was the point of the comment, although your experience and knowledge would probably hold more weight with me than someone who doesn't keep up with the research for a living. Use a coffee maker to demonstrate your chemiosmotic phosphorylation, they might get it faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Use a coffee maker to demonstrate your chemiosmotic phosphorylation, they might get it faster. I use a balloon and squeeze the end so that it goes "eeeeeeeeeeeee!" Sudden flush? Where have you been? Paulides spoke of a bone going on what, a year and a half ago? I meant "sudden" as in "part of the Ketchum analysis", so I was referring to material made available over the last couple of years. This stuff has been in the open for some time, and has probably always been easy enough to find, I've been along far too long to chase down various bigfoot "flavor of the month" evidence. If there's anything to it, I'll learn about it in due time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 SY, as we come up on three years since the first specimens were sent to Ketchum, per dates quoted by Lindsay/Stubstad. p. I think it's been a little over three years since the first sample peaked her interest. If that sample was from Paulides, then it was sent in probably around mid 2008 or earlier, and that might not have went anywhere if there wasn't some backing in the NABS organization funding the testing from the beginning. Dr. K reportedly had to develope new primers and protocols just to get at that DNA. So that took some time just getting the ball rolling. Then there was the Destination truth "yeti" sample coming in sometime in 2009. Then the Erickson project and the Olympic Project sending in samples. 2010 must have been a frenzy of samples and money being spent , and word getting out to the more independent researchers bringing in even more samples. The project would have needed some structure for the screening, then a good plan for the sequencing, sending them out to other labs in blind testing with specific targets to be sequenced identified in preliminary results. The shear amount of data eminating from potentially dozens of unique specimens could conceivably far surpass even what was provided for Denisova. So it makes sense to me that Dr. Ketchum says she's overkilled this thing, she really doesn't want to leave any doubt. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I think it's been a little over three years since the first sample peaked her interest. If that sample was from Paulides, then it was sent in probably around mid 2008 or earlier, and that might not have went anywhere if there wasn't some backing in the NABS organization funding the testing from the beginning. Dr. K reportedly had to develope new primers and protocols just to get at that DNA. So that took some time just getting the ball rolling. Then there was the Destination truth "yeti" sample coming in sometime in 2009. Then the Erickson project and the Olympic Project sending in samples. 2010 must have been a frenzy of samples and money being spent , and word getting out to the more independent researchers bringing in even more samples. The project would have needed some structure for the screening, then a good plan for the sequencing, sending them out to other labs in blind testing with specific targets to be sequenced identified in preliminary results. The shear amount of data eminating from potentially dozens of unique specimens could conceivably far surpass even what was provided for Denisova. So it makes sense to me that Dr. Ketchum says she's overkilled this thing, she really doesn't want to leave any doubt. SY, Plz consider: if she even had one or two truly game changing organisms that would be enough for a blockbuster paper. She doesn't need 20. And DNA is DNA. Today it can be done in a week or two. Straight to Nature journal. Biggest story of the century. They wouldn't let it get away. So three years MOL and "where's the beef?" no paper that we know of, not even a talk presented. Get real. It's no longer very interesting to me. This is just another in the long series of bigfoot promises, big money, and nothing delivered; I could list them all but I'd probably get booted off for disparaging one or more of the members. So I'm gonna sign off on this stuff/thread, until such time as something concrete comes along. I think we've beaten it to death, and even Robert L. says his sources have dried up. See ya on the flip side. p. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I found several entries on Google Scholar. Someone has already mentioned a previously published paper but there seems to be several other entries including patent activity as recent as 2009. Hopefully someone more qualified than myself would care to elaborate. Without speaking to the quality of the journals mentioned it does seem that she has had a reasonable amount of success bringing projects through to publication. Fortunately I have only been waiting for the paper to be published for 1 week so if I am rehashing an old mem then let me know. Thanks, Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I found several entries on Google Scholar. Someone has already mentioned a previously published paper but there seems to be several other entries including patent activity as recent as 2009. Hopefully someone more qualified than myself would care to elaborate. Without speaking to the quality of the journals mentioned it does seem that she has had a reasonable amount of success bringing projects through to publication. Fortunately I have only been waiting for the paper to be published for 1 week so if I am rehashing an old mem then let me know. Thanks, Martin I'd like to know what this means with Ketchum's name attached?: COMPOSITIONS, METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR THE SIMULTANEOUS DETERMINATION OF PARENTAGE, IDENTITY, SEX, GENOTYPE AND/OR PHENOTYPE … Nothing says BF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) I'd like to know what this means with Ketchum's name attached?: COMPOSITIONS, METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR THE SIMULTANEOUS DETERMINATION OF PARENTAGE, IDENTITY, SEX, GENOTYPE AND/OR PHENOTYPE … The abstract says: "The present invention provides for a universal genetic evaluation system capable of simultaneously determining multiple genetic characteristics in domestic and wild animals. In particular, the invention provides for the use of polymorphisms, such as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), insertions, deletions, inversions, and/or other mutations within gene sequences, as determinants of genetic characteristics, such as parentage, identity, sex, genotype and/or phenotype and breed determination. The universal genetic evaluation system is utilized to simultaneously determine multiple genetic in any species. The invention further provides generation of profiles for individual animals and populations." Sounded " squatchy" to me at first. Reading the patent info it says that it was trialed on bovidae, equidae, canidae, and felidae. If it wasn't so late I would type this sentence in pig latin. I think it seems to test for desirable traits in animals such as marbling or weight gain or milk production in cows etc. (Disclaimer: Don't hold me to it.) She filed a patent for this procedure also. Martin Edited January 18, 2012 by Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) I think it's been a little over three years since the first sample peaked her interest. If that sample was from Paulides, then it was sent in probably around mid 2008 or earlier, and that might not have went anywhere if there wasn't some backing in the NABS organization funding the testing from the beginning. Dr. K reportedly had to develope new primers and protocols just to get at that DNA. So that took some time just getting the ball rolling. Then there was the Destination truth "yeti" sample coming in sometime in 2009. Then the Erickson project and the Olympic Project sending in samples. 2010 must have been a frenzy of samples and money being spent , and word getting out to the more independent researchers bringing in even more samples. The project would have needed some structure for the screening, then a good plan for the sequencing, sending them out to other labs in blind testing with specific targets to be sequenced identified in preliminary results. The shear amount of data eminating from potentially dozens of unique specimens could conceivably far surpass even what was provided for Denisova. So it makes sense to me that Dr. Ketchum says she's overkilled this thing, she really doesn't want to leave any doubt. When the Georgia hoax came about, with in the 1st week, you had your doubts, just by there actions. Soon as you scratched the surface you could see those guys had nothing to loose and everything to gain. With this project, there is so much to loose by so many, and to orchestrate such an elaborate fabrication, would seem to be ludicrous to say the least. There are so professional people with there lively hood on the line, it do not seen rational to jeopardize so much only to proven hoaxers. People in general, do not like to be viewed in a negative light so they are reluctant to reveal what has been witnessed or experienced, unless they know it to be true. With all the experiences over the years by so many people, I highly doubt that all were either misidentified, hallucinations, or fabrications and that so many people would make the same mistake. Edited January 18, 2012 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 The abstract says: "The present invention provides for a universal genetic evaluation system capable of simultaneously determining multiple genetic characteristics in domestic and wild animals. In particular, the invention provides for the use of polymorphisms, such as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), insertions, deletions, inversions, and/or other mutations within gene sequences, as determinants of genetic characteristics, such as parentage, identity, sex, genotype and/or phenotype and breed determination. The universal genetic evaluation system is utilized to simultaneously determine multiple genetic in any species. The invention further provides generation of profiles for individual animals and populations." Sounded " squatchy" to me at first. Reading the patent info it says that it was trialed on bovidae, equidae, canidae, and felidae. If it wasn't so late I would type this sentence in pig latin. I think it seems to test for desirable traits in animals such as marbling or weight gain or milk production in cows etc. (Disclaimer: Don't hold me to it.) She filed a patent for this procedure also. Martin In the U.S patent process one has the opportunity to first file a provisional patent application. This is no more than a statement of what the perfected application will cover and a summary of the ongoing invention. Provisional applications are never examined. They simply act as place holders. If a perfected application is filed within one year, it replaces the provisional application and the provisional application expires with no effect other than to transfer its filing date to the perfected application as the precedence date of the perfected application. If a perfected application is not filed within one year, then the provisional application expires. Generally it takes about a year and a half for a perfected patent application to be published (become public). If her application has been published as of 2009, then it probably would have been filed in the last half of 2007 or the first half of 2008. If only an abstract is available (no published application), then there are three possibilities. 1. It could be an active application that is taking a very long time through the process (unlikely, but possible, particularly since I don't know what the backlog might be in the field of her invention), 2. It could be an abandoned application that never made it as far as the publication process, 3. It could be an abandoned provisional application. Just from a casual search of the USPTO database, the field of the invention is very cluttered. It often happens that people have a great idea and find that they have been beaten to the punch in filing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 18, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted January 18, 2012 Well unless that machine patent app. says cows, horse, cats, dogs and other species. I guess it was a patent application for a machine sequencing these parameters only. (Then again maybe there is another patent app. undiscovered in the hopper). What it tells me is that she has the sophistication to do the work or find those that can do the work.......to get the job done if the samples are what they are claimed to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I refined the search. She filed the perfected patent application on August 3rd, 2008 and it was published on February 3rd, 2011. Publication takes two and a half years after first filing (two and a half years after the provisional application with subsequent filing of a perfected application, or two and a half years after the perfected application if no provisional was filed before-hand). So, if this application is specifically bigfoot-related she would have had to start working on it in 2008. It does show a level of technical expertise beyond what I had previously assumed and does increase my confidence level in her. She is the only inventor listed on the application and it is the only application listed under her name. The database does not indicate that she has any awarded patents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Mike said: I will say that I am looking forward to Saskeptic's first post after publication almost as much as I am looking forward to reading the study, and to seeing the Erickson documentary. I am anticipating that post to be the litmus test of whether we are in for another few years of doubt and argument, or whether it's a "done deal". Susi thinks: Nothing except a personal up close with a see it, smell it, and touch it experience *might* change Saskeptic's mind. Sadly I understand where he is coming from. Hubby is the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts