Guest SquatchinNY Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Moderator Statement: Folks, some of you have been getting personal with your posts to each other. Please keep your comments directed at the topic, not other members! Thankyou in advance for your efforts. AaronD O my goodness, with your new avatar, I keep thinking you are someone else! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) Since I conclude that the data exists and is confirmed, that leaves only the putative chain of custody for the samples and the interpretation of the data as potential problem areas. Great post JDL, the only thing I don't agree with you on is the issue for the chain of custody. If she followed the correct protocols for removing contamination then she will end up with what is there as long as degradation hasn't occurred. I don't see that as such an issue, but do agree that the interpretation might be the problem. Genes r Us has put the figure at 5K iirc, and weeks not months, with recently introduced technology. Yes, sequencing might not take so long, but the data generated by 4 billion base pairs X 3 would take a very long time to interpret. I think it was George Knapp, not sure of his reliability, that said some of the results were done as far back as 2 1/2 years ago when he discussed the research with Dr. Ketchum. Explain to us your understanding of the DNA in Ketchum's report and why you think 5 years is to short a time? DNA in police labs are expected back within 6 months. In your opinion, to short or to long to capture a violent criminal before he ends up committing another crime? There is a difference between forensic identification that might look at maybe 12 markers for humans and compare those to their family members for identification as opposed to going through 4 billion base pairs to figure out what it is exactly that you are looking at when genes are not singular things that work seperately. The differences in the homo species can be very subtle since we are all like snowflakes anyway, no two exactly alike, even if you are a twin. I'm thinking in this case, "The Ketchum Report", opinions and judgements have already been formed by non experts, who just want to gossip, long before the hard evidence has been presented. Lots of assumptions by many who have zilch for evidence of their own. I think all of us are simply basing opinions on what she has said and varying levels of what we know about physiology, biology, and general genetics. Don't let it bother you, someone has to be wrong when everything is said and done and I certainly don't mind if it is me. Edited December 8, 2012 by CTfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) Yes, sequencing might not take so long, but the data generated by 4 billion base pairs X 3 would take a very long time to interpret. I think it was George Knapp, not sure of his reliability, that said some of the results were done as far back as 2 1/2 years ago when he discussed the research with Dr. Ketchum. There is a difference between forensic identification that might look at maybe 12 markers for humans and compare those to their family members for identification as opposed to going through 4 billion base pairs to figure out what it is exactly that you are looking at when genes are not singular things that work seperately. The differences in the homo species can be very subtle since we are all like snowflakes anyway, no two exactly alike, even if you are a twin. With the advancement of new equipment and technology, it only seems logical that the times can be reduced for results. We don't know what Melba has on hand for equipment, or the capabilities of them? Edited December 8, 2012 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) No articles have been shown to claim that it is not that simple, when in fact it is. And it it isn't a match, then it's something new. That is simple enough for anyone to comprehend. Which is how you determine what sort of critter it likely is. Again, pretty straightforward process to comprehend: Compare, Count, and Compute. I never said there wasn't more to learn. The point that I and everyone else has been making is that even if we don't learn more from this study, it is (assuming that the science holds) 100% dispositive proof that there IS something new out there, whatever it might be. Seeing as how we have living hominid hybrids right now and fully recognized within genus homo (Neanderthal cross and Denisovan cross), one more is no great conceptual leap and would make perfect sense. If you will read what they did to try to figure out how different the Denisovans were from us, there's your prime example, it took several years. Those links have been posted all over this thread and forum. As for your second assertion, nope, we are all unique and not every human or primate sequence is in GenBank. If she used the SNP profile for the entire genome that can give you false positives for something unique, when in fact it isn't. Genes are not singular things laid out like a road map, they work in tandem with each other, timing is also involved as to how they express. Your third assertion- It probably is a new sequence if the person or animal's specific genome is not in GenBank, but unless the analysis/interpretation was done correctly then you can't say it is a new species. We won't know until we read her paper. Fourth assertion- There is controversy over how to interpret the 4-6% of genetic material that we share with Neandertals and Denisovans, it could be the remnant from a common ancestor before we all split rather than an indication for hybridization. The final word is not in yet on that aspect. See page 367 of this thread for the links I posted for the 4 research articles about the the hypothesis of the role for pre-eclampsia and hybridization. With the advancement of new equipment and techonogy, it only seems logical that the times can be reduced for results. We don't know what Melba has on hand for equipment, or the capabilities of them? True, I believe they developed a new way to process and clone genetic material faster when they were working on the Denisovan genome, now they want to go back and redo the Neandertal genome. If Melba sent her samples out blind to her referral labs I wonder if they knew what protocol to use??? We will have to wait see what she did exactly. Edited December 8, 2012 by CTfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Yes, sequencing might not take so long, but the data generated by 4 billion base pairs X 3 would take a very long time to interpret. I think it was George Knapp, not sure of his reliability, that said some of the results were done as far back as 2 1/2 years ago when he discussed the research with Dr. Ketchum. You have no way to trust my reliability either but for what it's worth, I was told in November 2011 by someone in this saga that complete genome sequencing was just getting underway. I'd have to check my notes but I believe he floated a pretty big number. I want to say $70,000 (not sure if that was per sequence or not). I noticed the 2 1/2 year comment from George Knapp as well. That was before the Sierra shooting. Stubstad was still a team member, etc. I'm certain her conclusions are very different now. Along these lines, I noticed Ketchum has used the phrase "next generation sequencing" a few times when discussing the full genomes. Anyone know what that means specifically? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 I'll preface this by saying that I am a licensed professional chemical engineer... (snipped to save space) JDL, I wish I had not used up my +1s for the day! Well stated...Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. I respect and agree with what you say. Having no science background, I often game out the sasquatch phenomenon using the idea that everyone has a different level of belief (or knowledge) in ANY phenomena...Be it sasquatch, evolution, or the roundness of the Earth. On some level, most of us lay people HAVE to trust scientists when they tell us things are true, or false, because we simply do not have the education and skills to read the data directly. Your statement about the difference between a scientist who has 'seen' sasquatch, and one who has not, in considering the data resonates with me. In a writing project I started awhile back, I found an interesting thing happened: While I started out to write a saquatch story, it ended up being a story about who is believed, and who is DISbelieved in any strange tale. That actually became so much of the story that I stopped (for now), to further consider WHAT my story was about! You may have given my mind the nudge it needs to continue. Again, thanks for a post that may help others (it certainly helped me) sort out the lasting impact of the Ketchum study. ~Smitty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 (edited) Another recent article on Ketcham results and discussion section: BIGFOOT as a Human/Ape hybrid: what's this all about? http://thebiggeststudy.blogspot.com/2012/12/bigfoot-as-humanape-hybrid-whats-this.html Edited December 9, 2012 by ronn1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 (edited) From ronn1's link Human mDNA gets into Sasquatch by a Sasquatch mating with a woman, Huh? I thought this was about two different species of human (one being "modern human") mating and creating what is known as Sasquatch. I are confused. Edited December 9, 2012 by Rockape Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Another example of someone's error filled interpretation of the NOT YET released Ketchum report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 (edited) From ronn1's link Huh? I thought this was about two different species of human (one being "modern human") mating and creating what is known as Sasquatch. I are confused. *First* Sas was a hybrid from Human female and unknown species. Thus, those Offspring are the true SAS . OK...in order for mDNA to persist in the SAS...those SAS themselves must in turn mate with OTHER HUMAN FEMALES. Here is what was said: the mDNA comes not from "mixing" but from the mother alone. Ultimately mDNA is mixed in humans due to a lot of human-human interbreeding. Do we think that there would be a LOT of Human Sasquatch interbreeding? Also, females are the important element in the story. Human mDNA gets into Sasquatch by a Sasquatch mating with a woman, that woman having Sasquatch babies [doubtless a difficult birth for the smaller human birth canal], some of these surviving babies being girls with mom's mDNA, and either being popular successful breeders or there being an awful lot of sasquatch rapes of women who then have successful pregnancies. Another example of someone's error filled interpretation of the NOT YET released Ketchum report. Where is the error filled interpretation? You don't need the report to respond to what's already *out there*>>>> Basically...he is responding to what Ketcham has already SAID....Hybrid from human and unknown...originated *around* 15K years ago. Here's a quote to sum up his position: "I guess that I have nothing to do but to await whatever results and awkward explanations may come" Edited December 9, 2012 by ronn1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY29c1wDvKs This is the video I tried to post earlier, the man claims to be a Biologist and Bigfoot researcher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 What do you base that on? The fact that I don't yet accept a study that hasn't been published and hasn't been confirmed by other PRs? And, based on your statements to date, will find some way to reject/dismiss/ignore even if it IS "confirmed". In the mean time, all you seem to have to offer the conversation is yammering about "hero worship", which is all heat and no light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 Another example of someone's error filled interpretation of the NOT YET released Ketchum report. WHHAAAAAAAA? "NOT YET RELEASED" you say?! But we're 375 pages deeeeep into speculation! Can't we MAKE HER fullfill our WISHES!?!?!?! [/sarcastic rant] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 You can't be serious. That comment just knocked you down a notch in my book. Damage control Mulder........ I'm not a huge fan of Biscardi, but fair is fair. He lost several 10s of 1000s of dollars obtaining what turned out to be a fake. Biscardi may be a showboat and more of a nuisance than an aid to the field of BF research, but that doesn't mean that it was kosher to take advantage of him as the GA boys did. You could call it "poetic justice" and have a point, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scout1959 Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 I have no idea. But someone who is a veterinarian/DNA expert and also has done human DNA work for 911 would seem to have access to some unique animal DNA and some very varied human DNA. Again not an accusation but an observation of a fascinating set of circumstances. So there is 'unique animal DNA' just laying around all veterinarian clinics.... 'unique' is 'unique' no vet has access to 'unique' DNA unless they manage to discover a new species that just happens to have 'unique' DNA. *First* Sas was a hybrid from Human female and unknown species. Thus, those Offspring are the true SAS . OK...in order for mDNA to persist in the SAS...those SAS themselves must in turn mate with OTHER HUMAN FEMALES That statement is flat out incorrect. A one time mating could introduce the mtDNA into the entire species given the correct set of circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts