Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Thank you that's exactly what we need to be looking for. It may make no sense to him, as he has no idea what he is looking at. Uhuuu.. So what we need to be looking for is human dna contaminated by/mixed up with another mammal? Did you consider that Ketchums interpretation is what makes no sense? There are explanations for the data that do make perfect sense: As far as the nuclear genome is concerned, the results are a mess. Sometimes the tests picked up human DNA. Other times, they didn't. Sometimes the tests failed entirely. The products of the DNA amplifications performed on the samples look about like what you'd expect when the reaction didn't amplify the intended sequence. And electron micrographs of the DNA isolated from these samples show patches of double- and single-stranded DNA intermixed. This is what you might expect if two distantly related species had their DNA mixed—the protein-coding sequences would hybridize, and the intervening sections wouldn't. All of this suggests modern human DNA intermingled with some other contaminant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Except, she says in the bottom of her paper that those listed as co-authors DID help write the paper: Author Contributions: M.K., P.W., D.S., A.H., S.B., R.S., and R.S. performed experiments. M.K, and F.Z. analyzed the genetic data. M.K., A.W., and P.W. wrote and edited the manuscript. A.H. analyzed and wrote the EM portion of the manuscript. D. S. analyzed and wrote the hair analysis portion of the manuscript. D.T. analyzed and wrote the histopathology portion of the manuscript. A.W. also researched pertinent additions to the manuscript and helped with data collection. M.K. distributed samples, collected and combined data from the blind studies. Yep I didn't read the acknowledgments. I don't have the full list handy--can someone post it? Three of those are her employees. AW is listed as a contact right? So makes sense she would have some involvement. Remember too that the reports she got back may have had methodology and conclusion sections that she would have copied or paraphrased, particularly things she isn't an expert in like electron microscopy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 (edited) Carl Zimmer, an award winning science writer has commented on the paper: https://twitter.com/...809169097453568 Every time I see one of these links posted, I feel like peeking through my fingers to see it. The response thus far has been an unmitigated disaster. The Houston chronicle blog was just absolutely scathing. Ok, yup. It's still a disaster, an incomprehensible one at that. Edited February 15, 2013 by Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 You know what Cornelius - I think about doing the same thing !!!!!!! LMAO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 So does anybody know why the epic of Gilgamesh is referenced in this paper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 At this point maybe the recourse is "Is there any way to salvage this data. Is there anything salvageable?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 (edited) we are al out of plusses for Theogenes today... it seems that is the picture emerging. except for those many submitters, and I hope thier claims will be validated somehow, if not with this, then Sykes... Over the three years watching this take a strange and unpredictable trajectory I also got to watch all kinds of proof blow up...and the Dyer thing seems so unreal, and yet still possible... and somehow I still think it is possible MK will be validated in some way....... I do know Bfs are real and I do believe many of the submitters provided evidence that is typical, and in some cases exceptional, to the evidence gathered from many for so many decades! Hey Theagenes, do you mind taking the baton and heading up the study? Edited February 15, 2013 by Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Man Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 HOBS - It's cited at the beginning in a brief overview of bigfoot history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest crabshack Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Uhuuu.. So what we need to be looking for is human dna contaminated by/mixed up with another mammal? Ummm, the simple answer is no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 So, long story short, it's a scam basically? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 (edited) theagenes - thanks for your helpful and clear analysis. can we boil this down to misinterpreted results that were glaringly obvious to those skilled in the underlying science, and as a result, an online journal was created to give the paper a veneer of respectability? My short, skeptical take on the unfolding events. Once upon a time, Ketchum was willing to support the notion that sasquatch exist and are 100% human; they are feral humans. During her DNA analysis, she discovered a "curve ball" and then she supported the notion that sasquatch exist and are human and unknown primate hybrids. This leads me to believe that whatever the data told, she was going to find sasquatch. This, to me, suggests she was/is prone to misinterpret (i.e., confirmation bias) or misrepresent (i.e., fraudelent) the data. I prefer misinterpret to misrepresent. Edited February 15, 2013 by jerrywayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Yep I didn't read the acknowledgments. I don't have the full list handy--can someone post it? Three of those are her employees. AW is listed as a contact right? So makes sense she would have some involvement. Remember too that the reports she got back may have had methodology and conclusion sections that she would have copied or paraphrased, particularly things she isn't an expert in like electron microscopy. Just to add. She lists PW as a writer and editor. He is one of the contributors the JREF contacted. He said he was a long time acquaintance, he was aware of the paper but hadn't seen a recent version. He tested some samples and helped format some images for her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 (edited) So, long story short, it's a scam basically? I wouldn't say scam per se. I think this is a case of someone who excessively overreached professionally after starting out with the best intentions. I think she got starry-eyed as well and began to emotionally invest in the study as hers exclusively. I also think she didn't know what she was getting into and just how punishing and cut-throat the Bigfoot field can be. So, in short, she poisoned her own well and drank her own kool aid. Looking at the oversight and the decisions that were made, I would say that she took full control and was surrounded by incompetence and yes-men. I mean, how is it that a paper, that has been revised ad infinitum for a period of months if not years, can display so many egregious errors in reasoning to the scientific community? And how is it that her website can not be ready and look so lame? And where is the video that was promised? I recall hearing from her that she purchased it from Erickson and that it would be released. Also, how is it that the briefings, press releases and web pages contain simple errors such as spelling and false attribution? All of this points to poor buy-in from her associates. When people don't respect your leadership, the work suffers as their minds wander. Edited February 15, 2013 by Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 My take, so far. Just some random observations: 1. The initial reviews of her report are poor. Not many seem excited by the results. Rather, they are critical of her methods and conclusions. 2. Buying the online journal, then renaming it and publishing herself was a bad decision that smacks of scam to the Scientific Establishment. It would have been better to publish it as an online 'white paper'. The fee hasn't helped either. 3. Her Hybridization theories seem to get no positive response whatsoever. 4. Proof in the pudding would be the nuDNA results. The data has not yet been made available. Until it is, negativity will grow. There ARE Geneticists etc who are interested in her study and would look at the data. How much longer will they stay interested? 5. As questions grow, she should be prepared to respond to her critics. Hopefully, not by Press Release. It won't be pleasant, but it will have to be done. Better to have all your data out there before you face your critics or you will be picked apart piecemeal. 6. None of the Scientists are interested in the 'Save the Sasquatch' angle. They are focused on proof only. Better to drop that line of attack completely and take care of business. Probably best to back off the hybridization angle too and concentrate on nuDNA proof. The rest will take care of itself. 7. Time is of the essence. At this rate, the whole project will be tarred and feathered within a couple of days. Time to fight back with data. 8. Kudos! for releasing the study! I had begun to think it would just slip into darkness and be forgotten! GK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TH68 Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 So where is Justin Smeja in all of this. His sample was the center piece of the study. Dr Ketchum said she was able to analyze the skin. So if it is not bear and is Sasquatch what are the skeptics talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts