steenburg Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Smeja = fraud Have you seen the Trent University Study on this? You will find it interesting. Thomas Steenburg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 (edited) One question that I have is, if Bigfoot share the same mDNA as us, how can someone successfully prove a DNA sample from a Bigfoot belongs to a Bigfoot without doing nDNA analysis. Any small variation would be considered normal human to human variation like Dr. Todd Disotell said. It kind of brings into question the validity of Dr. Ketchum's study. Edited December 28, 2012 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 (edited) The F with the report! If you have the answer to one of the ..... If not "Thee" greatest mystery of all time, You let it be known! If she has Amazing HD videos... That will speak louder than any DNA samples. Bah! Humbug! Comments subject to change: In case I'm wrong. Edited December 28, 2012 by Skeptic4life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 (edited) They haven't provided any evidence (let alone proof) to back those claims. Did he? Link? Because that would be mentioning specific details of the study, which she is still unable to do pending the results of the re-review. This has been explained several times now. First statement: True. Also true: Ketchum has not provided any evidence (let alone proof) to back her claims. So, if you doubt the advocates' comments about what Ketchum told them privately, you must also doubt Ketchum. That is, if your reasoning requires "evidence (let alone proof)" and is not just overt bias. Second statement: I'll try to find it. Third statement: Not really. She has already stated the results of her study, loud and not so clear. Making an additional small comment concerning Smeja's sample would not break the bank. This has been explained before. Edited December 28, 2012 by jerrywayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 He sure did. I suggest you listen to his blogtalk interviews. I know the information you desire is also in the Sierra Shooting thread but for some bizarre reason, the search by author only presents four pages of results. However, I did find these more recent comments: Someone formerly know as "Jodie" asked him this: Derek's answer? I'm not sure what he's getting at but at least he thinks Jodie's smart. Oh well, there's more pertinent info in that thread but I'm not going to wade through the entire thing unless I'm doing my own homework. Here's an older post from Derek: Derekfoot, on 13 August 2011 - 09:12 AM, said: Prag, another great answer but you're still missing my point. I've done all the sleuthing on this story that I need to do. I can't prove it anymore in either direction. If I've been mislead it's my fault. I don't think the Generals going to come forward at this point with some huge revelation and say aw shucks, I was just funnin ya! If this whole story turned out to be crap guess what, there's still a flesh sample in the study, and like I said, I do know the results of that sample. I do believe the General. When all this is said and done, if I end up with egg on my face, I'll get a towel and wipe it off, regroup and start again. DR It seems he's insinuating that Ketchum told him the sample results came back bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 To me, Smeja is a fraud. With a fortune to be made having 2 squatches, he just leaves them there to mysteriously disappear? I'm not buying any of it. You presume that everyone is motivated primarily by the desire to gain great wealth, and that no other motives are powerful enough to overcome that desire. Smeja's statements indicate that the shooting was under conditions of extreme duress and that he greatly regretted having to do it. He was also very concerned about potential legal repercussions. The later alone is a very good reason to practice the "3 S-es" (Shoot, Shovel [figuratively], and Shut Up). He was later convinced to change his mind and show others the disposal site (or as close to it as he could recall) with an eye towards possible recovery of a specimen. Smeja = fraud Proof? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 (edited) Wish someone knowledgeable would come in and say," Hey, if you have this type sample first choice is this test. If you move on to DNA we use this test (it has a name and patent number, one can look up procedure or purpose/limits) and here's why. And so on. I am really just on the edge of a big DNA analysis hole, wondering what's down there! It is not clear to me the whys of certain choices or the limits. But, it does seem odd it took so long to test such a sample so very different than human? That it went straight to DNA analysis... (and I do understand ques can be long...) I imagine Ketchum took photos of the sample sent in, and kept the containing package, etc...so she will demonstrate any difference, when this is finally released.... I did post a question on Dr. Meldrum's FB and no answer, no surprise as he has never responded to any email or FB of mine ever. I imagine we won't see this study in any peer-review Journal of import, just my opinion. It feels to me these last days, that opportunity has passed, and we are seeing the recovery effort.. and it will surface self-published or a lesser publication. Just an opinion, but there is nothing out there to change it, yet! On MARBC relying on "if" and "maybe" to report growing rumors of a capture......I am just a little worn out! Too much chaos, too little order....too many _____ (fill in adjective!) So? I do think it will be easier to look away from all the chest-beating hopefuls again, I will accept whatever Sykes says. Part of me is wondering if we can turn back the clock...just say they don't exist? Edited December 28, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 28, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted December 28, 2012 I would have to ask if Melba's DNA work is indeed more advanced or rigorous than the other labs? Has she developed the protocol TO test for BF DNA...something which other labs haven't? If she hasn't developed her own techniques, she certainly has the background to probably do so would be my answer and jmho based on what I've read of her trademarked technology in other areas of dna testing and animal paternity as a foundation. If this study is messed up and never publishes I certainly wouldn't think it was because they didn't have the capacity or the network to do the work required to make something of it. JMHO/YMMV. Re: the Sierra's samples, it sure seemed a shoe-in that they had tested at least one of those samples according to numerous blogtalk interviews, facebook groups, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 (edited) If she hasn't developed her own techniques, she certainly has the background to probably do so would be my answer and jmho based on what I've read of her trademarked technology in other areas of dna testing and animal paternity as a foundation. If this study is messed up and never publishes I certainly wouldn't think it was because they didn't have the capacity or the network to do the work required to make something of it. JMHO/YMMV. Re: the Sierra's samples, it sure seemed a shoe-in that they had tested at least one of those samples according to numerous blogtalk interviews, facebook groups, etc. My understanding of peer-review is through the litigation model, and any novel method she employs could be a hold up for reviewers (and certainly a court), unless...that novel method is easily demonstrated in theory, or the method itself tested and peer-reviewed as a novel method. Combining novel techniques with a novel (Bigfoot!) species...in this fashion, would be very difficult to get signed off I imagine. And novel here could refer to not just lab techniques, but the region of the genome, or even the statistical analysis...anything that departs from already tried and true methods/reasoning....so, it does feel like something is novel in this study besides just "Bigfoot." Although, the arguments that is enough to stop a study may be correct...I don't know and wonder why I am typing...it's become a morning coffee habit. Edited December 28, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Does anyone remember the suggestion about her having to develop new primers for the BF samples? I can't remember where that came from now. Was it from her or Stubstad or just a RL rumor? I am beginning to wonder if it's not the new BF primers she supposedly developed that might be making her see BF where there isn't a BF, like JS's bear meat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Okay stupid question. I never said I was an expert in DNA.. I have been wondering about something- but keep forgetting to ask. It has always been said that if a DNA scientist were to extract Bigfoot DNA they would need to develop a specific "primer".. So, my question is this. Are "primers" something that are just accepted within the DNA scientific community or are they something that needs to pass their own level of inspection and examination (for lack of better words) before they are accepted as legitimate "primers" for use in DNA analysis? OR will the "primers" developed by Melba simply be accepted as legitimate bigfoot primers if or when her paper is published? How does this work? Anyone know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 28, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted December 28, 2012 (edited) http://seqcore.brcf....eq/primers.html http://seqcore.brcf....eq/primers.html Read them both and you will be as informed as most BF researchers I'd imagine. The headaches for free, and gee doesn't look like there is any way such a process could ever go wrong?! Remember Ketchum was looking at three or four specific regions that had to do with MC1R, etc etc When in doubt: http://www.genome.gov/19016904 Edited December 28, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 (edited) If the primers are new, and untested by others, it would need to be peer-reviewed as a method to gain "approval." One could just apply for a patent, then produce a product w/o peer-review of course. But, to gain wide acceptance in the scientific community someone somewhere must replicate those results...for that primer, or whatever.... A long time ago I personally felt the hold up, and route this was taking, was to allow her the cover for patent application (the law on patenting even genes is fairly wide open right now). In those situations, trade secrets and so on, the NDAs are very tight...it's commercial and the Patent office will help keep a great deal of info under wraps.....and we won't know if she has a patent until approved if I recall correctly (it's been a long while since I was involved in any patent questions). I no longer have any compelling thoughts about her work, or potential outcomes, beyond surface reactions to the rumor mill, or her statements.....we'll see. Bipedalist thanks for link, I just opened it, my eyes glazed over, and I thought, "If I have to advocate for one side or the other I will have to read this stuff and understand it, dang." ...fortunately I don't! My whole BF thing was supposed to be a few trips, one summer, for fun and relaxation..a Mythical being as backdrop for some me time in the forest...LOL....I am way past my intent on this one. But, it does feel like it is winding down, I guess I put a lot of faith in Sykes timely publication, .regardless of outcome...and the speculation will shift to, "What now?" Edited December 28, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest crabshack Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Does anyone remember the suggestion about her having to develop new primers for the BF samples? I can't remember where that came from now. Was it from her or Stubstad or just a RL rumor? I am beginning to wonder if it's not the new BF primers she supposedly developed that might be making her see BF where there isn't a BF, like JS's bear meat. I believe she developed the primers after seeing something unique (as per Stubstad) in several samples that all were showing up as human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 28, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted December 28, 2012 Seeing as there are now patents on 1/4 of the human genome, seems there is a long way to go with Sasquatch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts