Guest spurfoot Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 I just checked on GeneBank to find Homo sapien cognatus and could not find it. I thought the DNA consensus sequence was supposed to be released today. Until that sequence is uploaded to GeneBank, it is difficult to consider the sasquatch DNA "published" . Melba, please explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted February 16, 2013 Moderator Share Posted February 16, 2013 Even though I know that I have seen these creatures in person I feel that What is going on with this report is not a good thing for the bigfoot community. Proof in what Ketchum has reported, and her method has failed in bringing to light the reality the existance of Bigfoot. I do have a problem accepting that they do not exist since i have actually seen them, but my somewhat knoweldge of DNA make me believe that this report is weak for science to accept. I have no problem eating crow until the future of this report is changed for the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) Theagenes People should send their samples to someone reputable let Sykes. It sucks because she seemed reputable four or five years ago. But honestly the red flags have been there for the last year or so. After the way this is going , he is probably backing away from this subject like it's radio active. Even if he were to find anomalies he will not comment on it. He is going to need totally different data than what is on MK's report, anything that matches hers will be bashed. The way this was received, people are better off staying away from submitting samples, pictures, video, even admitting to a sighting, all it's going to do is ruin your name. this totally proved that it will take a body, and even then, the skeptics are going to say it was a genetically engineered hoax. I doubt it ever be proven, all the BF blogs and the like will lose most of it's draw in the near future. Edited February 16, 2013 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 this was one of the best chances of proving they exist, but the way the paper keeps getting torn apart, it's just making anyone who came foward with any kind of sample are getting thrown under the bus. feel bad for those people, sound like they put a lot of work in, only to be slammed, If i had a sample I'd never tell anyone, who needs a beating like this. they are zealots who were in over their heads from the beginning. this is not at all surprising. the comical acquisition and rebranding of a journal that didn't really exist anyway just makes it worse. this wasn't even bad science because ketchum, et al were not even capable of operating under the scientific method. this was a circus freakshow blindly bought into by those already convinced of a result. it's hard to feel any sympathy for incompetence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 So, how did today's press conference go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 I find the idea of bigfoot as a hybrid species with modern human mito plausible. If I were a writer, I'm not sure I could cook up a more interesting scenario. What I'm really saying is send in your thirty dollars. You know it's been an entertaining ride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) I don't think any of the criticism has anything to do with those who submitted samples. This is Melba's work - her study - and it's her responsibility to know the chain of evidence, and be prepared for the questions about that and maintain the integrity of the study that she (admittedly) is in charge of. None of this is on the people who submitted samples. They trusted she knew what she was doing - and had no reason to doubt her when they sent in their samples. This is on her. No one else. It directly has everything to do with them, because when you say it's incorrect, you are saying all the samples were also wrong, you can't say just her work is flawed but everybody else's work was ok, sorry that is not going to work. if your saying the study is no good then you are saying EVERYBODY involded with the work were wrong also, that's the other labs, universities, etc... if they all had completely different results maybe, but they were the same as hers so, they can't be right and her the only one wrong. Edited February 16, 2013 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Theagenes Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 At this point, If I were a submitter I would be asking her some hard questions and I would want copies of the reports from the independent labs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 MK latest FB post I have independent analysis of our data going on. Just let the armchair skeptical scientists talk. If the outcome of what we are doing supports our analysis, then we are home free. If not, then I will announce that also. It involves top level scientists that have volunteered after I released the paper. If their findings are the same, they will go public. So, please be patient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 I see it like this. The bigfoot steak people heard from Melba that DNA confirmed bigfoot. So the Trent submission was supposed to be a slam dunk. Trent came back bear. Followed by righteous indignation and general confusion because they already "knew" that it was bigfoot per Ketchum. Now word on the street is that it could have been bear all along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) MK latest FB post I have independent analysis of our data going on. Just let the armchair skeptical scientists talk. If the outcome of what we are doing supports our analysis, then we are home free. If not, then I will announce that also. It involves top level scientists that have volunteered after I released the paper. If their findings are the same, they will go public. So, please be patient. LOL. Here we go again. We have top levels scientists working on it and the results will be beautiful! Just upload the data to GenBank already!So if the top level scientists results come out different then what, they're not going to go public with them, they gonna hide the results? Edited February 16, 2013 by squatting squatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Just about ready to post that announcement myself. About how long would they take to confirm......or deny.....couple of months? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) Doing my best to be polite about it. Contamination: Melba says this is a forensics lab; we get contaminated material all the time. We certainly know how to handle & decomtaminate it. Me: No opinion. (Or ... how does washing it a lot work with blood and saliva?) Her hypothesis: Bigfoot is a human x unknown hominid that hybridized abt 13-15,000 years ago. Then Blah-blah-blah more explanation of how this could happen all demonstrating that she knows little about anthropology. Me: The whole premise sounded far fetched to begin with. She now shows that anthropology is not a field she knows. Trying to bluff there is really strange. Did she not say that one of her samples is certainly Bigfoot, because she saw it collected from a living Bigfoot? Ignore the hypothesis. What else is there? She has terabytes of raw DNA data. The human mind doesn't analyze terabytes of data; com- puters do. No one else can know exactly what she has until she makes these data available to other scientists in terabyte form. If there was even one previously undocumented hominid in there, sharing data that can be analyzed is the only way to prove it. Apparently, Dr. Ketchum agrees with this view and is now sharing her data with independent analysts. Really? We'll get the true, incontestable answer ... Soon? (Yawn) I think Bigfoot is laughing at this. Edited February 16, 2013 by Oonjerah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TwilightZone Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 And who are these top-level scientists, Melba? Are they also reviewing the amazing HD footage that never appeared? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FootDude Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) I have independent analysis of our data going on. If the outcome of what we are doing supports our analysis, then we are vindicated. If not, then I will announce that also. It involves top level scientists that have volunteered after I released the paper. If their findings are the same, they will go public. So, please be patient. They also will assure upload to GenBank and they can make that happen. That's interesting. She said 'independent analysis of the data', not the actual report. Is the report so poorly written and full of holes, that all that can really be done is to start over and analyze the actual data derived from the tests? If so this is almost back to square one. What a waste of 5 years. Edited February 16, 2013 by FootDude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts