Guest Theagenes Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 (edited) @Theagenes: Isn't the raw data what is contained in the 1800+ pages strong "supplenetary data"-pdf-files? There are several large consensus sequence files. According to the geneticists that have read this so far, apparently it is not presented in a form they can use. I know as much about this as you guys. As to why some one else couldn't upload, I think that's an excellent question. I don't know the answer. Question - for those who know.. We know the Smeja sample came back from Trent as Bear/Justin Smeja.. Part of this sample was also sent to Ketchum. Did she note the Trent results in her paper - and even if she did or didn't - do the results of the Trent test make any difference to the Ketchum paper results? She did not mention the Trent results at all. Melissa see the brief discussion about the hair a skin analysis of the steak a couple of pages back. Edited February 15, 2013 by Theagenes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Sequences on a PDF file are useless. You have to compare them to other sequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 But can't you copy/paste them out of that .pdf and into GenBank? Not a rhetorical question, I have no idea how GenBank works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 But ask yourself this, after Tyler went public a few weeks ago why didn't she call up this guy Toler who did the analysis and say, "hey, remember that tissue sample I sent you last year? Can you pull out those slides and look at them again and see if it's consistent with bear?" If that was done it isn't indicated in the report. She just leaves it with the vague "not consistent with human." Why do you think that is? It's kind of an important point don't you think? Thank you Theagenes. You know, I thought for sure once Bart and Tyler released the Trent results - she would do exactly what you state above.... You said, ""not consistent with human" is how she left it - I am assuming you mean the Smeja sample. Does she indicate that the Smeja sample was one of the 3 that had the genome sequencing done? When someone is publishing a scientific paper for peer review - and they know there is something out there like the Smeja results from Trent - are they required to discuss that or add that information into the paper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Thank you Theagenes. You know, I thought for sure once Bart and Tyler released the Trent results - she would do exactly what you state above.... You said, ""not consistent with human" is how she left it - I am assuming you mean the Smeja sample. Does she indicate that the Smeja sample was one of the 3 that had the genome sequencing done? When someone is publishing a scientific paper for peer review - and they know there is something out there like the Smeja results from Trent - are they required to discuss that or add that information into the paper? Yes she does. Here is the full passage again discussing the hair and skin analysis: "A small sample of skin with underlying structures from Sample 26 was submitted to the Texas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory at Texas A&M University for the purpose of evaluating the sample for degradation and structure. Subsequently, the slides generated from this examination were submitted to Huguley Pathology Consultants for further evaluation. A detailed report of the histopathologic findings was generated from the second examination. The report confirmed the Texas A&M findings and revealed that there was little degradation observed and that the structures in the sample were visible and could be reviewed. There was no pathology present in sample 26, however the histology was deemed inconsistent with human skin. Examination revealed lesser numbers of eccrine glands and even sebaceous gland/pilosebaceous gland units than normally seen in human skin. Abnormalities such as abortive hair shafts and various alopecias were detected and hair follicle addition or extra follicles, clustered and deeper in the dermal region were noted. The clustering of follicles at a deeper level in the dermis than where most skin appendages usually occur was unusual and not generally associated with hair follicle loss as is seen with alopecia. (Figure 8, Supplementary Data 1) " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scout1959 Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Until she uploads to GenBank there are no findings to replicate. They can't even analyse the sequences she found properly until she uploads them. The ball is still in her court. I'm really not sure what anyone is supposed to replicate anyway. She has said most of the samples she used were destroyed. And there were only three samples that yielded anything unusual; they're the only ones that count. Has she indicated she would make them available? If she destroyed any remaining samples then that pretty well cements it in my mind. That displays a desire to hide one's tracks so to say. In other words just take my word for it... not good, not good at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Just to clarify, her Sample 26 is the Smeja sample. It is one of the 3 that had full nuDNA genome sequencing. She includes a photo of the sample that is very similar in appearance to this one: http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/01/cutino-issues-challenge-to-paulides-on.html It is also the sample that was submitted for electron microscopy and was shown to have the unusual double strand--single strand--double strand sequence that John Timmer from Ars Technica suggested might represent human DNA contaminated with another animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 the histology was deemed inconsistent with human skin Um.. I really hope this isn't a stupid question - but isn't Melba trying to make the case that Bigfoot IS human? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 When someone is publishing a scientific paper for peer review - and they know there is something out there like the Smeja results from Trent - are they required to discuss that or add that information into the paper? Are they require to? No. Should they expect to be called on the carpet for it if they don't? You better believe it. The problem is that all these geneticists that are looking at this paper don't know anything about the history of this sample or the fact that another purported piece of it came back bear. She is very careful not to mention the provenience of this sample the way she describes the other samples. She describes it as "Tissue purported to be from a Sasquatch." How might these geneticists view her interpretation of this sample differently if they knew the backstory and the possibility that could be bear DNA there? Um.. I really hope this isn't a stupid question - but isn't Melba trying to make the case that Bigfoot IS human? Good point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Just to clarify, her Sample 26 is the Smeja sample. It is one of the 3 that had full nuDNA genome sequencing. She includes a photo of the sample that is very similar in appearance to this one: http://bigfooteviden...aulides-on.html It is also the sample that was submitted for electron microscopy and was shown to have the unusual double strand--single strand--double strand sequence that John Timmer from Ars Technica suggested might represent human DNA contaminated with another animal. Hi Theagenes. I wanted to ask did Mr. Timmer mean 'bear' DNA contaminated with Human? If it is the other way around, then the Smeja sample would have been hairy human flesh, no? Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Theagenes, I am not a scientist - but I have to be honest and say I am pretty upset that she did not disclose the information about the Trent results. Full Disclosure is always a good thing - and causes fewer problems down the road. I fear if those looking at this paper find out about the Trent results on their own - it will kill any hope that this paper might survive. That is very important information for these reviewers to have, I would think. I would have to think if any scientist reading the paper seen this: "the histology was deemed inconsistent with human skin" And then knew about the Trent report - after finding out about it on their own - might make the logical jump to, "Then it's bear" - get very angry and completely dismiss everything she has to say.. I would not fault them for wondering, "what else is being hidden from us?" I'm not a scientist but that's what I am wondering..... It almost seems like she wants to sink her own ship. I don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 This is part of the problem here. The geneticists are going to skip over the parts that don't relate to them. They aren't going to look at the vague hair and skin analysis and catch the fact that she glossed over the fact that it could be bear tissue. They aren't going to catch the fact that her proposed 13,000 kya date for the hybridization event comes from her (or Stubstad) misreading and misunderstanding the wikipedia entry for "Haplogroup H" (yep). If they knew the problems with other parts of the paper they probably wouldn't have bothered to keep reading. Hi Theagenes. I wanted to ask did Mr. Timmer mean 'bear' DNA contaminated with Human? If it is the other way around, then the Smeja sample would have been hairy human flesh, no? Thoughts? Well, he was just going by what she said. If you didn't know about the possibility of the sample being from a bear, then just reading it he assumed it was human DNA with bear contamination. And if she sequenced some of the human DNA on the sample (from Justin or his wife) that would be the case. But maybe it's the other way around and it's bear DNA contaminated with human. It would be interesting for someone to inform Timmer about the backstory of this sample and see what he says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Good point! Wheww.. You have no idea how relieved I am.. LOL. Okay - everyone can go home now.. Paralegal comes out of nowhere - makes an observation she thought would get her laughed out of the room - but SCORES !! It's all over folks. LOL. I'm kidding of course - just thought we needed a good laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 10-4 Theagenes. I wasn't sure what he was basing his comment on (had he seen the data an intrepreted it that way and what have you). Thx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Theagenes said: They aren't going to catch the fact that her proposed 13,000 kya date for the hybridization event comes from her (or Stubstad) misreading and misunderstanding the wikipedia entry for "Haplogroup H" (yep). First of all --- In her last "information leak" I thought she said 15,000 for the hybridization- anyone know what happened to that number? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts