Guest Tontar Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 As his thread is now 185 pages and counting, would it be possible to make a short list of the known "facts" that are being attributed to the Ketchum Report? I see above the mention of "scores" of people who submitted samples of tissue or something for the study. So there is some list of scores of samples submitted? This is a known fact? And the events surrounding the collection of such samples? And what is really "known" so far about the research? Is she showing human DNA, human-like DNA, or non-human DNA? Just a quick summary would be a lot better than combing through Facebook, or the hundreds of pages in this topic. Of all the samples submitted, all are of the same type, as in reputedly BF? No samples have been submitted that turned out to be something else? Like human, bear, coyote, polyester? Regarding hair, what exactly is the morphology of BF hair anyway, that sets it apart from human hair? You say that the morphology of BF hair is very different from human hair, as if it were an established fact, so if you could clarify what those differences are that'd be great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 For the record, I don't buy a hoax conspiracy scenario nor a contamination scenario. My concern with the samples is more a concern that the data derived from the samples is just too thin to resolve doubt. I am surmising that the strength of the DNA data would influence the publication timeline for the study? The stronger the evidence, the sooner the publication. The weaker the evidence, the more delayed. Is that a fair assumption or is that conceptually flawed? you are correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOLDMYBEER Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 I can see how someone who has such a vivid imagination could get lost in a world of hypotheticals where there are no facts to ground them in reality, but some of us have facts that drag these imaginative scenarios straight down the toilet. It gets boring when it's the same people over and over imagining a hoax when they could just as easily imagine a legitimate new biological entity being proven. We know there are plenty of those, yet some just can't go there. We have a cultural predisposition with testing evidence in an adversarial manner, throwing up imaginative hypotheticals in the form of stories that don't seem to touch the ground. You can watch it most afternoons down at the courthouse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 As far as you know Parn? All you know is what other people have said. Ok, so you admit that your theory is irrelevant to the Ketchum study, but for some reason you think the conclusion is HSS? yahoo, we've been over this and over this. The only DNA we've seen from Ketchum or Stubstad is modern human. The copyright documents, the domain names. Paulides stuff. The long delay. It all speaks to modern human with some polymorphisms that weren't in Genbank. What do you have? faith? Please, I'm serious and I hope you won't dodge and dodge. Please show us all your evidence that there is something other than modern human DNA with some polymorphisms that aren't in Genbank. Please. It's time; I've answered over and over. Now it's your turn. Dodge or answer. Now. Please. Show us some DNA evidence? or something from Ketchum or Stubstad? something. Not just "I'm sure Ketchum wouldn't be going to all this trouble..." type stuff. That's just in your mind. Waiting. p. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tontar Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Pages back, there were references to the Meldrom/Sykes study demonstrating that indeed there may be some legitimate evidence to analyze. Reading the article below, it would almost seem otherwise. It seems that a DNA study is being started, but that they are now starting to invite samples, not that they have any existing samples to start with. So, it appears that Sykes is inviting bigfooters to put up or shut up, perhaps suggesting that he's tired of hearing people criticize "science" as an antagonist to the idea of bigfoot: "I'm challenging and inviting the cryptozoologists to come up with the evidence instead of complaining that science is rejecting what they have to say," said geneticist Bryan Sykes of the University of Oxford. http://www.livescience.com/20487-yeti-bigfoot-dna-cryptozoology.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 The fact that Parnassus comes up with a completely feasible, and rather simple scenario that a hoaxer might pull off a really credible DNA hoax is not only interesting, but extremely compelling. Parnassus is not a hoaxer, he's got better things to do, but imagine for a second that a non-hoaxer can come up with a workable and convincing scenario, and that a genuine hoaxer could and would put that much more energy into pulling off the gig with solutions to most all of the obstacles members here have thrown up as objections. ^^^^^An overlooked, fallacy of this whole scenario is that it is not a hoax unless you can convince someone it is bigfoot without claiming it is such. Unless, science interprets from that evidence that it is a new hominin of some type, they are just samples sent somewhere for testing and the results aren't public yet. Another fallacy is that modern human samples would somehow fool people (if not scientists)and be interesting because some particular person was not in the data base. Modern human Hss as a species, along with other species are identified based on a percent of similarity because all species vary and are not clones. The scenario makes a play on laymen perception and depends on a lack of understanding to work at all. In other words, pathetic coming from someone who "does" know better than to propose it in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spurfoot Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 The most fundamental reason that the Parnassus hypothetical scenario would not be successful is that analysis of the linkage disequilibrium of the DNA would quickly expose the hypothetical hoax. This should be obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Here's another quote from Sykes: I bolded the part I think is interesting... "The collection phase of the project will run through September, with genetic testing following that through November. After that, Sykes said, they will write up the results for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal; this would be the first such publication of cryptozoology results, he said." The FIRST! What does that mean for Ketchum? If this does not lend some urgency to her study, nothing will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Tontar, thanks for that link! I'm really glad that has been posted, as I find myself absolutely guilty as charged for having made connections and declarations about a "NEW DNA STUDY!!! MUST ADD LEGITIMACY TO KETCHUM STUDY!" Clearly, that was wish fulfillment. And clearly I'm not immune. I'm still very excited by the study, and am glad Jeff Meldrum is involved, so that perhaps high quality samples can be vetted for the study. But the nature of the study is not much more transparent (to the benefit of everyone), and is clearly NOT an attempt to verify findings of the Ketchum study. How this all plays out shall make for interesting viewing. Sas, up above, challenged the board to list out the 'facts' in the Ketchum case. So, in my head, I started to attempt that feat, and quickly found that, as closely as I've been following this whole thing, I just can't do it. There are so many conflicting sources, rumors, counter-rumors, speculation, and pages and pages of conjecture, that at this point it's Roshamon's game. So, I for one will back off any declarative statements. I find myself backed firmly into a 'camp', and find that position untenable for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 yahoo, we've been over this and over this. The only DNA we've seen from Ketchum or Stubstad is modern human. The copyright documents, the domain names. Paulides stuff. The long delay. It all speaks to modern human with some polymorphisms that weren't in Genbank. What do you have? faith? Please, I'm serious and I hope you won't dodge and dodge. Please show us all your evidence that there is something other than modern human DNA with some polymorphisms that aren't in Genbank. Please. It's time; I've answered over and over. Now it's your turn. Dodge or answer. Now. Please. Show us some DNA evidence? or something from Ketchum or Stubstad? something. Not just "I'm sure Ketchum wouldn't be going to all this trouble..." type stuff. That's just in your mind. Waiting. p. Parn there is no DNA in the form of sequence data until this paper publishes, you know that. Where is the human DNA? Are you accepting that on faith? All I have is a sample and words from Dr. Ketchum, some I can't share yet, you know that too. I do think I'll be sending a sample to Dr. Sykes, because it will be worth it to watch you imagine another hoax scenario. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 yahoo, we've been over this and over this. The only DNA we've seen from Ketchum or Stubstad is modern human. The copyright documents, the domain names. Paulides stuff. The long delay. It all speaks to modern human with some polymorphisms that weren't in Genbank. What do you have? faith? Please, I'm serious and I hope you won't dodge and dodge. Please show us all your evidence that there is something other than modern human DNA with some polymorphisms that aren't in Genbank. Please. It's time; I've answered over and over. Now it's your turn. Dodge or answer. Now. Please. Show us some DNA evidence? or something from Ketchum or Stubstad? something. Not just "I'm sure Ketchum wouldn't be going to all this trouble..." type stuff. That's just in your mind. Waiting. p. "To address the recent hype and misstatements concerning my paper, please be advised that the information pulled off the US Copyright website for a 2010 preregistration for a proposed media project is not an accurate summary of our scientific testing and data and does not reflect the current conclusions of our scientific paper." "I have to remind everyone, that until it is published, I cannot discuss our data at all." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Sykes published timeline is interesting. It shows a rather fast track process. This might be simply because he has more experience and credibility in the publishing process. It will be interesting to see if he can fulfill publication by the end of this year. Regarding Sas's challenge to list the facts of the Ketchum study, I think that this would be a challenge for anyone, since to my knowledge no forum member is directly involved in the actual research or writing. Some forum members have submitted samples and are under NDA agreements. We know the Sierra Kill sample is one of the submitted samples. Dr. Ketchum has denied that what they have is human DNA. She has indicated repeatedly on her official Facebook page that things are progressing and their finding are exciting and a major find of a new species, etc. but until publication the facts are hiding behind a cloak of NDA's and as Huff pointed out the potential for legal actions by parties that have submitted samples may be there as well. Rumors and speculation have abounded from the beginning post of this entire thread, from the whole "it's gotta be human DNA" thing to it must all be a hoax thing. It has been a fun ride for discussion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 "I'm challenging and inviting the cryptozoologists to come up with the evidence instead of complaining that science is rejecting what they have to say," said geneticist Bryan Sykes of the University of Oxford. So Sykes is channeling me now? So we can finally put the "science won't give bigfoot a fair shake" thing to bed now. . . . Sykes said, they will write up the results for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal; this would be the first such publication of cryptozoology results, he said." The FIRST! What does that mean for Ketchum? Ketchum wouldn't be the first either. Methinks Sykes should dig through the literature a bit more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 You can watch it most afternoons down at the courthouse. ...or on Jerry Springer. Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 Sas I guess it will depend on when Ketchum's paper is published. At the rate we're going, Sykes may publish his results first. I'm curious to see if his study will be as secretive as Ketchum's? So far, he's leading in the media race and he hasn't even started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts