Guest BFSleuth Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 .... methinks sometimes the "skeptic" in us stretches a potential hoax conspiracy to the point that it goes so far beyond the simplicity of Occam's Razor that the blade becomes dull... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 (edited) Parnassus, You've put forth this theory at least twice now, but there is a huge hole in it which I can't imagine you are ignorant of, so I'd like you to flesh out your hoax theory to explain how the following would work in that scenario: If there was common variation found in all or most of the samples, identifying them as related, then it would seemingly have to come from a single large family group, as you indicate. This means that someone would collect all of those samples, and send them in from around the country, to give the illusion of geographical distribution. The only way I can see that being effective is if the samples are anonymous. Because we know there are many known individuals and groups who have sent in samples. Olympic project, our own SouthernYahoo (right? maybe I'm thinking of someone else), Smeja, etc. So either each of those individuals, assuming their samples share this commonality we are anticipating with your Modern Human DNA, is in on the hoax, or Dr. Ketchum took those samples and replaced them with her own set of samples collected in the way you postulated to hoax the whole thing (in which case proper distribution isn't necessary, since it would just be swapping out the real samples sent with the ones she'd collected herself). Then there is the issue of the hair morphologist who was brought on the team to study the hair samples, each of which would also have to have been hoaxed I assume. So, for me, the only way this theory would hold water would be if you seriously believe that either of those two scenarios is possible. To me, that strains credulity, and is about as germane as claiming Bigfoot is a mistaken sighting of the planet Venus. It is not an impossible scenario, but it does rely on complete and utter outright hoaxing on a scale we haven't yet uncovered in the Bigfoot world (not the yet uncovered qualification). scale? What scale is "Finding Bigfoot?" what scale is the new Trilogy by the creator of The Blair Witch project? The Ketchum lab expenditures? The Relict Hominoid Inquiry? 150 people travelling all the way to Richland Washington? Please. The money in this game is huge. This would involve three days work by one person and maybe a couple thousand dollars. Maybe only a couple hundred. It's simple. Collect the specimens, mail them to your friends across the country, and have them mail them to Texas under their own names. Or if you don't have any pranky friends, , do it yourself: get on a plane, get some mailboxes in different cities. Mail it in under assumed names. Not a problem. Do you know how easy it is to get forewarding mailboxes, phone numbers and email accounts? come on... Joe from Arkansas Bill from NY Larry from Mississippi Bo from Alabama Laura from NH Sam from Milwaukee Arnie from Michigan etc. The hair looks the same and the DNA specimens show family relationship and mostly identical mutations, and they aren't in Genbank, because they are a small isolated NA tribe. 22 closely related uncatalogued modern human DNA specimens from all across the country. Submitted by a bunch of different people. What's not to like? Just from the responses here you can see that there are many people who will believe almost anything. Paulides has been preaching it for years now. Modern humans. Look at his website and his books. p. Edited May 21, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Desperation sometimes forces close-minded individuals to call a group of people who don't follow their philosophy of life liars. I'm wondering if that's the case here... Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 2) obtain samples from 10 or 20 genetically related family members (they will not be in GenBank), and Parn, any modern human sample will fall within the range of modern human in a DNA test. This is why scientists reject the idea that just because a specific persons unique makeup is not in genbank, that it would also be unidentifiable as modern human. Native American people have also been sampled and their haplogroups described. You are going to have to explain how bigfooters managed to find these "other" humans that population geneticists couldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Parnassus, You haven't addressed my concerns with your theory, which is the same as those who posted directly after me. We know, for a fact, who many of the submiters are. If all of the samples were anonymous, then your scenario would be a bit more plausible. But, again, we know for a fact, undisputed, that there are a good number of well known people who have submitted samples to the study. So, for your scenario to be true all of those people would have to be in on the hoax. Or Dr. Ketchum herself would have had to swap out those samples from the known submittors with her own samples collected in they way you indicate, in which case the scenario isn't the same, because it would require no distribution to various locations of the false DNA, but only to swap out the samples sent to Dr. Ketchum with the fake ones. It is this which renders your theory laughable to me, or at least very very unlikely. Will you address that point? I don't believe that you aren't able to see the clear distinction between what you are saying and the actual known facts of the situation. You are too astute for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 (edited) 2) obtain samples from 10 or 20 genetically related family members (they will not be in GenBank), and Parn, any modern human sample will fall within the range of modern human in a DNA test. This is why scientists reject the idea that just because a specific persons unique makeup is not in genbank, that it would also be unidentifiable as modern human. Native American people have also been sampled and their haplogroups described. You are going to have to explain how bigfooters managed to find these "other" humans that population geneticists couldn't. is that so? then what happened with the Snelgrove Lake sample? Right there on Monster Quest they said it was 5000 to one against being human, when the only polymorphism was one from the local tribe. Oops Nelson now knows he was mistaken. Read Stubstad: 97% certain of bigfoot, based on two or three mtDNA's that WERE MODERN HUMAN. I'm not saying I buy it, nor am I saying you buy it. I'm not saying that a primatologist would buy it. This is a hypothetical. I'm saying that is the way a hoaxer could try to fool people. Because honest people have already done something close to it, just out of ignorance. Snelgrove Lake, Stubstad...and that is seemingly what Ketchum did in her copyright document. Honest people, making an honest mistake, but really believing it. Why couldn't a dishonest person do essentially the same thing except better? Surely you have seen this talk about bigfoots abducting and raping women, particularly tribal women. Doesn't matter if they are in a known haplogroup. What is supposedly significant is how rare and isolated they are, and that they showed up all over the country, and they are related, and they aren't in GenBank. Again, it's just enough to make some people say, wow, there must be something to it...and enough to get published somewhere. I think. I could be wrong. p. There are hoaxers out there. You know it, and I know it. There is money out there, no question about that. Edited May 21, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 (edited) How involved in the Snelgrove sample were Ketchum and all the other board members you are calling mistaken in a hurried fashion? I don't know that any of them were involved in that but I could be wrong. You are applying one situation to an unrelated one. I can only imagine you use this flawed logic (that's another way of saying argument- nothing personal) to justify your position. Tim B. Edited May 21, 2012 by TimB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Well, perhaps we could "flesh out" the entire hoax theory for Parn. After all, just rounding up and sending samples to people around the country would not be enough. Each person submitting a sample would have to have a credible backstory on how they collected the sample after all. So, in order for this to work the "master hoaxer" (I'm assuming there would need to be a master hoaxer in this scenario) would need to identify many different independent bigfoot researchers and identify their geographic areas of research and identify when they will be actively at the research sites then carefully place samples of hair, saliva, etc. WITHOUT being detected and without leaving their own trackways, tire tracks, etc. so that all these independent researchers can be fooled into thinking they have collected real BF samples!!! Sounds so easy... ... but wait! There's more.... (que Tommy Flanagan whiney voice)... .... the hair samples from the Native American family would have to be modified in a top secret privately funded lab to NOT RESEMBLE human hair! Yeah! That's the ticket! .... and Morgan Fairchild begged me to marry her, but I refused! http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xkrk1f_saturday-night-live-football-liar_fun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 .... methinks sometimes the "skeptic" in us stretches a potential hoax conspiracy to the point that it goes so far beyond the simplicity of Occam's Razor that the blade becomes dull... Thats a sig line quote for somebody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 (edited) So, I can only imagine that due to forum rules, you won't (rightly so I'd say) indicate that either Ketchum herself or anyone of the other known people who submitted samples are intentionally hoaxing this study. I'll leave it at that, since after several direct attempts, you wouldn't clarify, but keep insisting how easy it would be for an individual or individuals to collect a rare set of related samples and send them from around the country. My question is withdrawn, since I don't want to entrap you. Sorry to be leading. Knowing what we do about who is involved, I still sincerely and emphatically say that, as one person already intimated, this is so far from Occam's Razor as to stray into the realm of the Gnifty Unicorn Horn of TheorizingTM. Edited May 21, 2012 by Particle Noun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Thats a sig line quote for somebody. It's MINE!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 (edited) Well thanks for posting the video. Too bad Zana was human but the caves in Mongolia need more exploring. The Almas are not going to come out the first night. Opinion stated as fact. The following link provides an excerpt from In the Footsteps of the Russian Snowman in which the author clearly states that despite three attempts by Boris Porshnev from September 1964 to October 1965, Zana's remains were not found. The author, Dmitri Bayanov, then states that he made three attempts himself in 1971, 1975, and 1978, but "We never found a skeleton that would fit Zana's features as described by witnesses." http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/zana.htm The skull examined cannot be attributed to Zana. Now, Zana may well have been human, but every description of her as other than human is consistent. Clearly, if the accounts are accurate, she was able to interbreed with modern humans. All of her children had normal modern human hair patterns, also according to accounts. So, with regard to the Ketchum report and to Parn's assertions, We have to consider that the differences in our DNA may well be so minor that they can be mistaken for human by all but the most rigorous of tests. Edited May 21, 2012 by JDL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 is that so? then what happened with the Snelgrove Lake sample? Right there on Monster Quest they said it was 5000 to one against being human, when the only polymorphism was one from the local tribe. Oops Nelson now knows he was mistaken. Read Stubstad: 97% certain of bigfoot, based on two or three mtDNA's that WERE MODERN HUMAN. I'm not saying I buy it, nor am I saying you buy it. This is a hypothetical. I'm saying that is the way a hoaxer could try to fool people. Because honest people have already done something close to it, just out of ignorance. Snelgrove Lake, Stubstad...and that is seemingly what Ketchum did in her copyright document. Honest people, making an honest mistake, but really believing it. Why couldn't a dishonest person do essentially the same thing except better? p. There are hoaxers out there. You know it, and I know it. There is money out there, no question about that. I've already mentioned the flaws of sequencing 300 to 400 base pairs , it is fallable. I don't expect that a specific haplogroup could be definitively ID'd that way, particularly if we don't dig into each ones mutations or unique SNPs at the locus that Nelson sequenced. We've not heard if there is more data about the snelgrove sample yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 There is one more important issue that negates this hoax scenario presented by Parnassus. The study by Dr. Ketchum must be replicable. In short, I assume other, independent scientists, would be able to replicate her conclusions by using parts of the same samples she used in her study. If she made these available to other scientists, she would not be able to disguise them in order to perpetuate a hoax, as described by Parnassus. After all, the "steak" sample specimen that was sent in would have to be documented with photos and independent researchers would want to be present when samples were removed from that specimen. I just don't think it's possible to create a hoax that involved "inventing" large and significant tissue samples. I can see maybe doing that with hair, saliva and even blood but not a "steak." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spurfoot Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 The Ketchum study will define DNA prototype(s) that that will become the DNA holotype(s) for the Sasquatch people. Not only could that(those) holotype(s) be verified by subsequent studies of the original specimens, but alternatively, and even better, it can be compared to subsequently acquired specimens. Presumably, it might take a while for field collectors to accumulate subsequent specimens. In either case, one would call the Ketchum study potentially replicable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts