Guest Cervelo Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 All of my experiences have perfectly reasonable explanations one of which, I will go to my grave believing it was not a human as we know it! I also have IMHO one of the best whoop recordings out there! Not to clog this thread up with my stuff. I will either start a new thread or post It in my profile. But I have two diffrent standards one is what science requires and always has, the other is if their out there I just want to see one and that would be enough for me All the other stuff really doesn't matter they don't need our help or protection... If they exist! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 (edited) Now has she got something completely different since then? non-modern human DNA? She hasn't said so, has she? I guess for something completely different, you have to believe the Sierra Kill story and that the 'steak" represents the animals he shot days earlier. Meldrum has some sense of what went on there and what the sample looked like, and he doesn't seem to buy it. I frankly don't either. If Meldrum thinks the sample looked canid and you're right that all Ketchum has is modern human DNA, then the logical conclusion is that the OP sent in a hairy piece of coyote-looking flesh that tested human. That's a little weird isn't it? And if all she's trying to prove is that humans leave DNA in the woods, why would she include a sample that comes from a shooting? Wouldn't that raise some eyebrows? I would think it would give her co-authors (and reviewers) serious pause. Hey, I don't have the answers either. Edited May 13, 2012 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 Nothing but modern human DNA has ever been claimed or shown.................... It hardly seems likely that they have something other than modern human DNA with some polymorphisms that aren't in GenBank. ..............Now has she got something completely different since then? non-modern human DNA? .............. p. You're very selective with which leaks you clutch on to, Parn. I know very well that somewhere 100 or 150 pages back in this thread I dealt with this directly with you, providing the updated information from the same source, but you choose to repeat the earlier stuff for some reason. I can only assume this superceded "information" more suits your purposes, so you keep trotting it out. Your choice. Your words will be here to compare with the actuality......... As of course will mine, before you say it. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 Just interpreting what "erroneous interpretation of human DNA" would mean. That's a mistake of the highest magnitude. For them to roll with those results would be incompetence for sure. Of course, those are my words. It means that in the Skeptic world, scientists are only competent and "scientific" when they reject the case for BF. It's a self-reinforcing tautology: Proponent Scientist cannot be correct about accepting BF evidence because BF does not exist because Scientists have not accepted the evidence for BF. A, Not really! Let's say the PhDs are statisticians and their analysis of the probabilty of the samples from so many diffrent places, and alike, yet so close to human (but not) concludes that statistically they must be from a different species..... walla Bigfoot! Yes, that's the way it works with DNA science. You analyze the sample, read the DNA, then compare it to known samples to derive statistics that tell you how closely it matches those samples. Assuming a good sequencing, the lower the match to known samples the more it is proof of a NEW species from which the sample came. I'm sure that works for the knowers and believers but thats not going to prove Bigfoot exsist scientifically. That's how DNA science works Cervelo. It is settled and accepted science, as basic as 1+1=2 is in math. If the study includes a Bigfoot head and some really compelling footage it's a slam dunk and I'll happily eat my crow pie DNA comes from biological tissue (blood, etc). Biological tissue comes from critter. DNA = critter. How many times must this be repeated before this basic simple fact is understood. That's a bizarre series of suppositions, Cervelo. Are they hand-picked suppositions to support your beliefs? Do you really just think that the experts in the world of DNA are so dim that they can't possibly be trusted to get this right? Mike I'd say that just about sums the Skeptic position up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 as basic as 1+1=2 is in math. Keep in mind that 1+1=3 for some large values of 1 (and 1+1=1 for some small values of 1) -- assuming you are dealing with real numbers (including nonintegers) in the face of uncertainty. Mulder, please PM me. My Fire won't allow me to send you one, but I can reply (likely user malfunction on my part). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 I read these forums consistently but rarely post . My guess is that what I am about to say will probably not be that well received but I have a lot of molecular biology and scientific publishing experience and therefore do feel qualified at least in that capacity to comment . I am very interested in the DNA study for many reasons , most of which center around the implications to science and the scientific community . I do have concerns regarding the statements and claims that have been made by Dr. Ketchum and feel that in the most optimistic of circumstances a lot has been left out. However, I do not feel that the study is worthless should the DNA come back as modern human with variations that lie outside of those published in genbank .It is just my opinion and take it for whatever it is worth, but the reasons for this is that if these samples share distinct polymorphisms with each other and the sample size is large enough , then statistically speaking, it becomes very very unlikely to the point of being almost impossible that the samples came from our genetic pool , but instead suggests that the DNA is from a distinct population which is currently isolated from us . IN scientific terms , although this would not prove the existence of BF, it would certainly give scientists pause , and would in most cases, spark the interest of some and spur a serious look into the subject . Although , this certainly is not what many might hope for , it would be a huge step forward in my humble opinion . Again, just my opinion and there are certainly other viewpoints that are also correct . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 We have seen some of the skeptics on here ridicule the idea that it is Human DNA, as if that would lead to a less conclusive or valuable study, when actually it would just make it all the more exciting if that where the case. The differences in appearance, size, hair etc, does not make it any more unlikely, just more exciting still. I personally am still inclined to believe there is some substance to this study,and the results will be something we all will find fascinating, skeptics and believers alike. There is so much vague evidence, I am convinced something is out there we know little about, and I am hoping Dr Ketchum's study will confirm some things, show us new things,disprove others,and raise a whole lot more questions to pursue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 (edited) You're very selective with which leaks you clutch on to, Parn. I know very well that somewhere 100 or 150 pages back in this thread I dealt with this directly with you, providing the updated information from the same source, but you choose to repeat the earlier stuff for some reason. I can only assume this superceded "information" more suits your purposes, so you keep trotting it out. Your choice. Your words will be here to compare with the actuality......... As of course will mine, before you say it. Mike Mike, Plz say what you mean, I can't go back through 150 pages trying to find your posts and then guess what you are referring to. Thanks, p. Edited May 13, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 We have seen some of the skeptics on here ridicule the idea that it is Human DNA, as if that would lead to a less conclusive or valuable study, when actually it would just make it all the more exciting if that where the case. I think so too. Imagine what it would mean for the world. I see now why the government has the information sealed. Cheers to Dr. Ketchum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 DNA comes from biological tissue (blood, etc). Biological tissue comes from critter. DNA = critter. How many times must this be repeated before this basic simple fact is understood. Yes, biological tissue has to come from a source (critter, as you call it), and DNA comes from that biological tissue, but it hasn't yet been shown that the source = bigfoot. Isn't that what everyone is waiting for, the big pronouncement? It's either bigfoot or it's not. Mulder, are you prepared to accept either possible outcome, or are you of the opinion that it HAS to be bigfoot? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 (edited) If Meldrum thinks the sample looked canid and you're right that all Ketchum has is modern human DNA, then the logical conclusion is that the OP sent in a hairy piece of coyote-looking flesh that tested human. That's a little weird isn't it? And if all she's trying to prove is that humans leave DNA in the woods, why would she include a sample that comes from a shooting? Wouldn't that raise some eyebrows? I would think it would give her co-authors (and reviewers) serious pause. Hey, I don't have the answers either. slim: doggone it wait a minute. I tried to say that the only thing we have heard of that might be completely different (from modern human DNA) is the Sierra Steak. I didn't say the SS was modern human. It's probably from a bear or other known animal, and probably not even the one that Smeja shot or shot at. But you do make a good point in that: why would a top journal care about publishing a paper that shows modern humans leave DNA in the woods, when, as Saskeptic has said, the top journals have hundreds of more interesting papers to choose from. You see, Paulides notwithstanding, the world does not conceptualize bigfoot as a modern human. That is not the world's fault, that is due to these report databases which have created the image of what I refer to as the popular bigfoot: John Green, the BFRO, Finding Bigfoot, etc etc. So my feeling is that Dr. Ketchum is kind on the horns of a dilemma: if she tries to say that the popular bigfoot sheds modern human DNA, then the top journals won't think it's credible enough to publish, but if she doesn't try to link it to bigfoot, then the top journals won't find it interesting enough to publish. Either way, the top journals won't publish it. JMHO. p. John, this reminds me of a saying that I have probably heard a thousand times in my field: "When you hear hoofbeats in the street, think horses, not zebras." When you find modern human DNA in the woods, think boy scouts/hikers/hunters, not an animal that is not simply unusual, but is not even known to exist. do you see my point? why would you think zebras/bigfoots? p. Edited May 13, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 (edited) oh I don't know, tens of thousands of eyewitness reports, an abundance of really big barefoot footprints, especially lately, some very interesting audio, and of course, the fact that some very educated, qualified people , such as Bindernagel and Meldrum,etc seem to feel there is something to it. Lets face it, there is a lot of evidence something is out there. No amount of denial, or attempts to convince people hoaxers are traveling deep into the wilderness to hoax people like Derek, etc, makes enough sense to be totally credible. When you take out the ridiculous claims from both sides, your left with something in the middle, that people see,and leave tracks. Edited May 14, 2012 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Yes, biological tissue has to come from a source (critter, as you call it), and DNA comes from that biological tissue, but it hasn't yet been shown that the source = bigfoot. Isn't that what everyone is waiting for, the big pronouncement? It's either bigfoot or it's not. Mulder, are you prepared to accept either possible outcome, or are you of the opinion that it HAS to be bigfoot? RayG That's where the context of the obtaining of the samples comes in. if the reports are correct, Ketchum has 100% identified DNA from an undocumented near but not-human higher primate. Those samples were taken from locations where BF was/has been reported. The logical conclusion therefore is that these samples are from BF. Or are you seriously positing that there are TWO unidentified primates out there running around, one that is being seen/leaving tracks/etc and another that is leaving all the DNA evidence? John, this reminds me of a saying that I have probably heard a thousand times in my field: "When you hear hoofbeats in the street, think horses, not zebras." When you find modern human DNA in the woods, think boy scouts/hikers/hunters, not an animal that is not simply unusual, but is not even known to exist. do you see my point? why would you think zebras/bigfoots? p. Because that is not the claim by Ketchum, and never has been. If the leaked reports are correct as to what Ketchum is claiming (which I will grant for the purpose of argument at this time, but may in fact NOT be accurate). the claim is that parts and I say again parts of the DNA map as modern human or near modern human, but that other parts of the dna map as clearly not human (chimpanzee was cited at one point as being most similar in makeup to the non-human parts). This would make BF a member of Homo, but emphatically not a "modern human". Hopefully this will be the last time this will have to be explained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 Nothing but modern human DNA has ever been claimed or shown. It hardly seems likely that they have something other than modern human DNA with some polymorphisms that aren't in GenBank. People say she wouldn't have spent all this time and effort if that's all she had...but look at the copyright document...she did just that, it seems. p. P. I agree that the copyright document demonstrates that Dr. Ketchum was going to roll with a 100% modern human Bigfoot. But there seems to be one intriguing aspect to this. From what I think I understand about this issue, the "polymorphisms that aren't in GenBank" are in the samples from various locations across the land. Now, if the polymorphisms, while "new", are different in different samples, the report will fail in its purpose to lend credence to the existence of Bigfoot (IMO). On the other hand, if the polymorphisms are closely matched in all the samples, then something may really be up with the report. Cervelo, Thanks. I guess that that'll learn me to mind my own business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 That was my point exactly jerrywayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts