Guest Theagenes Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 (edited) I take back what I said about my screen name. Were the few shared haplotypes from the same mito Eve? Two of Stubstad's samples had the same mito Eve (one being the toenail which we now know for sure is in the study). Anyway, wouldn't we need to know the size of the BF population and frequency of hybridization to statistically rule out the idea with absolute certainty? Slim, here are the haplotypes that she listed. Again this is being partially quoted for educational purposes in accordence with fair use. Sample # is on the left, haplotype is on the right. 26 - H1a, one novel SNP 1, 2, 12, 36, - T2b 28 - H1 35 - H10 29, 44, 46, 138 - H2a2 39b,41, 42, 43 - T2 37 - H12 11 - A6L2c 31 - LOd2a 38 - V2 24 - H1s 4,37 - H3 33. 95 - H 140,168 - D 81 - C 71,117,118 - L3d 8, 139, 18* - HV2 (human specific) only 46-137 - Partial HV1 (human specific) screened only #26 is the steak. So this list is not just the 20 that she got full mtDNA genomes on but all the samples. The last two groups (Hv1 and HV2) were screened as human but not assigned to a specific haplotype. So out of all these samples, haplotypes T2b, H2A2, and T2 have the most repesented samples with 4 each---these are common European types. L3d has 3 represented samples---this is common type for West Africans and African Americans. Only three samples came back with a Native American haplotype (Samples #140, 168, and 81) Note that there are no examples of Haplotype X --- the so-called "Solutrean haplotype." Edited February 14, 2013 by Theagenes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Second, unless I am missing something, I was under the impression that the journal that was purchased was called Frontiers of Zoology. I did a search and I can find no reference anywhere to that journal. None. It didn't exist. There is a Frontiers in Zoology, but that one looks to be legitimate and still active. So right from the start, the premise of buying an established journal and changing the name is a lie. It was Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Exploration in Zoology, not Frontiers in Zoology, so it's not a lie. That journal was new and just getting started itself, hence them not wanting to take the risk. While it doesn't look good from a PR standpoint, from a business standpoint it's smart. Ugly, but definitely not a lie. Important part is the word "established". people are already talking about her 'buying an established reputable journal'. She did NOT do that at all.. She bought one (by her own account) which someone had just started up, and which had never published anything. She might as well have started her own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Well we have to remember that something happened that created the desire or need to mate across species. Perhaps they were already dying out. The Soluntrea theory could have merit in that look at the early colonists. They died out at an alarming rate early on because of the new conditions. If the early visitors had females, they could have chosen joining the original BF species instead of death. Also, you say they would only pick up some human DNA... but wouldn't even the first hybrid offspring have 100% mDNA since it's passing mother to offspring? Then if you look at those earlier times, the women didn't just have one or two children. They had extremely large families. If there was a shortage of original female BF, it wouldn't take too long before the hybrid overtook the original completely erasing them from the equation. Now repeat this phase with at least 16 females (there would have been many more that came over) and that explains the different haplotypes. Could the haplotypes vary if the hybrids mated with human females at some point? I 100% agree that Melba did a poor job explaining this, but I think it's not too hard to hypothesize how these things that you say ruin the paper, could be viable. Smart from a business standpoint? How so? If you were doing a study on BF, it's reasonable to say most journals would give you a hard time. IF science eventually tries to refute MK's study and they come to the same conclusions, albeit with better wording and explanations, it will open the door to more studies. If it's proven that they are a human hybrid, would you send a study to Nature? A zoology journal? Or would you send it to the journal that broke ground on the new discovery. It's a big if, but just remember that Nature started its journal in 1967 and it too had to have its first paper. It all comes down to the if. If it is never even tested or refuted, does it matter in the end? But if it does have merit.... it opens the door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Well, let's wait and see if there is consensus about the merits of Ketchum's work. But assuming you've found the important faults, Theagenes, how to explain the hairs and the large flesh sample, both of which can be examined independently? Personally, I never thought a single paper could do more than begin a more serious study of Bigfoot, but maybe the withering ridicule of the field will be tempered. "17. Who owns the samples?The sample submitters own their samples, although most were consumed by the testing process." I don't think there will be much if any samples to retest for verification. https://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/qa/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Well we have to remember that something happened that created the desire or need to mate across species. Perhaps they were already dying out. The Soluntrea theory could have merit in that look at the early colonists. They died out at an alarming rate early on because of the new conditions. If the early visitors had females, they could have chosen joining the original BF species instead of death. Also, you say they would only pick up some human DNA... but wouldn't even the first hybrid offspring have 100% mDNA since it's passing mother to offspring? Then if you look at those earlier times, the women didn't just have one or two children. They had extremely large families. If there was a shortage of original female BF, it wouldn't take too long before the hybrid overtook the original completely erasing them from the equation. Now repeat this phase with at least 16 females (there would have been many more that came over) and that explains the different haplotypes. Could the haplotypes vary if the hybrids mated with human females at some point? I 100% agree that Melba did a poor job explaining this, but I think it's not too hard to hypothesize how these things that you say ruin the paper, could be viable. It only matters if there's anything unusual in the nuclear DNA anyway, doesn't it? And from all accounts anything unusual is consistent with degradation, which she counters by saying "it wasn't degraded". I think that needs sorting first. If there is something in the nuclear DNA, then it's worth theorising some scenario to explain the very odd mtDNA - otherwise there's just no need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Well Llawgoch - I guess whether its reputable or not I guess doesn't really matter.. She wiped it out. It's hard to imagine why she would do that - but she did apparently.. So, you're right. It would have been cheaper and easier to just build the site and go forward.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Yes, let's not forget that different races of humans can be desimated when one lacks immunities the other has, and is cohabitating. Add in some mate selection into the equation, natural selection through attrition and we could have one species mito among two or variants of one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Well Llawgoch - I guess whether its reputable or not I guess doesn't really matter.. She wiped it out. It's hard to imagine why she would do that - but she did apparently.. So, you're right. It would have been cheaper and easier to just build the site and go forward.. Trust me, from someone who did web design for years for extra cash, the site is ugly and the layout horrid. You'll get no arguments there from me. But they HAD to change the name. The old journal was about zoology. If the new species is a human hybrid, keeping the old name made have made it look even worse. There was a short paper there previously, but not sure if they kept it up. It wasn't anything special. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 (edited) Smart from a business standpoint? How so? If you were doing a study on BF, it's reasonable to say most journals would give you a hard time. IF science eventually tries to refute MK's study and they come to the same conclusions, albeit with better wording and explanations, it will open the door to more studies. If it's proven that they are a human hybrid, would you send a study to Nature? A zoology journal? Or would you send it to the journal that broke ground on the new discovery. It's a big if, but just remember that Nature started its journal in 1967 and it too had to have its first paper. It all comes down to the if. If it is never even tested or refuted, does it matter in the end? But if it does have merit.... it opens the door. I can't find an answer to my question in your words here. The question is why do you think it is a smart business move for her to purchase a new on-line journal that has not yet published and apparently Ok'd. but refused to publish her paper? Edited February 14, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Paper passes peer review with unknown reviewers as is the right way. journal refuses to publish for reasons unrelated to opinions of the reviewers. paper is passed with bonafide peer review and stands in limbo. author buys journal and publishes paper, skirting polictical and cultural and institutional bias. Sounds like a real bit of Texas resourefulness and grit from a smart Texas lady to me. More than one way to skin a loud mouth biased pollictically correct institution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 If MK's study is validated, future BF studies will most likely rush to her journal. They've already patented most of the procedures and claimed every domain names related, so the journal fits the model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 As one in the "more likely than not" camp for BF's existence, I'm not so much left with a doubt as to the essential veracity of Ms. Ketchum's findings...that is, I don't get the sense she is fraudulent or deliberately opaque...as the sense she is in a bit over her head, and has been for some time. I give her props for her courage, but maybe it is time to just acknowledge she brought a knife to a gunfight, hmmm? Persistence is also not something she lacks, to her credit again, but what I'm sniffing is somewhat of a persecution complex...never a helpful attitude when you are an outsider trying to learn the secret handshake and high-sign for admittance into the inner realm of mainstream academia. She was quoted as saying she would not expect Sykes or the Oxford team to have much trouble getting published, as they are "male, and from Oxford." Without commenting on the quality of her work, I'd say she made an accurate prediction there. If Sykes' study does jibe with hers, well, how monumental would that be, huh? One small, baby step for science, with the hope of more to follow. In the coming days, we'll learn if this has any traction with the mainstream news outlets, and what the editorial slant they give it will be. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Trust me, from someone who did web design for years for extra cash, the site is ugly and the layout horrid. You'll get no arguments there from me. But they HAD to change the name. The old journal was about zoology. If the new species is a human hybrid, keeping the old name made have made it look even worse. There was a short paper there previously, but not sure if they kept it up. It wasn't anything special. The "old journal" was not about anything as it existed, if it existed at all, only as a pipe-dream. It had NO presence in paper media or online. The only thing anyone has ever claimed it did was get Ketchum's piece peer-reviewed. The "other paper" was a nonsensical side of A4 saying how awful scientists are, put up SINCE Ketchum's ownership. Do we know the names of the supposed former editors and owners? She was quoted as saying she would not expect Sykes or the Oxford team to have much trouble getting published, as they are "male, and from Oxford." Without commenting on the quality of her work, I'd say she made an accurate prediction there. If Sykes' study does jibe with hers, well, how monumental would that be, huh? If all Sykes has at the end is the fact that he's tested a lot of samples and found them all to be human, bison, bear etc. (as is likely and, you have to remember, AS HE EXPECTS - Sykes is doing this to call Bigfooters' bluff, not to prove Bigfoot) then I doubt any big journal would want that either. It simply isn't interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianmk Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Can participants in the study who submitted samples to the study and who were under a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) now discuss whatever it was they couldn't discuss before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 (edited) People Booger: If the journal we were discussing had any history I would find that easier to accept. But we seem to have no information about this previous Journal...just that "call to papers" blurb...and the reference in the Ketchum paper. What resources they have generally in terms of a pool of reviewers (even if specific ones anon to her) is a complete unknown and remains so on the DeNovo webiste. One must register to even see the standards for submissions...that is odd also I think. But, let's say they are awesome reviewers and reviews, and the journal doesn't publish. Those reviewer's opinions remain theirs, she doesn't need to buy them. Their names are not put out by either Journal.....unless they so choose I believe and some say she wanted contact with those reviewers -. she could negotiate for just that portion of the as yet to be Journal's IP (the reviews) and then re-initiated the process on her own new Journal with those reviewers. One would think more efficient, and less costly as buying out a Journal..unless the transaction only amounted to a pittance. Does anyone know what state the other Journal was registered in? It's all meaningless though if those reviewers do not come forward for either Journal..as both are new and have no reputation or history, goodwill, and an assertion of peer-review is only that, an assertion. I would expect her to make use of the peer-reviews she bought by publishing them. NJJoun- I wasn't aware she has filed patent apps as well on lab methods/processes? I thought it was all copyrights, websites/domains, companies, etc... Edited February 14, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts