Guest parnassus Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 (edited) I guess you haven't been listening to Saskeptic, the journal isn't going to do the paper for the author or any of the work. The paper has to be done right, the structure of the study, with all relevant analyses must eliminate all other possible explanations for the data. We've heard arguments that someone could fake the results with a mixture of human and ape blood, or that the samples could be contaminated by human DNA, and that just because the sequences of all humans are not in the data base, the results would be meaningless. You are now flipping your argument in stating it makes no difference how the study is done, provided the DNA shows something unique. We also have arguments that the results need to be repeatable. Would Henry G. puplish wihout that being done? Or are you satisfied it has been? So you think it's likely that between Ketchum, with forensic experience, and the other labs she sent this stuff to, that they coudn't get the DNA right? Do you think she's a crook, or a fool? or just incompetent? which is it? they couldn't simply do the DNA analysis and send it off and replicate it?? Really? when she has specifically said that the testing was replicated? I mean, that's her career, her business, her livelihood, she has to face court cross examination on her work. I'm not a big fan of Ketchum's qualifications and track record for business, but even I don't believe that she can't run an electrophoresis and mail out containers and read the results, and transcribe them into a paper which says: we have DNA that is "one third of the way from a human to a chimp?" Really? You think that Henry Gee would say, "no, sorry, I know you have identified a new species of primate but you spelled "electrophoresis" wrong, so I tore up your paper? c'mon.....can't you see how self destructive that would be for Henry Gee? does the man seem like a hopeless neurotic to you? The problem is in the validity of the data (there is no way to show that it came from a bigfoot), and the results (modern human), not the procedures/DNA analysis. Those problems can't be remedied. That's why the paper was handed back without apparently even making it to review. It seems you want to misinterpret what Saskeptic said. That's what I predicted; thanks for fulfilling my prediction. The fact is, and Saskeptic will tell you substantially the same thing, is that many papers have flaws or areas of concern, which are pointed out by the reviewers and can be addressed by the authors. The paper can then be accepted for publication, if the material is otherwise of value. I have had that experience, and I bet that Saskeptic has as well. That doesn't seem to be what happened here; what seems to have happened is that the editors felt the paper just didn't have value, as it was "handed back," which seems to mean that it didn't even make it to review. I realize you don't have first hand experience with the process; but use your common sense. Edited January 1, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 It is true that Paulides doesn't shy away from other weird observations, other than bigfoot, I'll give him that. One letter from the lab is on page 253 for a sample provided from Gasquet California dated Dec. 19th 2008. The sample was determined from morphology exam to be from an unknown primate with no DNA result at that point. It was suspected there was inhibitors that were interfering with amplification that sometimes occurs with feline hairs. The lab said that further testing was warranted and that they were developing "novel extraction protocols and kits" to get a pure DNA result. Another letter is on page 372 & 373 from Hoopa Valley "Ullibarri" sample. and dated Mar. 21, 2009. They had sequenced nuDNA and were analysing X / Y chromosome markers. (Amelogenin Locus) The result indicated was not normal for humans. This latter sample was discussed by Ketchum and Paulides on Coast to Coast and both letters have similar writing style and comments at the end. It is looking like a Non-human type of human. If that seems confusing, I wouldn't blame Paulides for it , he is just as much at the mercy of what science can tell us about it as anyone. You might also consider that Paulides might be purposely simplistic, while also well informed about whether there is any non-human ape specific sequences in the results. ETA: I think Jodie is mistaken. Mistaken about what exactly? I qouted what was on page 467 about half way down the page in the chapter on DNA, which was the only reference in the entire book about actual sequenced DNA. Paulides wrote it, now whether he was being super simplistic, I don't know, why doesn't someone just e-mail and ask him? Sorry, I didn't look in the Hoopa Project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 Mistaken about what exactly? I qouted what was on page 467 about half way down the page in the chapter on DNA, which was the only reference in the entire book about actual sequenced DNA. Paulides wrote it, now whether he was being super simplistic, I don't know, why doesn't someone just e-mail and ask him? Sorry, I didn't look in the Hoopa Project. Check the page references I gave Jodie , in "Tribal bigfoot" . What lab did those? The lab isn't named and cannot be assumed to be Curt Nelson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 (edited) I've read the Hoopa Project. Paulides didn't write about DNA in this book, but still implies a connection between Bigfoot and humans. From histories with the residents of the reservation Paulides learned that in stressful times people left children in the forest. The implication in the book is that there was interbreeding at some point. Also, Paulides employed state police artist Harvey Pratt to draw likenesses of individual Bigfoots from witness accounts. Again, the drawings are very human looking, and in my reading Paulides wants us to see how human these subjects are in appearance. Edited January 1, 2012 by mitchw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 So you think it's likely that between Ketchum, with forensic experience, and the other labs she sent this stuff to, that they coudn't get the DNA right? Now you are deliberately confusing the DNA with the paper. The DNA can be great, while the technical writing in the paper is lacking. Both have to be good for publishing. Do you think she's a crook, or a fool? or just incompetent? which is it? None of the above. they couldn't simply do the DNA analysis and send it off and replicate it?? Really? when she has specifically said that the testing was replicated? I mean, that's her career, her business, her livelihood, she has to face court cross examination on her work. I didn't say she didn't , I asked if you are satisfied she did. I'm not a big fan of Ketchum's qualifications and track record for business, but even I don't believe that she can't run an electrophoresis and mail out containers and read the results, and transcribe them into a paper which says: we have DNA that is "one third of the way from a human to a chimp?" Really? You think that Henry Gee would say, "no, sorry, I know you have identified a new species of primate but you spelled "electrophoresis" wrong, so I tore up your paper? c'mon.....can't you see how self destructive that would be for Henry Gee? does the man seem like a hopeless neurotic to you? Bolded is a straw man. You've not heard Dr. K. say any such thing. There is much more to technical writing of a paper than misspellings and you know it. The problem is in the validity of the data (there is no way to show that it came from a bigfoot), and the results (modern human), not the procedures/DNA analysis. Those problems can't be remedied. That's why the paper was handed back without apparently even making it to review. You don't even know that the paper was handed back parn, and you've already stated that it wasn't submitted to Nature, so what are the facts here? It seems you want to misinterpret what Saskeptic said. That's what I predicted; thanks for fulfilling my prediction. The fact is, and Saskeptic will tell you substantially the same thing, is that many papers have flaws or areas of concern, which are pointed out by the reviewers and can be addressed by the authors. The paper can then be accepted for publication, if the material is otherwise of value. I have had that experience, and I bet that Saskeptic has as well. That doesn't seem to be what happened here; what seems to have happened is that the editors felt the paper just didn't have value, as it was "handed back," which seems to mean that it didn't even make it to review. I realize you don't have first hand experience with the process; but use your common sense. Misinterpret, absolutely not, and in fact you just made my point with the bolded part here. Saskeptic has said that Nature receives over 10,000 papers a year for submission, and publishes a tiny fraction of them. I don't see that this is necessarily because there are so many bad papers, but because they couldn't even publish all of the good ones if they wanted to.Their cup runneth over so to speak. While we argree that DNA evidence for an extant non-human primate in North America would garner anyones attention, you seem to be down playing the hurdles of publication. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 no. If Ketchum has a new primate DNA, and submits a paper on it to Nature, then its like someone has just handed Henry Gee a solid gold bar. Do you think he is going to just "hand it back" because it has some imperfection? a bird turd on a bar of gold?? absolutely not. You are completely wrong if you think he would let that get away, and you have no basis for saying so. IMHO you just want to invent some bias; you want to pretend that Ketchum has found gold but that Gee would reject it anyway. no. the reality is that Henry Gee would be sticking a sharp stick in his own eye and twisting it, if he were to do that. And why? WHY? IMHO you just can't accept the fact that Gee would love to have a paper documenting a new primate. Evidently Ketchum doesn't have one. Instead, she apparently has the other alternative: a paper that in essence says, "this modern human DNA was collected by bigfoot enthusiasts so it must be from bigfoots." Well, that is just never going to fly in any journal worth the paper it's printed on. With the recent Yeti finger findings you would think this would be better understood but apparently some don't want to see the obvious. What was the conclusion? It wasn't "my gosh, Yeti is a human." It was, Well, it not a yeti finger it is a human finger. I agree with parn on this point, and that being the whole thing is an untestible hypothesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 (edited) I've read the Hoopa Project. Paulides didn't write about DNA in this book, but still implies a connection between Bigfoot and humans. From histories with the residents of the reservation Paulides learned that in stressful times people left children in the forest. The implication in the book is that there was interbreeding at some point. Also, Paulides employed state police artist Harvey Pratt to draw likenesses of individual Bigfoots from witness accounts. Again, the drawings are very human looking, and in my reading Paulides wants us to see how human these subjects are in appearance. Those human children would not live long living with creatures who eat raw meat for food. Plus the kids would need shelter, and coverings to deal with the winter whereas BF does not. I think rather than abandoning children to die in the woods they should have done something more merciful. Don't ask me what because I cannot even think of the horror a child would feel if left in the woods alone, much less having a parent end their life, but I'd go with the parent killing the child over abandonment in the forest. Edited January 2, 2012 by SweetSusiq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Check the page references I gave Jodie , in "Tribal bigfoot" . What lab did those? The lab isn't named and cannot be assumed to be Curt Nelson. Ok, I reread it, where does it say what lab came up with the inhibitors similar to a cat? It says the lab NABS uses.......... Thanks Parn, I do remember that being one of the conclusions. Who nailed the screws in the board and put it on the front porch? Do we know that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Strick Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Who nailed the screws in the board and put it on the front porch? Do we know that? I remember reading that this is standard practice at remote cabins in Northern Canada, which are generally locked down all winter. Apparently it deters bears and other inquisitive wildlife. As others have noted, I find it hard to fathom why someone would think it more likely an undocumented hominid would step on a nail board rather than a person. As far as I know, people step on sharp spiky objects all the time.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 I thought the cabin was completely trashed so the owner put out the board to prevent a repeat. That particular episode of Monster Quest scared my five or six-year-old (at the time). The growling CGI Bigfoot definitely made an impression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Another letter is on page 372 & 373 from Hoopa Valley "Ullibarri" sample. and dated Mar. 21, 2009. They had sequenced nuDNA and were analysing X / Y chromosome markers. (Amelogenin Locus) The result indicated was not normal for humans. This latter sample was discussed by Ketchum and Paulides on Coast to Coast and both letters have similar writing style and comments at the end. sy, Thanks. This is the type of thing I was looking for. From what I've read and heard, the "Ullibarri" sample is part of the DNA report. Paulides gave a recreation of Raven Ullibarri's sighting at the recent Honobia conference. So the nuDNA was sequenced and an amelogenin finding suggested an abnormality. Alone, this would not be impressive. But, what if this abnormality is consistently found in other samples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 The problem is in the validity of the data (there is no way to show that it came from a bigfoot), and the results (modern human), not the procedures/DNA analysis. Those problems can't be remedied. That's why the paper was handed back without apparently even making it to review. It's surely ironic that of all the rumors circulating, the only one you give any credence came from Matt Moneymaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Could it be a case of celebrity worship? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 I've been away for a few days, so I missed the reemergence of the Nature speculation. Dr. K said the paper was not with the Nature group. Why all the Henry Gee and Nature talk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Jodie @1088. Here's a link to that Monsterquest episode. The spike board is described at ~6 min mark. The owner did it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYkxHm5o-k4&feature=related Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts