Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) She is not a specialist in human genetic interpretation , much less ancient hominid DNA, forensic identification was used for the WTC victims, it's an entirely different thing. Not my opinion at all, just fact. It's not all that hard to look down a list of base pairs and see which match and which don't. The process is mostly computer operated anyways. Nevertheless she does have a great deal of experience in genetic identification, both animal and human. And that does not include the people in both her lab and the 13 others involved in the study. Your attempt to dismiss all that does you no credit. Edited November 28, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) She sounds technically sophisticated enough to be in the game to find the right people to do what needed to be done, if she couldn't do it herself. We shall see. I choose to disagree with your "facts". That's your prerogative, sir, and I respectfully agree with you on the consultation part, let's just hope she listened. It's not all that hard to look down a list of base pairs and see which match and which don't. The process is mostly computer operated anyways. Nevertheless she does have a great deal of experience in genetic identification, both animal and human. Your attempt to dismiss that experience does you no credit. I'm not looking for credit, and a little research on anyone's part who is curious as to how much work would be involved in such an endeavor could easily google it. I take it that you haven't. Edited November 28, 2012 by CTfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Don't forget to listen to the C2C David Paulides clip; enlightening... http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/35077-david-paulides-clears-recent-dna-misconceptions/#entry659364 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 She sounds technically sophisticated enough to be in the game to find the right people to do what needed to be done, if she couldn't do it herself. We shall see. I choose to disagree with your "facts". I do too , the basic function of DNA in biological entities is universal. Extracting sequences then comparing them to data bases is elementary to anyone in genetics. Understanding mutations and SNP's are her specialty and quite applicable to any genome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 We could be patient and see how her work is judged by her peers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 ... but that would be no fun.... (back to the regularly scheduled speculation) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) I do too , the basic function of DNA in biological entities is universal. Extracting sequences then comparing them to data bases is elementary to anyone in genetics. Understanding mutations and SNP's are her specialty and quite applicable to any genome. You can't use SNP's to identify a unique species simply because every individual entity on the planet has unique SNP variation. It clearly states this if anyone had bothered to look it up, on the GenBank web site and it's affiliated databases. Not every human being is represented in GenBank, what you do have is something like 990,000 pieces of sequences that belong to homo sapiens, this information is also listed on the GenBank website. Those 990,000 sequences represent less than 5% of the earth's population. If she found something unique through the study of SNP's, chances are it simply wasn't listed in the catalog, but it does not necessarily indicate anything unique. Edited November 28, 2012 by CTfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ike Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I'd say, let the media have at it. Melba is holding "all" the cards. She's likely sitting in her office having a coffee and big laugh over all the fuss of the news. If I remember correctly, she was one of the people called upon to identify DNA of the victims from 9/11, whereas there were "no" bodies to be found, in most of the cases. I've seen this mentioned before. Does anyone know the circumstances? Was it a situation where her expertise was sought because she is so notable in the field, or a situation where the body count was so overwhelming it was farmed out to any DNA lab that could help handle the workload? I think that is an important question, because every time I have seen this "fact" bandied about, the implication was "look, she's one of the best in the field, let's send it to her for testing." Whereas in fact the case may actually have been that they (whomever was in charge of ID'ing remains) was so overwhelmed with cases, they sent samples out to anyone who owns a Gilbert Chemistry Set and could crank out results in the time frame required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 I think you hit the nail on the head as far as why she was asked, still admirable work, but it doesn't make you an expert at identifying a unique species of primate/human/what is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) Dr. Ketchum confirmed that she did not get DNA from saliva-covered bagels. https://mobile.twitter.com/DrMelbaKetchum Edited November 28, 2012 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 Pretty much farmed out, Ike. Between the disaster site samples and the ante-mortem samples, there were literally tens of thousands of samples that needed testing, many of which were bone fragments that were deteriorating rapidly. Despite having the largest lab in the country, the NY OCME simply couldn't handle the volume in the time frame needed. Labs across the country stepped up to help out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 And why would a BF eat only half a bagel anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 For what it is worth, I just got confirmation from Robin Lynne, the new media spokesperson, that she did NOT make that strange comment to Dr. Meldrum about the sasquatches approving of the study. She said "no comment" and invited to pass on the question to Dr. K. Apparently Dr. Meldrum was either being tongue in cheek, or worse.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) I don't know that it is written anywhere in a post he made but last year he said exactly the same thing about Robin at the Pa. Bigfoot Conference. Perhaps there is a video of his presentation from there? Review it and you will see where that comment originated. Edited November 28, 2012 by CTfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted November 28, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted November 28, 2012 (edited) And why would a BF eat only half a bagel anyway? Saving room for that Holiday gorging?! Learned the lesson of sharing from the troupe? Edited November 28, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts